Supreme Shenanigans

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

Alito and Thomas Aren’t Really Jurists. They’re Theocratic Leninists.​

The shock of that upside-down flag at Samuel Alito’s house still hasn’t worn off. Hats off to the amazing Jodi Kantor for one of the great political scoops of our time. So seemingly insignificant, in a way; just a silly little symbol. But what a symbol. It says everything about these treacherous, amoral, and arrogant people.

That last adjective is the most important one. The arrogance is bottomless. Why did the Supreme Court justice do this, or allow “Mrs. Alito”—on whom he pinned the blame—to do it? He knew it was petty. And he surely knew that, by conventional ethical standards, it was wrong. But he didn’t care because he knew that he stands beyond punishment for such acts.

Who exists to mete out such censure? No one. I and people like me are writing pieces like this. Others are fulminating on cable news. The New York Times and others write editorials. Who cares? None of it matters to Alito. This is the great advantage of conservatives’ having built their own media infrastructure and their own echo chamber with its own twisted morality (rule number one: if it helps us stay in power, do it; rule number two: if it infuriates the libs, do it over and over). They can tune us out completely. Ditto the polls. They just don’t care.

More:

 
searcher said:
"It's really important that we flood the zone with cases that challenge misuse of the Constitution by the administrative state and by Congress,"
Click to expand...
Why would anyone be against that?

The only way the courts could be "flooded" by cases challenging the misuse of the Constitution, would be if there already is lots of Constitutional misuse going on. If there wasn't, there'd be nothing to challenge.
 

Opinion: How the Supreme Court can get around its ethical dilemmas on Trump-related cases​

Law and the American people require a remedy for what seems irremediable. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are both properly disqualified from participating in cases involving Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 coup attempt at the U.S. Capitol. Both insist, however, on participating regardless of ethical considerations and standards of judicial propriety.

As is well known, Thomas’s wife actively participated in encouraging the Jan. 6 bid to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, and Alito’s wife prominently displayed a symbol of support for the “stop the steal” movement, repeatedly flying an upside-down American flag at their home. With respect to cases involving Trump and Jan. 6, those varied actions create obvious appearances of impropriety for both Justices. Their wives’s actions, moreover, fall perfectly in line with the justices’ own established political and ideological views and further suggest possible conflicts of interest that strengthen doubts about their possible political bias in Trump cases. Those appearances of impropriety should require both to recuse themselves from all Trump-related cases.   

The problem is that neither will withdraw from the cases. Notwithstanding grave reasons to recuse themselves, both insist on remaining involved. Their fierce determination to participate, otherwise puzzling, is itself highly suggestive.

More:

 
searcher said:
Those appearances of impropriety should require both to recuse themselves from all Trump-related cases.
Click to expand...
Why?

The Judge in his current trial didn't recuse himself, and he has clear conflicts of interest when it comes to this case.

Neither did the other AG's and prosecutors, who are clearly on record as irrationally hating the man. After all, they campaigned on "getting him", even though at the time, they had no idea what "crime" they'd get him for.
(That's why I call them "Stalinists". They identify the man they don't like, then try to mfg a crime to charge him with. Just like Stalin did.

If it's ok to have anti-Trump judges and prosecutors with such strong bias' against him going after him, it should be ok to also keep ones who do like him, in the loop.

There's gotta be balance in this, but I realize that you would prefer that he not get a fair trial, or appeals.
 
^^^^^^

Alito Ethics Defense Blown Up by Second Insurrectionist Flag​

The most entertaining aspect of a Republican Supreme Court ethics scandal is when the justices construct an elaborate defense tailored to fit the known facts of their ally’s misconduct, only for new facts to quickly arise that render their defense moot. It happened repeatedly in the Clarence Thomas financial scandals, and now it’s happening to Samuel Alito.

The first Alito story found that the justice had flown an upside-down American flag, a symbol used by stop-the-stealers, in January 2021. It was a scandal because judges are not supposed to engage in political displays and because it associated Alito with an especially nutty faction of right-wing politics (and one that calls into question his ability to fairly adjudicate cases related to Trump’s coup attempt).

Alito and his allies came back with several defenses. They insisted the flag had been flown by Alito’s wife in response to the provocations of a rude neighbor. This defense did not explain why Alito was unaware of a flag flying at his own house, nor why his wife chose to respond to a neighborhood quarrel by endorsing Trump’s election lies. And they insisted she briefly flew the flag because “it was a very heated time in January 2021.”

More:

 

Supreme Court Justice Called Out Justice Alito's 'Power Grab'—Attorney​

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has been called out by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson over a "judicial power grab," according to a legal scholar.

Rachel Barkow, a professor of law at New York University, said that the outcomes Alito "endorses almost always coincide with what a conservative politician or interest group would prefer" and that the justice is governed by "his own practical judgment about what is acceptable." Barkow added that Jackson, without referring directly to Alito's dissent, "called out this judicial power grab for what it is."

Alito has come under fire after The New York Times reported that an upside-down U.S. flag—a symbol associated with Donald Trump's baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen—was flown at his home in Virginia days after Trump's supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Alito, one of six conservative justices on the Supreme Court, told the newspaper that the flag was briefly flown by his wife amid a dispute with neighbors and that he had no role in it. But the firestorm has intensified after The Times reported on Wednesday that "Appeal to Heaven" flag—which is associated with Christian nationalists and carried by some who stormed the Capitol—flew outside Alito's summer home in Long Beach Island, New Jersey, last summer.

More:

 
Rolling Stone

Supreme Court Architect Flew Same ‘Appeal to Heaven' Flag as Alito​

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito flew an "Appeal to Heaven" flag at his New Jersey beach house. The flag's close association with both far-right Christian nationalists and the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 raises serious questions about Alito's ability to rule impartially. The conservative court on which Alito sits is largely the product of right-wing dark-money overlord Leonard Leo, and - wouldn't you know it - Leo flew the same "Appeal to Heaven" flag outside of his house in Maine.

Murray Ngoima, a Bar Harbor resident, provided Rolling Stone with a photo she took of the flag hanging outside of his house on Feb. 25. Ngoima says that residents were outside Leo's house that day to protest the Alabama Supreme Court's decision declaring that IVF embryos are people under the law.

A spokesman for Leonard Leo, reached by Rolling Stone on Thursday morning, did not have an immediate comment to share.

More:

 

Clarence Thomas Criticizes Brown V. Board Of Education Decision While Ruling In Racial Gerrymandering Case, Black Twitter Calls Him ‘Uncle Ruckus’​

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has received his fair share of criticism for his staunchly conservative rulings and his attempts to downplay racism in the United States. But Justice Thomas may have outdone himself this time by attacking desegregation, as he criticizes the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling.

Read it all:


 
Beatify St. George of Floyd, and smear and destroy an accomplished thinker, legal scholar and jurist.

This isn't Clown World we're moving into - it's barbarism.
 

Justice Alito rejects demands that he step aside from Jan. 6 cases because of flags​

WASHINGTON − Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito rejected calls to recuse himself from cases involving the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, telling members of Congress Wednesday that such calls are politically motivated.

Alito said the flags flown over his homes, which experts say are connected with false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, were raised by his wife and were not in support of the "Stop the Steal" movement.

More:

 

The Alito Scandal Is Worse Than It Seems​

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has been infuriating his critics for years. He has gone on undisclosed luxury vacations with conservative donors who have business before the court. He appears to have leaked the result of a major case to conservative activists before the decision was announced. And that doesn’t even get into his jurisprudence, including the opinion that threw out Roe v. Wade.

But the revelations over the last two weeks from The New York Times concerning the political flags flown at Alito’s homes — an upside-down American flag in the days after Jan. 6, 2021, and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag in the summer of 2023 — have pushed Alito’s behavior into an entirely different realm, one that raises serious questions about Alito’s partisanship, his ethics and the integrity of the court.

The upside-down American flag has historically been used as a sign of distress by the U.S. military but became a symbol of support for Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement following the 2020 election, and the Appeal to Heaven flag has been used by Christian nationalists. Both were flown by Jan. 6 rioters.

The Alito household’s display of those flags — no matter what prompted it or whose decision it was to fly them — means that Alito should recuse himself from the cases pending before the court concerning Trump’s alleged efforts to steal the election. His stated refusal to do so in a letter to senior Democrats Wednesday runs afoul of the most basic judicial ethical norms: Judges are not supposed to signal their views on matters that are likely to come before the court.

More:

 
searcher said:
www.theguardian.com

Another provocative flag flown at Samuel Alito residence, report says

‘Appeal to Heaven’ flag, used by Trump supporters on January 6, reportedly appeared at supreme court justice’s summer home
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

searcher said:
^^^^^^

Alito Ethics Defense Blown Up by Second Insurrectionist Flag​

Click to expand...

searcher said:
Supreme Court Architect Flew Same ‘Appeal to Heaven' Flag as Alito
Click to expand...

searcher said:
Alito said the flags flown over his homes, which experts say are connected with false claims that the 2020 election was stolen,
Click to expand...
It's shameful to attack someone for flying the same flag that George Washington is known to have flown.

What that says, is that you apparently think George Washington was anti-America.


Dude, it's PATRIOTIC to fly any of the flags the Founders used. Their actions are what our America was based on.

Your 1st Amendment protects all of our Right to protest the gov when we may think it needs to be protested against.

Anyone thinking that any flag used by the Founders is wrong, has clearly lost touch with the Founders intent of nation that, first and foremost, was Founded to protect individual liberties.





searcher said:
the outcomes Alito "endorses almost always coincide with what a conservative politician or interest group would prefer"
Click to expand...
The outcomes he endorses, are the same ones that anyone properly understanding the Constitution would necessarily have come to.

The only ones thinking otherwise are the ones trying to redefine our Constitution's interpretation.

It's interpretation is fixed and in line with the Founders intent.

If they (progressives bent on changing America) want a different interpretation of it, they need to use the Amendment process, as that is what makes it a living document.
 
Opinion piece, take it fwiw and dyodd.

Opinion: The Supreme Court's lack of accountability is worse than you think​

The well-documented ethical failings of Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas are all the more troubling because the Supreme Court has become seriously disconnected from democratic accountability.

Justices nominated by Republican presidents have constituted a majority of the court for more than 50 years — since 1970, when Justice Harry Blackmun was nominated and confirmed in the Nixon administration. Even though Democrats have won the presidency in five of the last eight elections, justices nominated by Democratic presidents during this period have never constituted a majority.

One way to assess whether the court’s justices have been reasonably representative of the will of the American people is to compare the court’s historical representation with what it would have been if justices were appointed at regular intervals rather than at the whim of each justice’s often political decision to retire.

What would the court’s makeup look like, if, for instance, presidents were able to appoint a new justice every two years, at the beginning of each new congressional term. A system of two-year appointments — let’s call it the “regular presidential appointment process” — is the central feature of a bipartisan proposal to limit justices’ terms to 18 years.

More:

 
The author of that polemic, should not be taken lightly.

He should be hurled with great force.
 
searcher said:
One way to assess whether the court’s justices have been reasonably representative of the will of the American people
Click to expand...
That's not the purpose of the SC. It's job is not to enforce the day-to-day whims of the People.

The only purpose of the SC is to judge the nations laws against the intent of the Constitution.


You must think that the purpose of the SC is to enforce the day-to-day whims of whatever the People of any particular generation think they want.
Were that the case, this nation would have went off the rails long long ago.


If the People want to change how the gov works, there is an Amendment process with which to do it.

The dems way however is, wah! We didn't get our way! So we want to change long standing systems and traditions so that we CAN get our way. They don't care about preserving (conserving) anyhing the Founders started if they don't see it as serving their political interests.

In other words, dems are always party over nation, kinda people.

EC doesn't go their way in one election? We get calls for scrapping it.

Have a SC for a few years that gives rulings in line with the Constitution? We get calls for term limits and adding 5 justices to the court.

Filibuster gets used against them a couple times? They want to get rid of it.

Why can't dems just accept that sometimes ya get your way, and sometimes ya don't?
 
Casey Jones said:
The author of that polemic, should not be taken lightly.

He should be hurled with great force.
Click to expand...
It's just a democrat hit piece on the SC because they suddenly not getting their way on every ruling of the court. They are big babies.

Everyone knows that if we had a lib court rubber stamping all their unConstitutional ideas, they'd be cheering about the court.

Their bitching is all just sour grapes.
 
Joe King said:
You must think that the purpose of the SC is to enforce the day-to-day whims of whatever the People of any particular generation think they want.
Click to expand...

Nah, I think they're political appointee hacks put in their position by the party in power (at the time of their appointment) to interpret the law in a favorable way to help the party that helped them get a cushy lifetime job where that aren't answerable to anyone.

Edit to add:

I also think that some of them have personal or religious opinions / beliefs that they want to impose upon the rest of the country by using their position of power they garnered by being appointed to their position on the court.

Example:

Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America ‘Can't Be Compromised'​

Justice Samuel Alito spoke candidly about the ideological battle between the left and the right - discussing the difficulty of living "peacefully" with ideological opponents in the face of "fundamental" differences that "can't be compromised." He endorsed what his interlocutor described as a necessary fight to "return our country to a place of godliness." And Alito offered a blunt assessment of how America's polarization will ultimately be resolved: "One side or the other is going to win."

Alito made these remarks in conversation at the Supreme Court Historical Society's annual dinner on June 3, a function that is known to right-wing activists as an opportunity to buttonhole Supreme Court justices. His comments were recorded by Lauren Windsor, a liberal documentary filmmaker. Windsor attended the dinner as a dues-paying member of the society under her real name, along with a colleague. She asked questions of the justice as though she were a religious conservative.

The justice's unguarded comments highlight the degree to which Alito makes little effort to present himself as a neutral umpire calling judicial balls and strikes, but rather as a partisan member of a hard-right judicial faction that's empowered to make life-altering decisions for every American.

More:

 
Last edited:
searcher said:
I think they're political appointee hacks put in their position by the party in power (at the time of their appointment)
Click to expand...
Then in that regard, they are in fact being appointed by the Will of the People.

How did those in power at the time of the appointment get to be in power, if not by the Will of the People?

In Trump's case for example, the People elected him knowing that he'd likely get at least two SC picks. If the People did not want that, why did they elect him?
 
Joe King said:
Then in that regard, they are in fact being appointed by the Will of the People.

How did those in power at the time of the appointment get to be in power, if not by the Will of the People?

In Trump's case for example, the People elected him knowing that he'd likely get at least two SC picks. If the People did not want that, why did they elect him?
Click to expand...

Ya got me here Joe.

_______________________________

A bit off topic - you need to redo your replies to chatbot if you want replies. After you quote chat's answers you need to ask direct questions - if you get my drift.
 
searcher said:
Justice Samuel Alito spoke candidly about the ideological battle between the left and the right - discussing the difficulty of living "peacefully" with ideological opponents in the face of "fundamental" differences that "can't be compromised."
Click to expand...
He's not wrong. The dems are wanting to fundamentally change America.
...but if ones entire job is to apply the Constitution's intent as defined by the Founders, how can that be compromised with?

The proper way to fundamentally change America, would be to Amend the Constitution, not by trying to force a liberal interpretation of it.



searcher said:
Alito offered a blunt assessment of how America's polarization will ultimately be resolved: "One side or the other is going to win."
Click to expand...
How is he wrong? America will either stick with its Founding principles, or it won't.
Ie: one side or the other will in fact "win".

searcher said:
She asked questions of the justice as though she were a religious conservative.
Click to expand...
So in other words, she lied by falsely presenting herself as someone she is not.
 
searcher said:
A bit off topic - you need to redo your replies to chatbot if you want replies. After you quote chat's answers you need to ask direct questions - if you get my drift.
Click to expand...
I am well aware. Wasn't wanting an answer. Was just mostly pointing out where it f'ed up.
 
searcher said:
Really didn't give a good answer to my last question in the "iron game" thread. But no biggie.
Click to expand...
Try asking it why democrats only care about supposed impropriety on the Supreme Court, when the dems don't get their way.
 
Joe King said:
Try asking it why democrats only care about supposed impropriety on the Supreme Court, when the dems don't get their way.
Click to expand...
The backstage controllers, only care about holding and growing their own power.

Their pawns and operatives, do as they're told. The better-placed ones get some compen$ation for it, which of course leads to greater enthusiasm.

They don't see how the chain of events doesn't mesh with the Narratives - as you point out. Self-awareness is not their strong suit.
 

Exclusive: Hear new, secret audio exposing Justice Alito's media gripes​

Jun 11, 2024 #SupremeCourt #Alito #ClarenceThomas

New audio recorded secretly at a party at the Supreme Court Historical Society shows Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito complaining about Pro Publica exposing ethical lapses by Clarence Thomas and himself. Alex Wagner shares the exclusive audio from progressive activists Lauren Windsor.


10:24
 
^^^ what was untrue about what he said?

Also, his wife has the same Rights of expression as any other American does.

George Washington, as well as many others at the time of our nation's Founding, flew that flag. What is wrong with it? It's a depiction of a f'ing pine tree and an appeal to Heaven slogan.

WTF is the problem with that? Just because someone you personally dislike uses a symbol of our nation's Founding does NOT suddenly make it a terrible thing.

The same people you guys don't like also fly regular American flags. Does that mean we should trash all our American flags too?

This stuff is nothing more thay an aggresdive partisan attack on our nation's main institutions.
.....and all because the ignorant progressive left only cares about their party. They don't give two shits about the nation itself.
Edited to add: they're willing to go scorched Earth over not having the "Right" to freely kill unborn babies. Which makes me wonder why they are too stupid to understand that it's a State issue, not a federal one. Anyone properly reading the Constitution should come away with the knowledge that there is nothing in it that gives the federal government any say on the topic, one way or the other.

If ya want it to, Enact a f'ing Amendment for it. Til then, they need to stfu about it and quit trying to make the Constitution say stuff that it doesn't have in it.
 
Last edited:

Alito, Thomas & Trump: A Betrayal of the Founders’ & Framers’ Ideals​

No matter how hard Republicans try to reinvent the Founders & Framers in the image of their libertarian billionaire patrons, the reality is that America was history’s first great liberal experiment...​


We’re hearing a lot of rhetoric from Republicans these days — particularly those on the Supreme Court and their nutty wives — suggesting that the Founders and Framers of the Constitution would feel right at home with Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Donald Trump. They’ve even appropriated some of the flags the Revolutionary generation used, as if to say they’re the real heirs to American patriotism.

Don’t believe it.

While Republicans love to misquote the Founders of this nation and pretend a similar patriotism, the simple reality is that all of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution would have been disgusted by these modern-day grifters.

More:

hartmannreport.com

Alito, Thomas & Trump: A Betrayal of the Founders’ & Framers’ Ideals

No matter how hard Republicans try to reinvent the Founders & Framers in the image of their libertarian billionaire patrons, the reality is that America was history’s first great liberal experiment...
hartmannreport.com hartmannreport.com
 
searcher said:
the simple reality is that all of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution would have been disgusted by these modern-day grifters.
Click to expand...
Riiight.

They want us to believe they'd be all on the dems side and wanting to kill unborn babies. Lol

Just that issue alone would have 'em wanting to lock up most of the dems.

You seriously think the Founders woulda been down with gov supporting and helping to pay for an abortion industry supplying bany body parts for medical "research"?
If ya do think they'd support that, yer nutz
 

Republicans block bill requiring Supreme Court to adopt enforceable ethics code​

Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other Republican senators on Wednesday blocked a bill requiring the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct and create a mechanism to enforce it in the wake of several high-profile controversies.

The legislation, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, would require Supreme Court justices to adopt a code of conduct, create a mechanism to investigate alleged violations of the code and other laws and improve the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) requested unanimous consent to pass the legislation Wednesday afternoon.

He criticized Chief Justice John Roberts on the Senate floor for not doing enough to enforce ethical standards on the Supreme Court after media reports revealed that conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas received lavish gifts and hospitality from conservative donors.

Durbin also cited concerns about Alito’s impartiality after two flags associated with former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election were displayed at his home and vacation house.

More:

 
searcher said:

Republicans block bill requiring Supreme Court to adopt enforceable ethics code​

Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other Republican senators on Wednesday blocked a bill requiring the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct and create a mechanism to enforce it in the wake of several high-profile controversies.

The legislation, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, would require Supreme Court justices to adopt a code of conduct, create a mechanism to investigate alleged violations of the code and other laws and improve the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) requested unanimous consent to pass the legislation Wednesday afternoon.

He criticized Chief Justice John Roberts on the Senate floor for not doing enough to enforce ethical standards on the Supreme Court after media reports revealed that conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas received lavish gifts and hospitality from conservative donors.

Durbin also cited concerns about Alito’s impartiality after two flags associated with former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election were displayed at his home and vacation house.

More:

Click to expand...
Congress has no authority to enact legislation that tells another co-branch of government how to do it's job.

No one branch of our federal gov is over the others.
 

US Supreme Court divisions expected to be exposed as final rulings loom​

WASHINGTON, June 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, managed to bridge its ideological divide in major rulings this month involving constitutional gun rights and access to the abortion pill, but that could change as the court heads into what may be the final week of its term.

Decisions are due in major cases involving Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity from prosecution, an Idaho abortion ban that makes no exception to protect the health of pregnant women, and a doctrine called "Chevron deference" that long has bolstered federal regulations against legal challenges. Those cases are expected to once again expose the fault lines between the court's conservative and liberal justices.

"So far, the term has been less ideologically defined than the last two," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley Law School. "But I really think it is (this) week's decisions that will determine how we think of the term."

Two years ago, the court's conservatives powered rulings rolling back abortion rights and widening gun rights. Last year, they rejected race-conscious admissions policies long used by colleges and universities to increase enrollment of Black and Hispanic students.

More:

 
From the looney bin...............

Lindsey Graham Says Democrats Are Trying To ‘Destroy’ Conservative Supreme Court Justices​


Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Democrats were trying to “destroy” conservative members of the Supreme Court after some lawmakers recently tried to pass a bill meant to address ongoing ethics concerns surrounding several justices.

Senate Republicans, Graham included, blocked legislation earlier this month that could have required Supreme Court justices to adopt a binding code of conduct and establish a means to file ethics complaints against them. The effort came amid a series of reports into Justice Clarence Thomas and his acceptance of lavish gifts from a billionaire friend, as well as recent accounts of flags affiliated with Jan. 6 protesters that were hung outside homes owned by Justice Samuel Alito.

More:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom