US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Rightwing US supreme court justices are in trouble. So they’ve discovered feminism | Judith Levine

      by

      At the start of her rallies, Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who defeated the equal rights amendment, always thanked her husband, Fred, for letting her out of the house.Ah, those were the days.Husbands have lost their control. And, it would seem, none more than the poor schlubs on the bench of the supreme court of the United States.Before January 6, Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, the far-right activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, plunged deep into the “Stop the Steal” movement, which attempted to frame Joe Biden’s fair and free election as rigged. She sent dozens of texts to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, egging him on to overturn the election. Later, she claimed Clarence had nothing to do with it.“Like so many married couples, we share many of the same ideals, principles, and aspirations for America,” Ginni Thomas told the Washington Free Beacon in early 2022. “But we have our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions too. Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work.”Nevertheless, questioned by the congressional January 6 committee as to whether she conferred with anyone about the texts, she allowed that she’d spoken to her “best friend” – Clarence. She couldn’t remember the “specifics”, she said. But “my husband often administers spousal support to the wife that’s upset.”Meadows filed an amicus brief in Trump’s appeal to withhold documents from the investigators; the texts, including Ginni Thomas’s, were included in the subpoenaed materials. Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter in the supreme court’s rejection of Trump’s appeal.Jane Sullivan Roberts – Mrs Chief Justice John Roberts – earned over $10m recruiting conservative government lawyers to elite law firms precisely during the years of her husband’s tenure on the court. Although some of these firms appear before the court, the Robertses insist that her work is her own and poses no conflict of interest for him. Anyway, according to a former colleague of Jane’s, nothing exchanged was more consequential than the chitchat at any Washington cocktail party.“Friends of John were mostly friends of Jane,” the colleague told Insider. “And while it certainly did not harm her access to top people to have John as her spouse, I never saw her ‘use’ that inappropriately.”Just affectionate give-and-take, like the uber-luxurious gifts bestowed on the Thomases by the rightwing billionaires Clarence met after ascending to the supreme court.And now we learn that an inverted American flag – ensign of Maga insurrectionists, carried by many during the Capitol riot – flew in front of Justice Samuel Alito’s home in January 2021, three days before Joe Biden’s swearing-in as president.But Alito – who is about to sign the ruling on whether Trump is immune from prosecution for inciting the riot or, for that matter, anything else he ever does – says he never touched, or apparently looked at or commented on, the flag. His wife, Martha-Ann, ran her opinion up the flagpole during a neighborly tiff. “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” the justice said in an email to the New York Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” She is her own woman.This is the same Samuel Alito who opined in Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1991 that requiring the husband’s consent for an abortion did not impose an undue burden on the woman, and in fact, served a compelling state interest. Different strokes for different folks.And then there’s Amy Coney Barrett, who served as a “handmaiden” for the male-supremacist Christian sect People of Praise, advising wives on submitting to the “headship” of their husbands.So here’s the ideology of the court’s conservative majority: a husband should rule over his wife except when he declares her independence because the ideologies she clearly shares with him might cause him trouble.The women on the court are not indulging in this ploy. Why not? “He does what he wants” might be more credible. It’s not that they’re good because they’re women. Two of them have scant opportunity for family-related conflicts of interest. Sonia Sotomayor is divorced. Elena Kagan never married. Neither of them has children. Meanwhile, a conservative law firm has filed an ethics complaint against Ketanji Brown Jackson for not disclosing income from her husband’s medical malpractice consulting. If the contention is true, her omission is illegal, not to mention unethical. But it would be a stretch to call it political. And Brown hasn’t blamed her husband.Jennifer Weiner recently argued in the New York Times that “Blame my wife,” an excuse employed by Republicans and Democrats alike, might indicate “the faintest glimmer of progress” – feminist progress. “When a Supreme Court justice blames his wife, he is also acknowledging that his wife has the ability to act on her own ideas, has a mind confoundingly of her own,” Weiner wrote.Nah. The men who stripped half the US population of a 50-year-old right of bodily autonomy have not osmosed feminism despite themselves. Rather, they are exploiting feminism: impersonating pro-feminist men when it serves them and screwing women (and the less powerful in general) when it doesn’t. Mr Nice Guy; no more Mr Nice Guy. That’s patriarchal privilege.The male justices are also implicitly invoking a right that feminists, along with Black and LGBTQ+ civil rights activists, conceived and won: the right to relational privacy. By contending that their professional thoughts and actions are unaffected by their wives’, the justices communicate that no one else knows what goes on inside their marriages and no one has the prerogative to eavesdrop on their breakfast table conversations or evaluate the meanings and effects of what is said there.The sanctity of privacy in intimate behavior, including the rights of married couples to use contraception, of queer people to have sex and marry each other and of pregnant people to end their pregnancies, did not spring from the heads of supreme court justices. But supreme court justices can take them away. In fact, these are the rights, and the cases involving them, that Thomas, in his concurring opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, urged the court to “reconsider” – presumably to overturn, as it overturned Roe. Thomas did not mention whether Loving v Virginia, the 1967 case securing the right to interracial marriage, like his own, should be reconsidered. Maybe he needs to talk it over with Ginni.In March 1776 the first lady, Abigail Adams, wrote to her husband, President John Adams, exercising her influence as a highly placed political wife. She implored him to “Remember the Ladies” when he and the other founding fathers were declaring independence and writing the laws that would follow.But that’s just the famous part of the letter. “Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands,” Mrs Adams continued, playing on the language of freedom from colonial rule. “Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.”American feminists have rekindled that Rebelion. Some chose to make noise in front of Alito’s home to express their rage at his majority opinion in Dobbs. They wanted “to bring the protest to [the Alitos’] personal lives because the decisions affect our personal lives”, said one demonstrator. The personal is political, as much for the men in black robes as it is for the rest of us.
      Judith Levine is a Brooklyn journalist and essayist, a contributing writer to the Intercept, and the author of five books More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Lindsey Graham says Alito’s upside-down flag was ‘not good judgment’

      by

      Lindsey Graham has said it was “not good judgment” for the supreme court justice Samuel Alito to allow an upside-down American flag to be flown outside his home, marking what for him is a rare rebuke of a conservative judge.The Republican US senator’s comments on Monday to HuffPost’s Igor Bobic came after the New York Times’ recent report that an American flag was displayed upside down outside Alito’s home on 17 January 2021 – less than two weeks after supporters of Donald Trump carried out the deadly US Capitol attack and three days before Joe Biden’s inauguration.The inverted flag is a symbol which has been adopted by supporters of the former president’s false claims that Biden stole the presidency from him, and it reignited fears of political partisanship among the high court’s conservative supermajority, to which Alito belongs.Graham also alluded to claims from Alito that his wife, Martha-Ann, raised the flag in question after the couple became locked in a verbal dispute with a neighbor who used an expletive that is offensive to women. Nonetheless, the senior senator from South Carolina asserted: “It’s not good judgment to do that.“He said his wife was insulted and got mad – assume that to be true – but he’s still a supreme court justice,” Graham remarked. “And, you know, people have to realize that moments like that, to think it through.”As relatively restrained as Graham’s opinion was with respect to Alito, it was a notable shift from his usual supreme court rhetoric.In July 2023, after the supreme court had struck down federal abortion rights, Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan as well as a Colorado state law that compelled entities to afford same-sex couples equal treatment, Graham exalted the justices as “truly standing up for individual constitutional rights and limited government”.“I’ve never been prouder” of the US’s highest-ranking court of law, Graham said at the time. “Unfortunately, we should prepare for and get ready to witness accelerated attacks on the supreme court by radical liberal Democrats angry about these decisions.”The Times published its report about the upside-down flag at the Alitos’ as the supreme court weighs a decision on the extent of presidential immunity. That ruling is bound to affect at least one of Trump’s pending criminal cases heading into the Republican’s expected electoral rematch with his Democratic rival Biden in November.Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge, told the Times “it would be better for the court” if Alito were not involved in cases stemming from the 2020 election. But Fogel said he was “pretty certain that [Alito] will see that differently”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe supreme court has adopted a stronger yet non-binding code of ethics for the nine justices on the bench after another conservative member, Clarence Thomas, came under scrutiny for accepting non-disclosed trips funded by a Republican billionaire. Alito, too, reportedly had failed to disclose a similar trip to Alaska.Court employees are under strict rules prohibiting public displays of political affiliation, including bumper stickers on vehicles.According to Reuters, the US flag should be displayed upside down only “as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property”. More

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Alito’s flag shows the US supreme court is neither honorable nor functional any more | Moira Donegan

      by

      These people can’t help themselves. Last week, the New York Times revealed that during the days after the violent attack on the Capitol on 6 January 2021, when the US supreme court was still considering whether to take up cases challenging Joe Biden’s election victory, the home of the supreme court justice Samuel Alito, in suburban Virginia, flew a pro-coup flag. The Times printed photos of the American flag flying upside-down on a pole in Alito’s front yard; by January 2021, the upside-down flag had become a well-known symbol of the so-called “Stop the Steal” movement, champions of Donald Trump who supported his legal and violent attempts to overthrow the 2020 election.At the time, pro-Trump social media groups were encouraging supporters to fly their flags this way; upside-down flags had been carried by some of the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol, just a few days before the symbol appeared outside Alito’s house. In the election case that was then before the court, Alito voted to hear Republican challenges to the election results. But he didn’t get enough of his colleagues to vote his way. Not that time.The flying of the pro-Trump, pro-coup flag is in clear violation of the ethics rules that apply to federal judges. After several high-profile controversies at the court – including investigations into gifts given to Alito and his fellow conservative justice Clarence Thomas by deep-pocketed Republican donors – a controversy arose over why, precisely, those ethics rules have never extended to the supreme court justices.Under enormous political pressure, the court agreed to assign itself a version of those ethics rules last year, aiming, it said, to dispel any public concerns and recommit the court to maintaining an appearance of credible neutrality. (Such rules have long applied to court employees, who, the Times points out, are not permitted to so much as attend a protest or put a bumper sticker on their car.) The justices did not elect, however, to make the new ethics code in any way enforceable for themselves. They’re not rules that can be enforced; they’re guidelines that can be – and are – ignored.The court is currently considering several cases stemming from the January 6 insurrection, and will rule on two questions that concern its aftermath in the coming weeks: first, whether insurrectionists can be charged with obstruction of an official proceeding; and second, whether Donald Trump can be held legally responsible for crimes he committed while in office. After this November’s general election, there are almost certainly going to be further legal challenges to the election results, just as there were in 2020. Alito will be on the court to hear Trump’s arguments in those cases, too.The flag, then, is just the latest reminder of a disturbing reality: that as the Republican party further radicalizes against democracy, the supreme court – the body which is tasked with checking these unconstitutional impulses – has become their ally. The rule of law cannot be relied on to stem the tide of rising authoritarianism, because our legal institutions have been captured by the authoritarians.Why would Alito make such a brazen display of his partisan loyalties and disregard for the legitimate results of an election at a moment when the court is under such intense scrutiny? When the Times asked him about the pro-insurrection flag, Alito blamed his wife: he said she put it up after getting in a fight with a neighbor who had an anti-Trump lawn sign. It’s not clear exactly how this story is supposed to exonerate him: it doesn’t explain why the Alitos used this pro-coup gesture, of all the possible options, as a way to retaliate against their progressive neighbors. And the story is still one in which the Alitos are affirmatively voicing their partisan loyalty in public, and showing themselves unable to tolerate even the proximate presence of Americans who do not share their own morbid, conspiratorial and punitive worldview.But asking why Alito feels he can get away with it misses the point: he knows he can get away with it. The justice is perfectly aware that he does not need to pretend to neutrality, or hide his partisan loyalties, or behave, with anything like a convincing effort, like his work on the court is motivated by the law and not his own reactionary political preferences. Alito knows that he does not need to maintain any pretext of integrity, intellectual commitment or seriousness in his work. The supreme court has accumulated enough power to itself – and the justices have done a sufficiently good job of insulating themselves from any accountability or consequence – that he doesn’t even think he needs to lie any more. He’s comfortable being a partisan operative right out in the open.And why shouldn’t he? He’s not even the worst offender. After all, Clarence Thomas has not recused himself from insurrection-related cases, either, even though his wife, Ginni, was a vocal supporter of the insurrection – texting Trump’s then White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, over and over about the effort before, during and after the riot, and attended the “Save America” rally on January 6 herself. Like Alito, there is no way to force him to step aside.The justices do not enforce rules of impartiality, integrity, honesty, disclosure or decorum on themselves. And there are few mechanisms – and absolutely no political will – for anyone else to impose these on them. The people have no check on the court; Congress is dysfunctional and can’t act. And so the justices are acting like spoiled children: petulant, self-indulgent, shameless, jeering and unsupervised. Men like Alito and Thomas have not done what decency requires – and there are no means to compel them to.If this was an honorable court, a man like Alito would never have been appointed. If it was a functional court, he would resign. If it was a court composed of jurists capable of shame, he would recuse himself from election-related cases. But it is none of these things.It is time to admit what this court has become: an elite, but no less sadistic and vulgar, bastion of the anti-pluralist, anti-democratic forces that have captured so much of the Republican party and the conservative base. To say that the court is composed of partisan operatives – and that at least two of them are either so delusional that they have lost touch with reality or so cynical that they don’t mind when the facts diverge from their preferred outcomes – is so obvious as to be almost banal to any honest court observer. That anyone pretends that the court is a legitimate judicial body is a farce. That its actions still carry the force of law is a tragedy.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Year of Living Constitutionally: a man, a political plan … and a musket

      by

      Would you fly the Jolly Roger for Uncle Sam? AJ Jacobs tried to. For 12 months, the author and journalist became what he calls “the original originalist”, seeking to live the way the founders envisioned life under the US constitution.That life included the right to piracy on behalf of the US government. It sprang from a tradition predating the constitution, when the Continental Congress granted letters of marque and reprisal, allowing seamen to capture British ships. Noting this precedent, Jacobs brought an unconventional offer to Ro Khanna, a Democratic congressman from California, when the two met in a hotel lobby.“I said, ‘I’m following the constitution and would like to be granted a letter of marque and reprisal,’” Jacobs recalls. “He said, ‘Great, let’s make it happen.’ I explained to him what it was: basically legalized piracy. I would fight our enemies on my friend’s water-ski boat.”After that, Khanna “was a little more like, ‘Maybe this is not going to happen.’”Jacobs didn’t get his Captain Jack Sparrow moment. But he did get a book out of the experience, The Year of Living Constitutionally: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Constitution’s Original Meaning, which has received multiple votes of approval – including from Khanna.“He did like the idea of the book: trying to explain the origins of the constitution, what it really means, what it says.”In 2007, Jacobs published the results of a similar project, The Year of Living Biblically.“They have a similar status in our society,” he says, of the Bible and the constitution. “Some people see them as sacred and try to follow them in the original meaning as it was written.”Others look to adapt the texts for a modern era. For the constitution, this has evolved into a debate between originalists and living constitutionalists. Jacobs interviewed scholars across the spectrum.View image in fullscreen“This was my favorite part. They were super-generous with me.” Some were “people who were the most liberal and progressive and saw the constitution as having no intrinsic meaning, it could be molded like Play-Doh”. Others felt that “whatever the constitution meant then is what it means now. One guy refused to capitalize the S in ‘supreme court’. In the constitution” – as in the Guardian style guide – “the S is not capitalized … It was a wide range.”The originalists have been getting the better of things lately, including on the supreme court. And it was originalism – and the Guardian – that helped nudge Jacobs toward his book idea.After the 2022 supreme court decision Dobbs v Jackson, which overturned Roe v Wade, removing the federal right to abortion, a Guardian editor asked Jacobs to cover an unexpected trend. It related not to abortion, which was suddenly up to the states, but to vasectomies, which a surprising number of American men were choosing to have.“I am the type of journalist who tries things out myself and writes about the effort,” Jacobs says. “I did not feel like getting a vasectomy. I did not know if I was the right person for that interesting storyline.”What he did feel like was exploring the originalist mindset. He came across a startling statistic: at least 60% of Americans, including himself at the time, had not read the constitution from beginning to end, despite it running just four to six pages. It was time to delve into “what it really says, what it really means, instead of getting it filtered from whatever media you happen to be partial to. Let’s read what it actually says.”When it came to the right to piracy, although Jacobs couldn’t sail the high seas he did receive an email from a Khanna staffer addressing him as “Captain Jacobs”. Then there was petitioning the government. Instead of the online approach, Jacobs brought a scroll somewhere near 200ft long into the office of Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon. Hundreds had signed the scroll. When Jacobs took some notes using his quill pen, it left ink on Wyden’s carpet. Jacobs added $50 to his taxes to foot the bill. (The subject of his petition was “Let’s have co-presidents”, a cause advocated by some founders, with Benjamin Franklin recommending 12 chief executives at once.)State laws came into the picture too. Free-speech advocates might be surprised by how much states policed what Americans said in the early republic. New York fined those who blasphemed or cursed 37 and a half cents. Jacobs did the same with his three sons, though they declined to come up with a half-cent.“It was not an easy year,” he says. “It was about as hard as The Year of Living Biblically.” That said, there were some differences. With the Bible, Jacobs “grew a huge beard. This did not involve as much facial hair.” But his appearance and lifestyle changed in other ways. He wore a tricorn hat, carried a musket, consumed an unusual amount of cloves, wrote with a quill, and woke up at the hour recommended by Franklin: 5am.View image in fullscreen“I tried to express second amendment rights the old-fashioned way,” he says. “I got a musket off ye olde internet and carried it around the Upper West Side where I live. A lot of people were crossing the street. People gave me a scowl.” When he brought it into a coffeeshop, a customer invited Jacobs to go ahead of him in line.“It’s sort of a good example of how this year went. At times, it was very strange, bizarre and awkward. But it was also, at the same time, incredibly enlightening and fascinating. I do think it gave real insight into how we should interpret the constitution.”He was particularly pleased with one custom: election cakes, meant to spur civic participation. Jacobs got volunteers representing all 50 states to bake election cakes last year. He plans to do it again.Although Jacobs appreciated the chance to adopt an 18th-century detachment from the near-constant news of today, he appreciates the progress America has made, saying: “It was terribly sexist and racist towards women, Black people and Indigenous people. I don’t want to go back to that.“Women’s rights were very constrained, especially married women, who were treated like children. They could not sign contracts. My wife owns a business. She signs several contracts a day.”Jacobs’s wife, Julie, let him take over contract-signing – then fired him after an hour.Jacobs also examined how 19th-century abolitionists saw the constitution. William Lloyd Garrison was so outraged by its stance on slavery that he advocated burning it – and did so. Frederick Douglass, who was formerly enslaved, had the same view but changed his mind and recommended Americans view the constitution as a promissory note.“Douglass says, ‘Let’s work to make America live up to the principles in the constitution.’ It becomes a very powerful way of looking at the constitution. Martin Luther King Jr talks about the constitution as a promissory note. Barack Obama gave a great speech that said the seeds of freedom were planted in the constitution … The solutions to the problems of the constitution are in the constitution itself.”
      The Year of Living Constitutionally is published in the US by Crown More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Red flag? Samuel Alito scandal casts further doubt on supreme court’s impartiality

      by

      With less than six months to go before America chooses its next president, the US supreme court finds itself in a profoundly unenviable position: not only has it been drawn into the thick of a volatile election, but swirling ethical scandals have cast doubt on its impartiality.The US supreme court’s discomfort worsened dramatically on Thursday night when the New York Times published a photograph of an upside-down American flag being flown outside the Alexandria, Virginia, home of the hard-right justice Samuel Alito. The photo was taken on 17 January 2021, days after the insurrection at the US Capitol and days before Joe Biden’s inauguration.At the time, upside-down flags were proliferating as a symbol of Donald Trump’s false claim that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen from him. That one of the nine most powerful justices in the country – who has potential to wield enormous influence over the 2024 election – had a “stop the steal” icon flapping on his front lawn was, to put it mildly, incendiary.“There’s little doubt that the supreme court will play a large role in the 2024 election, and you have to now ask whether the flag incident will forever cloud the public’s view of its impartiality in those cases,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a non-partisan group advocating reform.The supreme court memorably handed the US presidency to George W Bush in its 2000 ruling Bush v Gore. Though no individual case so far this year has risen to that level, there is no doubt that the justices are deeply mired in the 2024 cycle.They have already decided that Trump cannot be ejected from the ballot for his role in the January 6 attack under the 14th amendment block on insurrectionists holding office. By the end of their term in June they are also set to rule on two other critical cases that go to the heart of Trump’s fitness to govern, and hence the presidential outcome.The first asks whether Trump has presidential immunity in the federal criminal prosecution over his “stop the steal” antics in 2020/21. The other, which could also determine whether he can be tried for his attempt to overturn the election, looks at whether January 6 rioters can be charged under the obstruction statute.All of that before we even get to the election itself, and the possibility of renewed trouble in November should there be close and contested counts in key battleground states. As one of the justices expressly warned in the 14th amendment case, further insurrections were not impossible.View image in fullscreen“I don’t know how much we can infer from the fact that we haven’t seen anything like this before [that] we’re not going to see something in the future,” the justice said. His identity? Samuel Alito.Until last Thursday, there had been plenty of talk about whether the supreme court was ethically equipped to tackle fundamental questions that could drastically change the course of November’s election. But most of it concerned Clarence Thomas.His wife, Ginni, is a hard-right activist who was an active participant in efforts to stop the certification of Biden’s victory. Yet Thomas has consistently refused to recuse himself from supreme court cases relating to January 6, even ones which directly invoked Ginni.After Thursday, we now have not one but two of the conservative justices whose spouses have engaged in apparent pro-Trump political activity. In his self-defense, Alito told the New York Times: “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” putting it all down to a spat his wife, Martha-Ann, was having with neighbors who had defaced a Trump lawn sign.Some law scholars were prepared to give Alito the benefit of the doubt. Stephen Gillers, emeritus professor at New York University law school, said that he did not believe Alito knew the upside-down flag was flying, or that it was a coded message for “stop the steal”.“While Alito’s explanation for how it did happen is hard to believe, it is more credible than the view that he knowingly chose to fly the flag upside down knowing its import.”But there is no doubt that the optics of the flag are atrocious. As Gillers also noted: “It’s obviously so damaging to the court, whose reputation is already suffering.”The highest court has taken such a battering over its ethical standards – mostly relating to private jets, vacations and other material benefits rather than political activities – that it has been forced to adopt its first-ever ethical code. It says that a justice must recuse him or herself from a case where they have a “personal bias or prejudice”.That might involve their spouse being party to the proceeding or having an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding, the code states.Given what we now know about the behavior and convictions of both Ginni and Martha-Ann, it is arguable that there is at least a conversation to be had about whether Justices Thomas and Alito should disqualify themselves from any case relating to January 6. But there’s the rub.Under the new code, the supreme court polices itself on all ethical matters. Not only that – each individual justice polices him or herself, in effect sitting in judgment on themselves with even their eight colleagues having no say.Unsurprisingly, in the six months that the new code has been in existence very few justices have recused themselves. Where they have, only the liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson have publicly explained their decisions.It all points towards more storms ahead. It is now all but inevitable there will be calls for both Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves as election year proceeds.“The fact that two justices live in households with people who believe the 2020 election was stolen is astounding and disturbing,” Roth said. “Will they heed the calls for recusal? Probably not. Is there any way to force them? No.” More

    • 213 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme court justice Samuel Alito faces criticism after Trump-supporting flag reportedly seen outside his home – live

      by

      Good morning, US politics blog readers. The New York Times reported yesterday that a flag used by supporters of Donald Trump’s baseless claim of fraud in his 2020 election loss flew outside Samuel Alito’s house shortly before Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021. The supreme court justice, who said the flag was displayed by his wife amid a dispute with a neighbor, is a conservative stalwart on the court, and authored the decision that two years ago overturned Roe v Wade and allowed states the ban abortion. The reactions to the news have been predictably partisan, with Republican senator Tom Cotton accusing the Times of trying to “incite another mob”, Minnesota’s Democratic governor Tim Walz describing flying the flag as “not normal” and Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal saying the court’s credibility “is plummeting”.The story was the latest in a string of reports that have emerged over the past year and raised questions about the supreme court’s ethics. While these stories have generated plenty of outrage, none of the justices involved have suffered any consequences, and the conservatives remain dominant on the court, with six seats against the liberals’ three. The court is poised to soon rule on whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election – a case that could have a major impact on his rematch with Joe Biden.Here’s what else is going on today:
      The House oversight committee late yesterday advanced a resolution to hold attorney general Merrick Garland in contempt for not releasing a recording of Biden’s interview with a special counsel, but only after a shouting match between lawmakers.
      Biden, who polls show has lost some of his support with Black voters, will speak at the National Museum of African American History and Culture at 11.45am ET, and then meet with leaders of Black fraternities and sororities together with Kamala Harris at 3.30pm.
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre takes reporters’ questions at 1pm.
      The Democratic chair of the Senate judiciary committee, Dick Durbin, is calling on Samuel Alito to recuse himself from cases concerning Donald Trump and the 2020 election after the New York Times reported that a flag supporting the ex-president’s false election fraud claims flew outside the supreme court justice’s residence.Here’s what Durbin had to say:
      Flying an upside-down American flag – a symbol of the so-called ‘Stop the Steal’ movement – clearly creates the appearance of bias. Justice Alito should recuse himself immediately from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6 insurrection, including the question of the former President’s immunity in US v Donald Trump, which the supreme court is currently considering.
      The court is in an ethical crisis of its own making, and Justice Alito and the rest of the court should be doing everything in their power to regain public trust. This latest story is further proof that Congress needs to pass the SCERT Act to create an enforceable code of conduct for the supreme court. Supreme court justices should be held to the highest ethical standards, not the lowest.
      The Scert Act would require the supreme court to adopt a code of conduct and create a mechanism to investigate violations. While the court adopted an ethics code last year, it lacks any mechanism for enforcement.Republicans are vehemently against any new regulations on the supreme court, and have the votes to prevent the Scert Act from passing the Senate.In other news, the House oversight committee last night advanced a resolution to hold the attorney general, Merrick Garland, in contempt after he refused to release audio of Joe Biden’s interview with Robert Hur, the special counsel who investigated his possession of classified documents. But the vote only took place after a messy verbal clash between lawmakers at opposite ends of the political spectrum, the Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports:The two most famous sets of initials in US politics clashed in a chaotic House hearing on Thursday, as the progressive star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or AOC, objected fiercely to an attack on another Democrat by the far-right Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, or MTG.The oversight committee hearing concerned Republican attempts to hold the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, in contempt, for refusing to release tapes of interviews between Joe Biden and the special counsel Robert Hur.Things went wrong when MTG made a partisan point, trying to tie Democrats to the judge in Donald Trump’s criminal hush-money case – which, by drawing a number of Republicans to the New York courtroom to support Trump, was responsible for the hearing starting late in the day.In answer to MTG, Jasmine Crockett of Texas said: “Please tell me what that has to do with Merrick Garland … Do you know what we’re here for? You know we’re here about AG Garland?”In response to the New York Times’s reporting, Samuel Alito acknowledged that the flag was raised outside his house, but said it was due to a dispute with a neighbor:
      I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to The Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”
      The Alitos live in Alexandria, Virginia, a pleasant city across the Potomac river from Washington DC, where some of their neighbors do not like them, the Times reports:
      In recent years, the quiet sanctuary of his street, with residents who are Republicans and Democrats, has tensed with conflict, neighbors said. Around the 2020 election, a family on the block displayed an anti-Trump sign with an expletive. It apparently offended Mrs. Alito and led to an escalating clash between her and the family, according to interviews.
      Some residents have also bridled at the noise and intrusion brought by protesters, who started showing up outside the Alito residence in 2022 after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion. Other neighbors have joined the demonstrators, whose intent was “to bring the protest to their personal lives because the decisions affect our personal lives,” said Heather-Ann Irons, who came to the street to protest.
      The half-dozen neighbors who saw the flag, or knew of it, requested anonymity because they said they did not want to add to the contentiousness on the block and feared reprisal. Last Saturday, May 11, protesters returned to the street, waving flags of their own (“Don’t Tread on My Uterus”) and using a megaphone to broadcast expletives at Justice Alito, who was in Ohio giving a commencement address. Mrs. Alito appeared in a window, complaining to the Supreme Court security detail outside.
      As you can see in the below tweet from the New York Times, the flag flown outside the conservative supreme court justice Samuel Alito’s house was simply an upside-down American flag:But as their story notes, flying the flag that way had, by early 2021, become a symbol of support for Donald Trump’s false claims that his loss in the November 2020 election had occurred due to fraud:
      Turning the American flag upside down is a symbol of emergency and distress, first used as a military S.O.S., historians said in interviews. In recent decades, it has increasingly been used as a political protest symbol — a controversial one, because the flag code and military tradition require the paramount symbol of the United States to be treated with respect.
      Over the years, upside-down flags have been displayed by both the right and the left as an outcry over a range of issues, including the Vietnam War, gun violence, the Supreme Court’s overturning of the constitutional right to abortion and, in particular, election results. In 2012, Tea Party followers inverted flags at their homes to signal disgust at the re-election of President Barack Obama. Four years later, some liberals advised doing the same after Mr. Trump was elected.
      During Mr. Trump’s quest to win, and then subvert, the 2020 election, the gesture took off as never before, becoming “really established as a symbol of the ‘Stop the Steal’ campaign,” according to Alex Newhouse, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder.
      A flood of social media posts exhorted Trump supporters to flip over their flags or purchase new ones to display upside down.
      “If Jan. 6 rolls around and Biden is confirmed by the Electoral College our nation is in distress!!” a poster wrote on Patriots.win, a forum for Trump supporters, garnering over a thousand “up” votes. “If you cannot go to the DC rally then you must do your duty and show your support for our president by flying the flag upside down!!!!”
      In an appearance on MSNBC this morning, Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic senator who serves on the judiciary committee, said the revelation that a pro-Trump flag flew outside Samuel Alito’s house further undermines the supreme court’s credibility.Polls indicate public approval of the supreme court has declined over the past two decades, which Blumenthal blames on the conflicts of interest that have developed among its conservative justices. He called on Chief Justice John Roberts to order Alito and Clarence Thomas, a fellow conservative whose wife was involved in efforts to stop Joe Biden from taking office, to recuse themselves:Blumenthal has been among the Democratic lawmakers that have pressured Roberts and the justices to tighten their ethics following reports of their connections with wealthy conservatives:The revelation that a flag used by supporters of Donald Trump’s baseless 2020 election fraud claims flew outside the house of Samuel Alito comes as the court is considering whether to give the ex-president immunity from the federal charges brought against him for his attempt to block Joe Biden from assuming office.In oral arguments in the case last month, the supreme court justice and other conservatives seemed partial to Trump’s claim that he should be immune from at least some of the charges, since they concern his conduct while acting in his official capacity as president. That raises the prospect of a decision that could have the net effect of further delaying his trial, potentially until after his November presidential election rematch against Biden.During the oral arguments, Alito, together with fellow conservative Brett Kavanaugh, seemed worried that future presidents could be affected by a denial of immunity to Trump. Here’s a recap of their viewpoint, from the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell:
      Alito and Kavanaugh suggested they were particularly concerned about zealous prosecutors going after former presidents once they left office for “mistakes” if the supreme court decided that presidents had no immunity from criminal prosecution.
      “It’s not going to stop, it’s going to cycle back and be used against the current president and the next president and the next president after that,” Kavanaugh said.
      The government disputed that prosecutors could wantonly target former presidents, arguing there were checks and balances in the judicial system like the grand jury process.
      Alito was dismissive of the grand jury suggestion, bringing up the adage that a grand jury could indict a “ham sandwich”. When Dreeben said prosecutors don’t charge people who don’t deserve it, Alito responded: “Every once in a while there’s an eclipse too.”
      For more on the case, and how the supreme court’s decision could affect it, here’s our story from April:Good morning, US politics blog readers. The New York Times reported yesterday that a flag used by supporters of Donald Trump’s baseless claim of fraud in his 2020 election loss flew outside Samuel Alito’s house shortly before Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021. The supreme court justice, who said the flag was displayed by his wife amid a dispute with a neighbor, is a conservative stalwart on the court, and authored the decision that two years ago overturned Roe v Wade and allowed states the ban abortion. The reactions to the news have been predictably partisan, with Republican senator Tom Cotton accusing the Times of trying to “incite another mob”, Minnesota’s Democratic governor Tim Walz describing flying the flag as “not normal” and Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal saying the court’s credibility “is plummeting”.The story was the latest in a string of reports that have emerged over the past year and raised questions about the supreme court’s ethics. While these stories have generated plenty of outrage, none of the justices involved have suffered any consequences, and the conservatives remain dominant on the court, with six seats against the liberals’ three. The court is poised to soon rule on whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election – a case that could have a major impact on his rematch with Joe Biden.Here’s what else is going on today:
      The House oversight committee late yesterday advanced a resolution to hold attorney general Merrick Garland in contempt for not releasing a recording of Biden’s interview with a special counsel, but only after a shouting match between lawmakers.
      Biden, who polls show has lost some of his support with Black voters, will speak at the National Museum of African American History and Culture at 11.45am ET, and then meet with leaders of Black fraternities and sororities together with Kamala Harris at 3.30pm.
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre takes reporters’ questions at 1pm. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Upside-down US flag reportedly hung outside Samuel Alito’s home days after Capitol attack

      by

      An upside-down American flag was reportedly spotted flying outside the home of the conservative US supreme court justice Samuel Alito during the closing days of the 2020 election.The inverted flag is a symbol that has become associated with the former president Donald Trump’s false claims that Joe Biden stole the election.Used by some Trump supporters during the January 6 Capitol Hill riots, the upside-down flag was seen outside Alito’s home on 17 January 2021 – 10 days after the riots in DC and three days before Joe Biden’s inauguration, according to a report in the New York Times on Friday.The image of the flag outside Alito’s home is likely to renew fears of partisanship among political appointees on the conservative-leaning court. The court has found itself at the epicenter of US culture wars in recent years for the rulings it has made, including a rollback of reproductive rights and a relaxation of restrictions relating to gun ownership.According to the Times, word of the upside-down flag made its way back to the court as the justices were considering an election case related to ballot-counting in Pennsylvania. Alito, an appointee of George W Bush, was on the losing side of the decision.“I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Alito said in a statement to the paper. “It was briefly placed by Mrs Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann, had been in a dispute with a neighbor about an anti-Trump sign on their lawn. Neighbors said they interpreted the Alito family’s flag as a political statement, and one said it had hung outside the home for several days.On MSNBC, Joe Scarborough offered an impassioned take on the flag’s appearance at Alito’s home, telling viewers of his show on Friday morning: “For a guy who is a supreme court justice that let that happen at his own home in one of the most fraught times in American history since the civil war is just … it’s just sad. And it shows how little respect he has for the institution. It shows how little respect he has for the law. It really … It’s disgusting. It’s just disgusting.”Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who appeared on Morning Joe on Friday alongside Scarborough, echoed those thoughts.“I am beyond disturbed. I was a law clerk to Justice Blackman on the US supreme court when this kind of behavior would have been unimaginable. You wouldn’t have read about it in a book of fiction,” he said.“Justice Alito should not sit on any of these cases involving Donald Trump. He ought to recuse himself. Here is the challenge to Chief Justice Roberts: the US supreme court’s credibility is plummeting – lower than perhaps the US Congress, and that’s saying something. It is due to the supreme court’s own self-inflicted wounds.”Experts on judicial conduct told the Times that symbols of partiality, including flying an upside-down flag, could be a violation of ethics rules designed to avoid even the appearance of bias.“It might be his spouse or someone else living in his home, but he shouldn’t have it in his yard as his message to the world,” Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, told the Times.Frost added that the inverted flag was “the equivalent of putting a ‘Stop the Steal’ sign in your yard, which is a problem if you’re deciding election-related cases”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe US supreme court recently adopted a stronger but nonbinding code of ethics for the nine justices on the bench after the conservative justice Clarence Thomas came under scrutiny for accepting but not disclosing trips funded by a Republican billionaire. It was later reported that Alito had similarly failed to report a trip to Alaska.Court employees are under strict rules that warn against public displays of political affiliation, including bumper stickers on vehicles. According to Reuters, the flag should only be displayed upside down “as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property”.The revelation that Martha-Ann Alito hung an upside-down flag in her yard may not provide a determination that Alito was in any way aligned with Trump-inspired insurrectionists, but rather that during the 2020 election neighborhood passions ran hot.Neighbors told the Times that the street was divided between Republicans and Democrats and had been “tensed with conflict”. The anti-Trump sign that Martha-Ann Alito objected to, they said, contained an expletive and had led to mounting tensions.One said neighbors had joined demonstrators outside the Alitos’ home with the intent “to bring the protest to their personal lives because the decisions affect our personal lives”. Those protests have continued. Last Saturday, some used a megaphone to broadcast expletives at Alito.Two years ago, a bipartisan bill was passed to provide round-the-clock police protection for the justices and their families. That came after the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, ordered the US Marshals Service to provide 24/7 protection to the justices following the still-unexplained leak of a draft decision that overturned federal abortion rights guarantees.But with political tensions again increasing with the approach of the November elections, including a supreme court decision on the extent of presidential immunity that will affect at least one of Donald Trump’s pending prosecutions, Alito’s neighborhood flag-flying comes down to “a question of appearances and the potential impact on public confidence in the court”, the former federal judge Jeremy Fogel told the Times.“I think it would be better for the court if he weren’t involved in cases arising from the 2020 election,” Fogel added. “But I’m pretty certain that he will see that differently.” More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Louisiana must use House map with second mostly Black district, US supreme court rules

      by

      The US supreme court on Wednesday ordered Louisiana to hold congressional elections in 2024 using a House map with a second mostly Black district, despite a lower-court ruling that called the map an illegal racial gerrymander.The order allows the use of a map that has majority Black populations in two of the state’s six congressional districts, potentially boosting Democrats’ chances of gaining control of the closely divided House of Representatives in the 2024 elections.The justices acted on emergency appeals filed by the state’s top Republican elected officials and Black voters who said they needed the high court’s intervention to avoid confusion as the elections approach. About a third of Louisiana is Black.Like much of the south, voting is racially polarized in Alabama so any majority-Black district is likely to favor Democrats. Republicans narrowly control the US House and are fighting for an advantage in every seat.It is the latest development in a long and twisted legal saga over Louisiana’s congressional districts.Louisiana lawmakers were forced to add a second majority-Black district last year after a federal judge said the map they drew violated the Voting Rights Act. The state approved a map, but then non-white voters challenged it in court, saying lawmakers relied too much on race when drawing it. Lower federal courts agreed the map should be struck down, and the state said it should not be required to use the map for this year’s elections.The supreme court’s order on Wednesday halts that argument and means the map with a second majority-Black district will be used for this year’s election. What happens after that is unclear.The supreme court has previously put court decisions handed down near elections on hold, invoking the need to give enough time to voters and elections officials to ensure orderly balloting. “When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote two years ago in a similar case from Alabama. The court has never set a firm deadline for how close is too close.The court’s three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all said they would not have granted the request to intervene. Only Jackson explained her reasoning.“There is little risk of voter confusion from a new map being imposed this far out from the November election,” she wrote in a brief dissent. “We have often denied stays of redistricting orders issued as close or closer to an election.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionJackson was objecting to what has come to be known as the Purcell principle – a novel idea adopted by the supreme court that they should not intervene in an election dispute when election day is near. The liberal justices and other critics have accused the court of using the principle to benefit Republicans.Louisiana has had two congressional maps blocked by federal courts in the past two years in a swirl of lawsuits that included a previous intervention by the supreme court. More