378
Leading Democrats demand Alito face investigation after second report of far right-linked flag
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
378 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19120 readers
3218 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They are supposed to be non-partisan in their professional capacity. Asking anyone to not engage in politics in their personal life would also likely slam face-first into the First Amendment. US Federal Employees do have limitations on partisan activities, but only while on the clock or when acting as in an official capacity. They also cannot hold elected office at any level of government. While those rules do not apply to the Supreme Court Justices, it does provide a good baseline for expectations.
Supreme Court Justices are still citizens of the US with all of the rights that entails. While they should be held to a much higher standard, while working in an official capacity. Once they get home, if they want to hang out in their chonies and wave a flag which overtly states "I'm a fucking moron who hates people for no reason", well that is their right, just like any other citizen.
Ultimately, this whole flag kerfluffle seems like more "outrage culture" crap. Sure, I agree it makes Alito look like an asshole. But, anyone calling for criminal prosecution has their head so far up their own ass they are likely to see daylight again. Free speech, is one of those really tough things to support. It's easy to say, "I have a right to free speech". The hard thing is saying "and so does that asshole". But, iot's important top protect, because eventually, you might the the "asshole" to the people in charge.
Not sure about charges but https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf it's very clear that the justice has a personal bias that makes a reasonable person question their impartiality.
That's going to be one of those things which would need to be demonstrated on a case by case basis. Does being an asshole make him biased in a case on corporate law? Probably not. There could be cases where such a display might be used to question if he should recuse himself, but it's going to be much harder than "I think a reasonable person could question his impartiality". Honestly, if my lawyer was planning on that to make or break a case, I'd go find a new lawyer. Really, the interesting part of that code of ethics is the bit around political activities and the limits placed on the court and it's staff. Though, even those have been severely weakened for lower courts, where the limits are actually enforced.
And, as has been noted about the code, it's really just a paper tiger.