“Out of control”: Legal experts call for recusal, reform over Stop the Steal symbol at Alito home
“Out of control”: Legal experts call for recusal, reform over Stop the Steal symbol at Alito home
Legal experts lament SCOTUS's unenforceable ethics code and call for Alito's recusal following reports a Stop the Steal sign flew outside his home.
Legal experts say its time for the Supreme Court's ethics code to grow some teeth
Legal experts are lamenting the lack of an enforceable judicial ethics code, with some calling for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's recusal, following a New York Times report that a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” movement to reject the 2020 election was flown outside Alito’s home in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Ten leading legal experts told Salon Friday that the conduct — the flying of an upside-down flag, a known symbol of the movement to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, at a justice's home — appears to violate the Supreme Court's own ethics code, adopted last last year, by creating an appearance of bias.
Those experts said it’s far past time for the nine justices who enjoy lifetime appointments to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards. But, they noted, the Supreme Court has shown itself reluctant to do so.
"The situation is out of control," Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush who worked with Justice Alito on his 2006 Senate confirmation, told Salon. "This is after the insurrection, so it's really him weighing in, getting involved publicly in a dispute over the insurrection."
You're viewing a single thread.
Every judge appointed by the orange sandwich is illegitimate and needs to be removed
Unfortunately, that’s extremely unlikely. The last Supreme Court Justice to be impeached was Samuel Chase in 1805. He was acquitted and continued to serve until his death.
They remain seated until they choose to step down or die. The average Justice serves for 16 years, but have served for as long as 34 years. Trump fucked a generation in one term.
Can't Biden just expand it?
Yes, but the political blowback from both parties would likely not be worth it. Especially because Republicans would immediately add double the amount Biden would, and it would very likely quickly grow into full bore shenanigans.
We can't fight back ever because the other side might fight back even more. So let's just capituate now. Story of Democrats my entire life. At best.
I’ve been convinced we were verging on a civil conflict of some kind for quite a while and terrified of the potential outcomes of that conflict, but I reached a point recently where I’m increasingly afraid that the consequences might actually be worse if there isn’t one. Our current system wasn’t designed to get major overhauls, we were supposed to make incremental changes to it as we went along but that hasn’t happened in 50 years
Expand what? The Supreme Court? That requires congressional action. It’s happened several times before.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-8-3/ALDE_00013559/
Expand what?
Alito's O-ring.
It's like they don't realize that having non-violent ways of affecting change are important because otherwise people will turn to violent ways after a certain point.
Copy/paste response. You do a lot of that with your comments. Like there is a set list of comments you respond from.
Again, it’s the same reply to the same comment to the same post in politics. Is it wrong to have the same opinion when I see the same comment only minutes later? You made the initial comment that I replied to in both places.
Same goes for the other ones to be nominated by a president who lost the vote for president (Alito and Roberts), and the other likely sex offender whose victim(s) never got a fair hearing or investigation, Clarence Brown.
Clarence Brown.
Clarence Thomas, as in uncle Tom.
That's the one, yeah. The one who said that there's no loss of dignity inherent to slavery.
I…what? Do you mean lost the popular vote?
Yes. That's how democracy is supposed to work: the candidate whom the most people want to win, wins.
But that’s not how our system is setup. If you have a problem, talk or do something about the electoral college. But to pretend legally and legitimately elected presidents who won within the rules of the system as were defined at the time of their running are somehow illegitimate is some wonky revisionist history.
Nah, you're only legitimate if the people chose you.
If you were installed by an archaic system from the 1700s designed to give empty land as much of a say as actual humans, even though the people preferred your opponent, then you're not legitimate.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical rural tradition.
And yet, you’re wrong aren’t you?
Nope. I just don't automatically consider the system infallible and correct.
Legitimate presidents get elected, not appointed via an antidemocratic mechanism that hasn't been excised because too many rich and powerful people benefit from it.
I’m as anti Trump as anyone, but I have some bad news for you - he was legitimately voted into office as the President and his appointments are therefore legitimate.
What McConnell did in blocking Obama’s appointment should be criminal. That BS needs to change.
he was legitimately voted into office as the President
...by the electoral college. Remember, he lost the popular vote.
Which is, unfortunately, how we elect the president in this country. He won.
And through foreign interference campaigns that should be legitimately taken as acts of war.
People keeping saying this like it means he didn't win.
He won the game according to the games rules.
The games rules being unfair is a completely separate conversation