Methinks the appropriate Senate Committee should subpoena old Martha-Anne and ask her searchingly about her supposed flag fetish & the inconsistencies between her husband's claims and the documented facts.
Remember, this is the timeline wherein a porn star has saved America and the wives of two Supreme Court Justices have supported those who tried to overthrow it.
The Appeal to Heaven flag was flown during the Revolutionary War, as a comment on THE RIGHT TO REVOLUTION. That's what Martha-Ann Alito was saying with her flag. It is a treason flag. Dick Durbin, the call is coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE.
Democrats need to introduce a motion of impeachment against Alito and Thomas based on their unreported vacations with wealthy donors with business before the Court. It would get past the Republican control of Congress but they should introduce it anyway, and repeatedly.
The righties finally accomplished their long-term, impossible-seeming goal of getting Roe overturned.
It's time for the rest of us to work on a long-term, impossible-seeming goal of our own: Getting that piece of shit, and Thomas too, the fuck off the Court, by any means necessary.
It's interesting that we are all okay with our public servants having more than one home. I know it's not as simple as that, but, you know.
Anyhoo, I would love for Durbin to hand over the reins to Sheldon Whitehouse for this thing in particular, because that guy has been chomping at the bit for that seat, and I bet he'd kick some ass doing it.
FWIW, I don't think Durbin is being specifically cowardly in this instance. I don't think that the subject of political bravery even entered his head. He's a dealmaker, one of those collegial types who think of the Senate as some sort of fucking club.
It makes him a good choice for Whip, as long as someone else is Leader. His temperament is an asset when it comes to getting legislation passed.
But he's a fucking bad choice for Judiciary Chairman, which is not about dealmaking but partisan and governance hardball. In fact, he's such a bad match for Judiciary that it's an indictment of the Senate's seniority system. The only reason Durbin has Judiciary is because it's a prestige committee and he's been there for five goddamn terms.
Yeah, fine, you don't want freshman Senators running anything important, they don't have the experience or connections yet. But a Senate term is six years, once they're on their second one, they should be eligible for any chairmanship at all, based on merit and suitability alone.
I wonder if it is appropriate to call this the "flag controversy." That is what PBS called it last night and it struck me as a soft sell. What we should be calling it is an Ethics violation based on the rules of the court. According to the rules there shouldn't even be the appearance of bias. Flags in your yard are clearly making a statement that is biased. It's more than an appearance, it is the real thing. Read Jamie Raskin's article in the New York Times. Alito hasn't just mildly crossed the line to the point where we question whether it is a violation, he has crossed the line and started building his home there. Alito and Thomas have abandoned the ethics rules of the Supreme Court and Roberts isn't doing anything about it. The very least we can do is call it what it is. The Congress and the Senate need to take heed and raise the alarm bells!
Durbin is response here is like the Supreme Court non-decision on partisan gerrymandering several years ago. Acknowledging that partisan gerrymandering was bad but voting inequality based on political affiliation was none of the court's business. Only the group benefiting from partisan gerrymandering could do anything about it. Which is like Smokey the Bear telling an arsonist only they can prevent forest fires, we won't do anything to stop you or hold you accountable.
That decision led to the recent Supreme Court decision allowing an extremely gerrymandered district that moved thousands of Black voters from a racially mixed district and packed them into an already majority Black district. Guaranteeing Nancy Mace would win in that district because most of the Black voters were removed. The assholes, led by Alito, agreed with the South Carolina argument they weren't rigging the district because of race even though almost all of the changes involved Black voters, they were rigging it because they were Democrats. Which of course is morally wrong and betrays ideals in the constitution, but has not exactly the seal of approval of the court, but a wink and a nod of the court, we won't do anything if you rig the districts and use a bullshit excuse.
Thanks Durbin. For this and you stocking with the blue slip, meaning no liberal judge will ever be placed in a state with a Republican senator. Setting up a bright line in fair judicial action, almost like the Mason-Dixon line on slavery. One side ruled by the constitution, the other by religious zealots and corporations. But it will fragment the country more than the slavery issue did even as the South stays solidly with the zealots. But joined by states like Idaho, Kansas, and the Dakotas.
This is how they do. They do something absurd that shows their true beliefs, then pretend it is simply the action that is wrong and throw up a lot of dust about it.
Of course, Miz Martha Ann had the perfect right to fly those flags. Of course Sammy doesn't have to know or care about his wife's particular actions or, gods forbid, be able to dictate her behavior.
But as a justice of the SCOTUS he is expected to remain neutral on any issue before the court. It is reasonable to expect that his wife, who apparently lives with him, may have some influence on his thoughts. It is also reasonable to expect that he and his wife are more or less compatible, and share similar beliefs and understandings. If he has a biased perspective, he should recuse himself from a case(s). If someone who is in a position where she might have a strong influence on his perspective expresses a strong bias, he should recuse himself from the case(s).
Likewise, if he accepts large amounts of money from someone with a strong bias, he should recuse himself.
The message I got from his explanation about the flags was his wife's attitude toward him is, "Fuck you! I don't give a fuck about your job or your reputation or any of that. Someone insulted me, and I'm damned well going to do whatever I want to get back at them."
Alito claims he doesn't know jack shit about why the beach house flag was raised, or how long it was up but he does know for a fact she was clueless about the connection between the heavenly flag and the treasonous President. Why doesn't he ask his wife how long she flew it before he writes letters exonerating himself and her? He seems oddly out to lunch except when it exculpates himself.
NO STOMP SNEK!
Methinks the appropriate Senate Committee should subpoena old Martha-Anne and ask her searchingly about her supposed flag fetish & the inconsistencies between her husband's claims and the documented facts.
Remember, this is the timeline wherein a porn star has saved America and the wives of two Supreme Court Justices have supported those who tried to overthrow it.
The Appeal to Heaven flag was flown during the Revolutionary War, as a comment on THE RIGHT TO REVOLUTION. That's what Martha-Ann Alito was saying with her flag. It is a treason flag. Dick Durbin, the call is coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE.
Democrats need to introduce a motion of impeachment against Alito and Thomas based on their unreported vacations with wealthy donors with business before the Court. It would get past the Republican control of Congress but they should introduce it anyway, and repeatedly.
Samuel Alito is a lying sack of shit.
Get Sheldon Whitehouse in there. He doesn't keep his balls in his wife's purse for safekeeping.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1bbka-3vu8
The only one benefitting from Alito's flag saga is Clarence Thomas.
Also too John Roberts. What can he do? He's outvoted! So he's letting his freak flag fly.
The righties finally accomplished their long-term, impossible-seeming goal of getting Roe overturned.
It's time for the rest of us to work on a long-term, impossible-seeming goal of our own: Getting that piece of shit, and Thomas too, the fuck off the Court, by any means necessary.
"Can a congressman be a Senate Committee chair, is it like speaker of the House? Probably not. Do it anyway."
It's not like any republican is following any of the "rules"
It's interesting that we are all okay with our public servants having more than one home. I know it's not as simple as that, but, you know.
Anyhoo, I would love for Durbin to hand over the reins to Sheldon Whitehouse for this thing in particular, because that guy has been chomping at the bit for that seat, and I bet he'd kick some ass doing it.
FWIW, I don't think Durbin is being specifically cowardly in this instance. I don't think that the subject of political bravery even entered his head. He's a dealmaker, one of those collegial types who think of the Senate as some sort of fucking club.
It makes him a good choice for Whip, as long as someone else is Leader. His temperament is an asset when it comes to getting legislation passed.
But he's a fucking bad choice for Judiciary Chairman, which is not about dealmaking but partisan and governance hardball. In fact, he's such a bad match for Judiciary that it's an indictment of the Senate's seniority system. The only reason Durbin has Judiciary is because it's a prestige committee and he's been there for five goddamn terms.
Yeah, fine, you don't want freshman Senators running anything important, they don't have the experience or connections yet. But a Senate term is six years, once they're on their second one, they should be eligible for any chairmanship at all, based on merit and suitability alone.
I wonder if it is appropriate to call this the "flag controversy." That is what PBS called it last night and it struck me as a soft sell. What we should be calling it is an Ethics violation based on the rules of the court. According to the rules there shouldn't even be the appearance of bias. Flags in your yard are clearly making a statement that is biased. It's more than an appearance, it is the real thing. Read Jamie Raskin's article in the New York Times. Alito hasn't just mildly crossed the line to the point where we question whether it is a violation, he has crossed the line and started building his home there. Alito and Thomas have abandoned the ethics rules of the Supreme Court and Roberts isn't doing anything about it. The very least we can do is call it what it is. The Congress and the Senate need to take heed and raise the alarm bells!
Durbin is response here is like the Supreme Court non-decision on partisan gerrymandering several years ago. Acknowledging that partisan gerrymandering was bad but voting inequality based on political affiliation was none of the court's business. Only the group benefiting from partisan gerrymandering could do anything about it. Which is like Smokey the Bear telling an arsonist only they can prevent forest fires, we won't do anything to stop you or hold you accountable.
That decision led to the recent Supreme Court decision allowing an extremely gerrymandered district that moved thousands of Black voters from a racially mixed district and packed them into an already majority Black district. Guaranteeing Nancy Mace would win in that district because most of the Black voters were removed. The assholes, led by Alito, agreed with the South Carolina argument they weren't rigging the district because of race even though almost all of the changes involved Black voters, they were rigging it because they were Democrats. Which of course is morally wrong and betrays ideals in the constitution, but has not exactly the seal of approval of the court, but a wink and a nod of the court, we won't do anything if you rig the districts and use a bullshit excuse.
Thanks Durbin. For this and you stocking with the blue slip, meaning no liberal judge will ever be placed in a state with a Republican senator. Setting up a bright line in fair judicial action, almost like the Mason-Dixon line on slavery. One side ruled by the constitution, the other by religious zealots and corporations. But it will fragment the country more than the slavery issue did even as the South stays solidly with the zealots. But joined by states like Idaho, Kansas, and the Dakotas.
This is how they do. They do something absurd that shows their true beliefs, then pretend it is simply the action that is wrong and throw up a lot of dust about it.
Of course, Miz Martha Ann had the perfect right to fly those flags. Of course Sammy doesn't have to know or care about his wife's particular actions or, gods forbid, be able to dictate her behavior.
But as a justice of the SCOTUS he is expected to remain neutral on any issue before the court. It is reasonable to expect that his wife, who apparently lives with him, may have some influence on his thoughts. It is also reasonable to expect that he and his wife are more or less compatible, and share similar beliefs and understandings. If he has a biased perspective, he should recuse himself from a case(s). If someone who is in a position where she might have a strong influence on his perspective expresses a strong bias, he should recuse himself from the case(s).
Likewise, if he accepts large amounts of money from someone with a strong bias, he should recuse himself.
God it is is tedious to write this.
The message I got from his explanation about the flags was his wife's attitude toward him is, "Fuck you! I don't give a fuck about your job or your reputation or any of that. Someone insulted me, and I'm damned well going to do whatever I want to get back at them."
Alito claims he doesn't know jack shit about why the beach house flag was raised, or how long it was up but he does know for a fact she was clueless about the connection between the heavenly flag and the treasonous President. Why doesn't he ask his wife how long she flew it before he writes letters exonerating himself and her? He seems oddly out to lunch except when it exculpates himself.