On January 17, 2021 a US flag was flown upside down outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. This is supposed to be a sign of extreme emergency, but it was a common action by Trump supporters after he lost the 2020 election.
Alito admits the flag was flown upside down "in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs." Justice Alito claims his wife did it.
A judge is usually required to recuse himself from cases where there is AN APPEARANCE of bias. There is no more clear appearance of bias than flying a United States flag upside down in support of a specific individual. It was his house. He allowed it to happen. He bears some responsibility. If they walked in and found a him sitting beside a big pile of cocaine he could not escape culpability just by saying "That all belongs to my wife".
I am not saying that I know Alito is biased in favor of Trump. But to preserve the sanctity of the ruling of the SCOTUS he needs to recuse himself from any cases involving Trump. Especially any having to do with January 6th.
Conservatives would still have a majority on the court. If he does not recuse himself he is just giving the left something to whine and cry about.
It's obvious to me that you do not understand the general intent of why a recusal would even take place.
In most local counties and courts where judges are directly elected by the citizens, most of them are literally stating whether or not they are Democrat now. The obviously Republican ones don't seem to be advertising this... but I routinely see "Democrat Judge running for district..." on campaign signs. There's nothing illegal about this, even though they're supposed to be impartial.
The reason I say this is because your reasoning is completely asinine. Every judge obviously votes for politicians. How someone votes should have no bearing on how they decide law. Law decisis requires that you be impartial and be objective within the confines of the law and statutes. It says literally nothing in the vein of what you're reasoning here.
What I do see though, is you are already aware that even if convicted of any of these nonsense charges, that it'll go to the Supreme Court and get thrown out.
I'll say this... your kind should absolutely continue what you're doing. PLEASE convict him. Even better... put him in jail. See how that works out for you and your kind.
It's obvious to me that you do not understand the general intent of why a recusal would even take place.
In most local counties and courts where judges are directly elected by the citizens, most of them are literally stating whether or not they are Democrat now. The obviously Republican ones don't seem to be advertising this... but I routinely see "Democrat Judge running for district..." on campaign signs. There's nothing illegal about this, even though they're supposed to be impartial.
The reason I say this is because your reasoning is completely asinine. Every judge obviously votes for politicians. How someone votes should have no bearing on how they decide law. Law decisis requires that you be impartial and be objective within the confines of the law and statutes. It says literally nothing in the vein of what you're reasoning here.
What I do see though, is you are already aware that even if convicted of any of these nonsense charges, that it'll go to the Supreme Court and get thrown out.
I'll say this... your kind should absolutely continue what you're doing. PLEASE convict him. Even better... put him in jail. See how that works out for you and your kind.
SO YOU COUNT ON THE SCUM HE PUT ON THE COURT NOT DOING THE CORRECT THING AND RECLUSING ?
SO YOU COUNT ON THE SCUM HE PUT ON THE COURT NOT DOING THE CORRECT THING AND RECLUSING ?
TRUE PARTY FIRST SCUM THERE
Lol, Ray, that's not at all what I said.
I said there's nothing to recuse himself for. Simply being a voter of a specific political party does not mean that he needs to recuse himself. If that was the case, then all the justices should have recused themselves from the Dobbs v. Jackson that overturned Roe v. Wade. But again... it shows the ridiculousness of this argument. It's merely "political reaching" from the left. The Supreme Court's job is to validate whether something is constitutional... or whether there exists precedence.
Even at the common-law level... nothing that Trump is being charged with lead to him being convicted.
To that point, Hillary, Biden, Huma, etc... none of them were charged (or even went to trial) for their retainment of classified documents... ALL of whom had FAR LESS legal authority to retain these documents than Donald Trump did. At a minimum, Trump was still president at the time of transfer, AND he was storing them in a SCIF. None of that applied to Biden or Hillary. The sheer fact that neither of them were convicted, Donald Trump immediately would get a pass due to the sheer precedence.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I said there's nothing to recuse himself for. Simply being a voter of a specific political party does not mean that he needs to recuse himself. If that was the case, then all the justices should have recused themselves from the Dobbs v. Jackson that overturned Roe v. Wade.
I never said anything about "voting Republican". I am talking about specifically supporting Donald Trump's assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.
It is not about "party affiliation". It is about making a specific statement about a specific issue that is going to be decided in part by the SCOTUS.
I never said anything about "voting Republican". I am talking about specifically supporting Donald Trump's assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.
It is not about "party affiliation". It is about making a specific statement about a specific issue that is going to be decided in part by the SCOTUS.
Fred, it makes no difference what someone "believes." The purpose of the Supreme Court is to identify constitutionality and adherence to law. If the Supreme Court justices determine (and issue proof that) there is no precedence to convict Donald Trump on anything... based on the fact that James Comey literally said about Hillary, "No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case," then I can assure you that Trump will be let off the hook as well. What Hillary did was exceptionally, EXCEPTIONALLY bad. It was with information for which she was not even the information owner. She had CIA, NSA, and DIA documents... not even within her authority to pass around (much of it was ORCON). This was entirely different for Donald Trump, who at the time had PREMIER / SOLE authority over all classified information, and had within his power to literally wave his hand over a pile of documents and declassify them (whether that is morally or ethically right or wrong is not my point). Not to mention he stored all of this in a certified SCIF.
Also, Fred, I'm going to address this again... because it is exceptionally annoying. Are you a U.S. citizen, and DO YOU live in the United States? If yes, then why do you keep putting the period after the end quote? This is incorrect English. If it's intentional, then I'll drop it. If you're doing this because you just don't know any better, then please look it up. This is as bad as misusing affect / effect, or then / than. Can you please address this? It's ridiculous. If you're Canadian, or live anywhere other than the U.S., then I take it back.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Also, Fred, I'm going to address this again... because it is exceptionally annoying. Are you a U.S. citizen, and DO YOU live in the United States? If yes, then why do you keep putting the period after the end quote? This is incorrect English. If it's intentional, then I'll drop it. If you're doing this because you just don't know any better, then please look it up. This is as bad as misusing affect / effect, or then / than. Can you please address this? It's ridiculous. If you're Canadian, or live anywhere other than the U.S., then I take it back.
I read once that women are attracted to an Australian accent. So I use Australian punctuation to attract the ladies.
Notice how none of the women here are complaining?
"Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday rejected a request by Democratic senators to meet and discuss their claims about ethics issues on the Supreme Court, suggesting it would be unwise to meet with members of only one political party."
"Roberts told the senators he must “respectfully decline” the meeting request, citing “separation of powers concerns” and “the importance of judicial independence” while suggesting it would be “inadvisable” to meet only with members of one political party."
“In regard to questions concerning any Justice’s participation in pending cases, the Members of the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the practice we have followed for 235 years pursuant to which individual Justices decide recusal issues,” Roberts wrote, making a reference to the ethics code the Supreme Court adopted in November 2023."
The Leftoid morons in Congress just cannot seem to grasp the Constitutional concept of separation of powers.
Kudos to Chief Justice Roberts for taking on the impossible task of attempting to teach them.
Originally posted by randye: The Leftoid morons in Congress just cannot seem to grasp the Constitutional concept of separation of powers.
Kudos to Chief Justice Roberts for taking on the impossible task of attempting to teach them.
Ever heard of "checks and balances". Roberts can be impeached by congress if he keeps insisting that the Supreme Court answers to no one.
We are not close to that point, but it could become an issue if the SCOTUS can not maintain the appearance of impartiality. There is no Constitutional requirement of "high crimes" to impeach a judge. All it requires is poor behavior.
Right now the Republicans are trying to support a crook by claiming the entire justice system is corrupt. The government can not function without public faith in the court system.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 06-01-2024).]
Congress can't directly impeach an Article III judge.
It requires a recommendation from the Judicial Conference.
Guess who heads the Judicial Conferance and who the members are.....
Defined in: 28 USC §331, Judicial Conference of the United States
We can just imagine fredBing's, childlike, wide eyed wonderment when confronted with the fact that neither Chief Justice Roberts nor any of the Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court answer solely to the Demorat party......(with the obvious exceptions of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.)
Leftists gotta Leftist ....because American civics is too hard for them
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-01-2024).]
Reading and research evidently is not one of your strong points.
It has been posted.
'So easy, even a caveman can do it'
No it has not been posted.
Do you understand what "checks and balances" means? How can impeachment of a justice be a "check" on power if the Justice determine who can be impeached. Simple common logic should tell you that what you are claiming is false.
I didn't think Christians were supposed to lie.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 06-02-2024).]
Except, it will be impossible for you to show me. Instead you will just keep posting juvenile insults because I have embarrassed you. You would actually come out looking better if you just walked away instead of doubling down on being wrong.
The first time could have been an honest mistake. But this is just a complete lie.
what about the extreme rightwing nut Alito's gift taxes
“What a surprise, guy who is supposed to enforce checks and balances thinks checks shouldn’t apply to him. Too bad!” she said. “Corruption and abuse of power must be stopped, no matter the source. In fact, the court should be *most* subject to scrutiny, [because] it is unelected and life-appointed.”
“Alito’s next opinion piece in the WSJ is about to be ‘I am a little king, actually. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly say I’m not,'” the congresswoman added. “And it’d be boosted by some billionaire who secretly thinks voting rights should only belong to landed gentry.”
big al went to prison for taxes the nut-con supremes should be there also
