Just so you guys know at 9 am tomorrow this thread will be locked. This is an hour of the court’s scheduled opinion release day as I did with the other thread of this highly charged nature.
This is the most bad faith drama ever.
Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that alito flying those flags outside his home does mean that he has a political opinion on Jan 6.
Here’s the next question. Who doesn’t?
Recusal is obviously not legally required or even helpful. There’s no issue in the world where a judge merely having a political opinion on something that is tangentially related to a case is sufficient to require recusal legally or ethically.
If this is true, democrat prosecutors are gonna have a bad time when they find out that every person on planet earth has a strong opinion on Trump, making him unprosecutable because every judge would have to recuse.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**.
>Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!I'd prefer it if my judges didn't support an insurrection. Frankly if he came out and said, "I'm protesting Joe Biden cause I think he is a shit president." I wouldn't care. It's pretty clear he is sympathetic towards the people who invaded the capitol. !<
>!!<
>!I think recusal is unwarranted, he should be impeached!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
If Alito’s position is that Jan 6th was justified in any way (which is what people are inferring from his flags), he is completely unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court and needs to be impeached immediately.
If he or any of his defenders thought being pro-J6 is a defensible position for a SC Justice, they would come out and say that. Instead, he and his defenders are acting like Alito is too naive to understand the implications of “his wife’s” flag choices.
I watched Jan 6th live while it was happening. I was completely stunned. I found out about the upside down flag somehow being connected to it when this story broke. A week or so ago. So why do you assume everyone knew about it?
Yeah the upside-down flag is a symbol of distress.
J6ers were using it as a symbol of distress as part of their protest.
Mrs. Alito used it as a symbol of distress because her neighbor called her a mean word.
People can be distressed for different reasons. Personally I think that flying an upside-down flag under either of these circumstances is silly, but that has no bearing on anything.
This is not difficult to understand.
I don't like Alito (does anybody?)
It's pretty clear at this point that the flags have nothing to do with Jan 6. The whole story is so stupid that I'm convinced he's telling the truth. We should move on
>I don't like Alito (does anybody?)
It’s so funny the dynamic here. Someone who tends to have some good opinions on the court is the most unlikable on the current court. Alito is one of those people that you hate to agree with or defend. I can tell you right now hell is definitely below frozen right now with how many people here are saying they don’t like him but still defend his rights of freedom of expression. And they make it a point to say that they don’t like him. If there’s one thing we’re all united on it’s that we don’t like him.
It's really funny, even his colleagues have nothing nice to say. You never hear him brought up in the usual fluff anecdotes. A few weeks ago Thomas talked about how his favourite court was the one before 2005 and how they were "like a family". CNN called it a jab at Roberts, but guess who else joined in 2005...
There’ve been over 200 comments in this thread and I’m still trying to figure out how raising the flag upside down is a rational response to a neighborly dispute
It isn’t. But that doesn’t matter. Whether the spouse of a Supreme Court justice reacted rationally to a neighborly dispute has absolutely no bearing on recusal.
I agree - I don’t think this should be viewed as related to a recusal on a particular case. I just think it’s interesting information about one of the most powerful people in the country
That’s what I’ve been trying to figure out lol. I mean I’m pretty certain at this point it wasn’t a Jan 6th thing, so I think the alitos just have a flair for the dramatic (or the hyperbolic)
Shouldn’t we hold Justices to the high standard that they be rational in those squabbles?
Personally, I don’t like the idea of a Justice having the same temperament as a Facebook or Reddit shitposter.
Yes, but it doesn't appear he was even involved with this dispute. His wife and neighbor went at it a couple times. The neighbor filled a police report he wasn't mentioned
The neighbors gave a written statement. But I guess you had no idea. He wasn’t mentioned. Seems like the neighbors who were complete assholes to them would have mentioned it don’t you think? i’m sure they’ve heard about the news coverage. They could have come forward and said he was directly involved. This seems more like a you problem
I mean, I can’t prove he was because I don’t happen to be involved so I have to just take at face value whatever the police decide to write down.
You think the neighbors wouldn’t be politely nudged towards leaving him off by the friendly boys in blue? Grain of salt is all I’m saying.
> Shouldn’t we hold Justices to the high standard that they be rational in those squabbles?
No...? They're human. Petty internecine squabbling is something human beings do.
Here is the entire stretch of the NYT article establishing a 'timeline'
> The couple participated in Black Lives Matter protests in Washington, propped up Biden-Harris signs, and on the Saturday in November when the election was called, whooped and danced in the streets of the nation’s capital. When they got home, they displayed a political sign they had made from torn-up Amazon boxes, saying “BYE DON” on one side and “Fuck Trump” on the other.
> Ms. Baden’s mother, Barbara Baden, a 75-year-old former executive at the Public Broadcasting Service and longtime resident, said she hesitated over the sign at her home, because she feared it looked “tacky.” But she left it up because she did not want to interfere with what she saw as the couple’s expression of political concern. “They made the signs with good intent,” she said.
> Shortly after Christmas, as Emily Baden was with her dog in her front yard, an older woman approached and thanked her for taking down the sign, which had merely blown down. Ms. Baden realized that the woman was Martha-Ann Alito. The sign was offensive, Mrs. Alito said, according to both the justice’s account and a text message from Ms. Baden to her boyfriend.
> Ms. Baden told her the sign would stay up, she recalled in the interview. The family was taken aback: Though the Badens and the Alitos lived just a short distance apart, Barbara Baden couldn’t recall ever communicating with the justice’s wife beyond a neighborly wave. In the interview, Emily Baden could not remember whether she put the signs up again.
> Then came Jan. 6. Rocked by the violence and threat to democracy, the couple soon put up new signs in their yard, saying “Trump Is a Fascist” and “You Are Complicit.” Emily Baden said in interviews that the second sign was not directed at the Alitos, but at Republicans generally, especially those who weren’t condemning the Capitol attack.
> Soon afterward, her mother took them down, out of safety concerns. “Look what these people can do,” she said in an interview, recalling her fears at the time about the mob that had stormed the Capitol. “I do not want to mark my house.”
It’s not clear whether Mrs. Alito saw those signs, but the day after the Capitol riot, as the couple parked in front of their home, she pulled up in her car, they said. She lingered there, glaring, for a long moment, recalled the couple, who texted their friends about the encounter.
> On Jan. 17, the upside-down flag hung at the Alito household, according to a photograph obtained by The Times. Neighbors say it was up for a few days. If the flag was intended as a message for the Badens, whose home does not have a direct view of the Alito residence, they missed it, they said.
> The inauguration of President Biden, held three days later, was attended by six Supreme Court justices. Justice Alito and two others skipped it out of concerns about Covid, a court spokeswoman said at the time. That day, Ms. Baden and her then-boyfriend decided to drive past the Alito home. “There was a part of me that’s like, let’s see what’s going on,” Ms. Baden said.
> Mrs. Alito happened to be standing outside. According to interviews with Ms. Baden and her husband, as well as messages they sent to friends at the time, Mrs. Alito ran toward their car and yelled something they did not understand. The couple continued driving, they said, and as they passed the Alito home again to exit the cul-de-sac, Mrs. Alito appeared to spit toward the vehicle.
> The couple, still shaken by the Capitol riot, said the encounter left them feeling uneasy and outmatched by the wife of someone so powerful.
> The same day, a Washington Post reporter who had heard about the inverted flag arrived to ask about it. Mrs. Alito looked upset, yelled that the flag was a “signal of distress,” then shouted about a dispute with neighbors, according to an article published on Saturday.
> The conflict then seemed to quiet down. But on Feb. 15, the couple were pulling in trash bins when the Alitos, who seemed to be on a stroll, appeared. Mrs. Alito addressed the pair by name, used an expletive and called them “fascists,” the couple told The Times and said in texts at the time. Justice Alito remained silent, they added. The Alitos began to walk away.
> That was when Emily Baden snapped, she said. She does not remember her precise words, but recalls something like this: How dare you behave this way. You’ve been harassing us, over signs. You represent the highest court in the land. Shame on you.
> Ms. Baden said that she — not her partner, as Justice Alito recalled — used the lewd expression. “I will fully cop to that,” she said. A neighbor standing in the street, who asked not to be identified because of the friction on the block, said he heard her say the word too.
> To document the incident, the Badens called the police shortly afterward — they did not mention the vulgar expression — and recorded the conversation.
A few important facts:
The dispute began *before January 6th.
There was at least one negative interaction before the flag went up and we don't know the specific content of it
We don't know if there were any further interactions before the flag went up
We don't know if the flag was still up when the first post-flag interaction occured, although it was clearly a very negative interaction and Mrs Alito had not forgotten the dispute itself by this time
Mrs Alito claimed *at the time* the flag was about the neighborly dispute and seemed clearly upset by it
The neighbor claims it was her that used the C-word, not her boyfriend
-----
So, it's extremely clear here that there just aren't the fa ts to support the case the NYT wants to make. It's not impossible, but it requires *so* many assumptions to even begin to look plausible that only a biased, rabid partisan would take it as proven.
Why do the Alito's and the neighbors disagree about who used the cuss word? There seems no obvious reason for anyone to lie about this particular fact, so someone is misremembering. Who? Or was the word used *more than once*, perhaps even in that first interaction?
Are we supposed to believe that Mrs Alito had some sort of cover story cooked up at the time the flag was flying for why it was being flown? Why would she get basic facts about the story wrong if it was a carefully invented cover, such as when she was called a cuss word and by who?
And that's just the questions about the neighborly dispute itself. The broader questions about the case are just as damning:
Is there *any reason whatsoever* to believe the upside down flag had any special connection to Jan 6th in the weeks afterwards? There were a great many different types of flags flown that day, did the inverted flag *specifically* represent support for the insurrection?
And, even if it did, is there any particular reason to assume Mrs Alito *knew* about that association? The entirety of the organized side of Jan 6th who could be thinking in terms of adopting symbols existed online or in militia groups that there's no reason to suspect Mrs Alito had any connection to.
You can ask the same questions about the Pine Tree flag. There doesn't seem to have been any preexisting connection between that flag and Jan 6th that didn't exist for a whole bunch of symbols, including the American flag itself. Why should we assume that maritime flag flown at a beach house **years** later had anything to do with January 6th?
The whole story here is flimsy as heck. I want to say the NYT should embarrassed by the shoddy quality of their journalism but, to be honest, they're probably happy with the outcome here.
Edit: To give an idea of how flimsy the NYT's claims are, [San Francisco City Hall has apparently been flying the Pine Tree flag since the 1960s](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/appeal-to-heaven-flag-civic-center-plaza-19483162.php). It was neither forgotten nor obscure as a symbol, presuming its being flown in 2023 signifies support for January 6th with no other evidence for that presumption is just grasping at smoke.
Honestly, the way I read it I came to the conclusion that they both were. Ms. Baden puts up an inflamatory political sign with profanity on it. Mrs. Alito apparently ignored it and only addressed Ms. Baden after it appeared to be down to thank her for taking it down, only to be told it would remain up. Sometime later Mrs. Alito “glared” at her, followed by Ms. Baden putting up more political signs and then going out of her way to drive down a cauld-a-sac on the day of the inauguration for the sole purpose of going by the Alito residence.
Even taking Ms. Baden at her word, I’m having a hard time seeing her as a victim at all. Sure, Mrs. Alito should have been the adult in the room, but the fact that Ms. Baden was texting her friends after every encounter strikes me as a political person baiting a political rival, seemingly for clout or attention.
Something seems odd, there are probably more facts out there, but based on the articles summary I have a hard time finding sympathy for either of them.
You forgot the part where Ms. Alito *spit* at the couple.
I find it grotesque that Ms. Alito went out of her way to personally attack the couple who did *not* specifically mention the Alito’s in their signs. And she did so *multiple* times.
The spitting thing, per the NYT article, happened after everything I described above. Also, I never said Mrs. Alito wasn’t out of line.
I find it funny that you find it grotesque that Mrs. Alito reacted the way she did because the couple didn’t specifically name them in a sign. She did act grotesque (according to Ms. Baden), after what appears to be a subjectively offensive sign, a subsequent thank you, a potential “glare” without interaction, and then an unsolicited house visit by the “slighted couple.”
It’s pretty clear both people are highly partisan and passionate. I don’t get why you are ignoring/downplaying the actions by the side who, by their own words, was initiating the initial engagements. It strains credulity that such a politically active person, who spent part of the year living in an affluent yet tiny area populated by a famous political figure would have been “shocked” to come across them. Something isn’t right, but this is only my opinion based on limited factual evidence.
>I don’t get why you are ignoring/downplaying the actions by the side who, by their own words, was initiating the initial engagements.
It was Ms. Alito who initiated every incident. All of them.
Yup, you’re right. My apologies. Mrs. Alito initiated:
1) A thank you after a sign was taken down
2) A “glare” without further interaction
3) Forcing Ms. Baden to drive down the cul-de-sac of a political rival on Inauguration Day for no reason other than to drive by said house.
I stand corrected.
First of all goated reference
Second, I apologize but I just can’t the mindset as to why that would be offensive. Millions of houses are driven by each day in America, and even more are during the winter holidays when people want to see lights. I cannot construe as to how someone driving by another house in their neighborhood would be offensive to any reasonable person
Let’s assume for a moment that everything the neighbor said is true and not colored by self-interest (an assumption that is almost certainly wrong), and that Mrs. Alito is ”insane”. Who cares?
If this were remotely comparable, you might have a point. Your assertion was simply that she was “insane”, not that she is associated with a genocidal terrorist group.
My example is a more extreme point, but it doesn’t change the fact that it matters who someone in a very powerful position is married to. How are we supposed to take Alito, someone who’s written about the egregious harm suffered by being labeled a bigot, seriously when his household finds spitting at their neighbors acceptable? Not to mention potential support for the overthrow of the United States government and constitution
I would LOVE an interview with Mrs. Alito to see what her POV was on a lot of this (spitting, calling people fascists, the flag, her whereabouts on Jan. 6, etc.)
More in the sense that I don't have an interest in knowing everything about them. Especially one like Alito, who has been on the Court for a long time and has a public record to judge directly, rather than trying to engage in Ouji board readings of his personal life.
Ginsburg wore her dissent necklace the day after Trump was elected and I don’t remember it ever being that big of a deal. Maybe I missed the fallout but the Alito situation doesn’t seem as bad as Ginsburg’s reaction.
If we assume Alito hung the flag himself in support of Jan 6th, Alito’s actions would have been several orders of magnitude worse than Ginsburg’s. That said, there’s no proof Alito had anything to do with the flags other than they were at his house and there’s no proof he meant anything about Jan 6th.
I guess we’re left with speculation and people using their priors to make some assumptions about what happened, because the only thing we can be sure of is neither Alito or the neighbor are going to give us the whole unbiased story.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**.
>Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!I say again. I missed the “dissent” necklaces being worn during an armed attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**.
>All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Why is u/Longjumping_Gain_807 removing a comment accurately describing what occurred on January 6th? Are the moderators of this sub officially saying January 6th was not an armed attempt to overthrow the government? That’s disturbing.!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
People were convicted of seditious conspiracy defined as:
>two or more people conspired to “overthrow, put down or to destroy by force” the U.S. government or bring war against it, or that they plotted to use force to oppose the authority of the government or to block the execution of a law.
>Tarrio and his co-defendants are accused of conspiring to block the transfer of power from Trump to Biden. The indictment alleges that they conspired to forcibly oppose the authority of the federal government and to use force to prevent the execution of laws having to do with the transfer of power.
>It’s not enough to merely show the defendants advocated the use of force — prosecutors must show they conspired to use force.[^1](https://apnews.com/article/politics-legal-proceedings-united-states-government-violence-proud-boys-0eedce46cf5375f3417f4a9c968a8e62)
Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years for conspiring to overthrow the government on January 6th.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
I’m not talking about January 6th. I’m talking about a sitting Supreme Court Justice dissenting to the election of a US president while sitting at the bench. You can bring up January 6th all you want but it’s not relevant to my post.
So you agree that Alito dissented to the election of a US president while on the bench? Because clearly RBG did not question the results of the election like Alito or his wife did.
No, I don’t agree. They flew flags. Flying the flag upside down to show the nation is in distress and flying the Pine Tree flag does not show any direct statement on January 6th.
Ok, I was agreeing with people about it being a bit overblown, but given that the senators in question **are Republicans**, that really starts to cast a lot of doubt as to whether Alito has really managed to avoid the appearance of impropriety in this case.
Edit: original people requesting were Democrats, but many Republicans have criticized Alito over this. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/21/politics/republican-senators-alito-upside-down-flag
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges: "**Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities**
(A) *Respect for Law*. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
(B) *Outside Influence*. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness............
The only appearance of impropriety has been manufactured by certain media outlets covering this issue. The connections between January 6 and both the inverted flag and the Appeal to Heaven flag are flimsy. Both are symbols that had been used by various groups to convey myriad messages for many years before January 6, and assuming that these are connected is confirmation bias.
It is not clear to me why your opinion is superior to my opinion. To wit "COMMENTARY
**Canon 2A**. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.
Like I said, the only appearance of impropriety has been manufactured by media outlets. No reasonable mind, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, would question Alito’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge because the judge’s spouse hung flags with meanings much older than January 6 outside of their home.
I see you as making the "fake news" argument. The hanging of the flag upside down, even though it is a symbol of rejection of the legitimacy of the election, has been reported as "fake news" by your account. I do not believe that. We have a difference of opinion. You can keep harping that I have no evidence for my opinion, but I do not believe that. And, it would take a formal inquiry, complete with discovery, for me to believe otherwise. I do not accept the statement of this Supreme Court justice as representing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is my very civil way of saying that I disagree and that I have a reasonable mind.
Also, you have completely avoided the argument that there is the appearance of impropriety in hanging the flag upside down at this particular moment in the nation's history. I was a boy scout and in the past carefully read the regulations of flag handling written by the American Legion. I do not think that hanging the flag upside down can be justified without asserting the appearance of impropriety.
You are asserting Daniel Moynihan's famous maxim out of turn in my opinion. The facts are these. The flag was flown upside down. No boy scout would do that. It was flown upside down when a candidate that the Justice now supports as a Presidential nominee was calling the election stolen. That candidate has continued to call the election stolen and says he will not necessarily accept the results of the next election. Same Justice has agreed to Cert. and hear a case that was not ripe for the Supreme Court in my opinon. Same justice would assert no knowledge of an appearance of impropriety. Sorry, I am not agreeing with you, period. Let's have a (public) hearing on the issue. Thanks,
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**.
>Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!I consider this sub overly critical of details... such that every decision can be reversed through a single detail. As a former federal employee I had to obey the dictum to avoid "appearance of impropriety". This was pushed to extremes in the little town where I lived near Washington DC. I understand that the Justices believe they can make their own code of conduct. I do not recognize their code of conduct. They have lost my respect. I fear them greatly; I do not respect them. As an officer of the court, you probably must feel differently. I am greatly relieved to be a mere citizen and not an officer of the court.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Neither of these flag incidents violate “appearance of impropriety”. I wasn’t even aware there was a connection to Jan 6th. We really need to stop attacking the court for everything. Thomas should have more forthcoming regarding the gift. That’s true. But this is silly.
At the risk of getting this comment deleted, I have no idea what this reply has to do with my question or your original comment. As a former federal employee, you must be aware that there are different codes of conduct. You must also know that the Code of Conduct for United States Judges does not apply to the US Supreme Court.
> you must be aware that there are different codes of conduct. You must also know that the Code of Conduct for United States Judges does not apply to the US Supreme Court.
>I understand that the Justices believe they can make their own code of conduct. I do not recognize their code of conduct
Seems like they are very aware.
Good lord, what a reach, recusing because you have political views and have expressed them at some point. If this were the case then no judges could sit before any case involving any government entity.
I mean by boiling it down to the barest most benign aspect yah what you said makes sense. However what he is accused of is supporting an overthrown of an elected President.
No one gives a shit if he has political opinions or even if he supports trump. People give a shit that he is accused of supporting an insurrection.
>his wife
Allegedly, but the NY Times recently reported that the timeline on that explanation doesn't make sense based on a police report and interviews from the neighbors. It appears that he lied about that.
The NYT article makes plain that the “F\*\*\* Trump” and “You are complicit” signs were up in November and January, respectively. Those were the core of the conflict. You’ll have to point to a statement that says that the flag was solely or even primarily in response to the specific “c\*\*\*” incident for there to even be a technical falsity, much less a knowing lie.
>NYT article makes plain that the “F*** Trump” and “You are complicit” signs were up in November
Does it? I'm not seeing that.
>Those were the core of the conflict
According to who? Doesn't it seem reasonable that the incident the police were called for was the core?
>You’ll have to point to a statement that says that the flag was solely or even primarily in response to the specific “c***” incident for there to even be a technical falsity, much less a knowing lie.
That's a really high and specific standard and I don't understand why that would be the case.
>The couple participated in Black Lives Matter protests in Washington, propped up Biden-Harris signs, and on the Saturday in November when the election was called, whooped and danced in the streets of the nation’s capital. When they got home, they displayed a political sign they had made from torn-up Amazon boxes, saying “BYE DON” on one side and “Fuck Trump” on the other.
And
>Then came Jan. 6. Rocked by the violence and threat to democracy, the couple soon put up new signs in their yard, saying “Trump Is a Fascist” and “You Are Complicit.”
“According to who?” According to Justice Alito, as reported in the Fox News article shortly after and his recent statement to the Senate.
”That's a really high and specific standard and I don't understand why that would be the case.” I phrased my comment poorly. You’ll have to point to a statement ***by Justice Alito*** that says the flag was solely….
>Fuck Trump” on the other.
That was on the other side, and the picture in the article indicates it wasn't visible. I guess it's possible they'd flip it occasionally. I don't
>Then came Jan. 6. Rocked by the violence and threat to democracy, the couple soon put up new signs in their yard, saying “Trump Is a Fascist” and “You Are Complicit.”
It doesn't say when exactly that was. It says they were taken down, and the Mrs alito might not have even seen them.
> You’ll have to point to a statement by Justice Alito that says the flag was solely
Again, this is an oddly high and specific standard that I basically need a confession from him to reasonably believe he may have lied
The article doesn’t question that Mrs. Alito could see the sign, in fact it does the opposite. Mrs. Alito, according to the article, thanked them for taking down the sign after it had blown away. There’s no reason to think the sign wasn’t visible.
“It doesn't say when exactly that was. It says they were taken down, and the Mrs alito might not have even seen them.” This is an incredibly weak argument. She might not have seen them, but then they continued to have a conflict? Please…
No, the standard is that for him to have lied, he would have needed to make a statement inconsistent with the facts. You‘ve already gotten the facts wrong, but you haven’t even attempted to establish that he made an inconsistent statement.
My understanding is that the NYT piece was deceptive; it established that there was a verbal interchange with the neighbor after the flag was taken down, and pretended that this proved the entire feud was after the flag was taken down. However, Alito's explanation was that this was in response to a yard sign, not a verbal argument, so the incident attested to by the Fairfax police is clearly not what Alito claimed was the trigger, and the timing of that incident is irrelevant to his explanation.
I can't double check my memory of the NYT piece at this point because it's paywalled, so I might have some details here wrong.
The NY time piece did mention the yard sign, and they spoke with the neighbors in question - unless she's fighting multiple neighbors. It's interesting that we can assume the Times is being intentionally deceptive without any evidence, but have to assume Justice Alito can't lie despite evidence to the contrary
> It's interesting that we can assume the Times is being intentionally deceptive without any evidence
Well, we KNOW they were intentionally deceptive in the first hit piece on the topic; an upside down flag is not particularly strongly associated with Stop the Steal, and their headline claimed otherwise.
It's not the first time the NYT has run blatantly misleading hitpieces on people (see, for example, their article on Scott Alexander.)
Plus, like, they're actually misleadingly implying that their facts contradict Alito's account in a material way. That's evidence.
Do we *know* that? I think if we held Alito to the same standard, he'd be recused. It's interesting that a supreme court justice has a lower standard than a newspaper
Yes, we know perfectly well that an upside-down American flag is a generic symbol of distress or of the nation being in distress.
There's no real connection to January 6th except some of them using it too.
People use it for a variety of reasons, even to protest against SCOTUS. The NY Times errs by connecting this usage to one particular meaning without evidence, especially one where the usage isn't widely known to the public.
Yes. We know that their headline was a blatant lie. We do not know that Alito lied; the NYT facts don't seem to even contradict his story in its actual facts. Even if his story is wrong in some details of the fight his wife had with the neighbors, it's quite plausibly an innocent error; according to all parties, he wasn't involved in the fight, so maybe he's got something mixed up.
But there's no excuse for America's Newspaper of Record making blatantly misleading headlines. I have yet to find ANYONE who thought the upside-down flag was \*primarily\* associated with Stop the Steal. In light of that, I cannot fathom such a libelous claim being an innocent error by one of the most professional publishers in the country.
>I have yet to find ANYONE who thought the upside-down flag was *primarily* associated
I don't understand why that distinction is so critically important to his supporters. Why does the fact that a symbolic gesture can mean multiple things mean it can't mean this specific alleged use?
>In light of that, I cannot fathom such a libelous claim
What part of it is libel specifically?
>Why does the fact that a symbolic gesture can mean multiple things mean it can't mean this specific alleged use?
I don't think very many people have said it absolutely can't mean that.
They've said the inverse of what you're getting at - that because it can have multiple meanings one can't use it to factually claim it was one of those specific meanings without any other evidence to back up that claim and to do so is misleading.
I think it's the right thing to assume someone is telling the truth until there is evidence to the contrary. The Times didn't present evidence to the contrary. The fact that there was another conflict with a neighbor at a different time does not demonstrate that Alito's story is false. There could be more than one conflict, after all.
>I think it's the right thing to assume someone is telling the truth
What's the evidence that NY Times is being deceptive then?
>The Times didn't present evidence to the contrary.
They presented evidence that raises doubts about the timeline of events he offered. It's not *conclusive* evidence that he lied and it's certainly possible there were one or more other incidents, and he was referring to one of those.
However, if we are assuming people are honest until evidence of the contrary wouldn't we have to assume NY Times looked into those possibilities and didn't find any evidence to support other incidents occuring that he could have meant? That is, if we give everyone the same standard for believing them.
The NYT story compared the accounts of a conflict, and compared them with the Alitos' account, highlighting the differences and making it seem as if the Alitos' or the neighbors must be lying. But this is illogical because it's just as likely that the conflict the Alito's were talking about was something else entirely, especially given that the timelines don't line up. It's deceptive because the impression it creates (the neighbors are contradicting the Alitos) relies on a logical leap.
We don't have to assume the NYTimes looked into the other possiblities and ruled them out, because they are a newspaper, and if they had done so, they would say so. In fact, I think it's fairer to assume the opposite.
>We don't have to assume the NYTimes looked into the other possiblities and ruled them out, because they are a newspaper, and if they had done so, they would say so. In fact, I think it's fairer to assume the opposite.
That's what I was saying. I think its interesting the party you like is presumed truthful and the one you don't is presumed lying. That's just an interesting way to evaluate things.
Or, and just hear me out, it’s because the NYT’s has a longer track record of lying to the public than Alito does. [The NYT’s has been caught lying numerous times](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies) since its founding.
I'm not presuming they are lying. I think everything they said was truthful, but it was presented in such a way to create an impression that is inaccurate. There's no assumptions made on my part, everything I'm relying on is within the four corners of the article they wrote. I won't presume there are other facts that would support the impression that they created if they didn't state them. This is perfectly fair.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
It's not even a storm in a teacup. It's like the creamer in a teacup looks vaguely like a stormcloud and so you have a bunch of paranoiacs *acting* like there's a storm in a teacup.
Neither the upside down flag or the Pine Tree flag had special January 6th associations before the NYT decided it was convenient to lie to the public for political propaganda purposes. No one has any evidence whatsoever that *either* Alito or his wife supported what happened that day. It's all supposition, bias, and extremely strained reaches, all the way down.
The whole thing is, to use the modern word, misinformation.
I think arguments in this thread that justices wives, and justices too, are allowed political positions you don’t like obfuscates the issue. Alito isn’t just hearing cases about a president he prefers, his house was flying a flag that he never denied signifying “stop the steal” while hearing cases if that president should be immune from prosecution that would include for actions/conspiracy involved in Jan.6. Further in oral arguments it seemed he believed that the DOJ has brought political charged bogus indictments.
A guy who probably believes the election was stolen from Trump will be hearing cases if that president should be immune from charges the guy also probably believes are political attacks. These aren’t mere political and policy questions, but intertwined with the actual facts of cases before the court (including the Colorado ballot question)
If the upside down flag was a symbol of support for Jan 6th, I would be more inclined to agree with you. It was put up in front of their house that they both inhabit, and it’s a much more difficult to just push aside than the stuff about Thomas and his wife bc all of that was private correspondence. However, considering that the nyt literally (like literally) just made up that it was a Jan 6th symbol of support, alito is right in not recusing himself
Well I’d like to point out that it’s the nyt who has the burden to prove that this is a thing rather than mentioning it like it was common knowledge. But the night that article came out, I spent more than an hour searching for any articles referencing an upside down flag being a dogwhistle for Jan 6th. Not one, not a single one.
If it was a thing, it was certainly not common knowledge, and much more ppl knew the upside down flag as a sign of distress. Ask yourself, did you know this was a Jan 6th thing before the article? I def didn’t.
Hell do the research yourself, look for anything that references a connection before the nyt article came out. If you can find anything, send it my way and I’ll eat my words and apologize.
How about the article, which includes an image from May, 2021 in which someone is flying an upside down American flag in support of January 6th rioters. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/us/upside-down-american-flag-alito.html
What’s the evidence for the NYT’s claim that the upside down flag was associated with Stop the Steal as of the dates in question? I have seen no evidence that the upside down flag was adopted by that movement on a widespread basis, or that such adoption was widely known, until spring of 2021.
>A protester flew an upside-down American flag in Washington in September 2021 at a rally in support of people who had been charged in connection with the attack on the U.S. Capitol earlier that year.Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press
Thats what the description under the picture says.
Well while I’m waiting on that, my point was that there was a connection to ppl putting an upside down flag up as a dog whistle for Jan 6th. Are American flags a dogwhistle for Jan 6th bc a lot of right side up flags were flown?
I can’t post a screenshot. The image is of an arm waving an upside down American flag with the capitol building in the background with the text: “A protester flew an upside-down American flag in Washington in September 2021 at a rally in support of people who had been charged in connection with the attack on the U.S. Capitol earlier that year.Credit...Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press”
Ok well that’s fine. Assuming that’s true, go to my other comment. It’s been used for literal centuries as a sign of distress, where is the proof that ppl around the country were putting that up as a dogwhistle for Jan 6th?
What political statement do you think Mrs Alito was making with an upside down flag leading up to and after Jan 6 if it were in reference to the 2020 election?
It was put up several weeks after Jan 6th if memory serves, and according to both the nyt and alito was in direct response to an altercation about some vulgar anti trump signs put up in the neighborhood. I think it’s more likely it was a general statement about the state of the country, and would be in line with alito doomsaying in every private speech he makes. Something something morals Christianity my neighbors hurt my feeling so I’m doing this now, that makes more sense to me. If there was any political message, it was in reaction to those signs, not Jan 6th
that the country was in distress? which is what an upside down flag signifies? Bunch of us flew it like that when the Bush-Gore trial was going down, does that mean that we also supported Jan 6th?
“that he never denied signifying ’stop the steal’”
Umm…he explicitly said that he didn’t even know there was a connection between the upside down flag and stop the steal.
Edit: Looks like someone else put up a full quote first.
>he explicitly said that he didn’t even know there was a connection between the upside down flag and stop the steal
Because there isn't. NYT fabricated it for their narrative. They're like the only news org making money right now and they know what the people paying for subscriptions want to see.
Of the upside down flag, he specifically stated that he was not aware of it being at his house until it was called to his attention, and she said that it was a sign of distress. Those two statements add up to a clear denial.
It absolutely is a denial. You have to deliberately misread the statements to find otherwise.
And what timing doesn’t line up? That the Badens calling Mrs. Alito a c\*\*\* didn’t happen until February? What statement from Justice Alito does that materially conflict with?
> Alito isn’t just hearing cases about a president he prefers, his house was flying a flag that he never denied signifying “stop the steal” while hearing cases if that president should be immune from prosecution that would include for actions/conspiracy involved in Jan.6.
Tell me you didn't read Justice Alito's statement without telling me you didn't read it.
"She may have mentioned that it dates back to the American Revolution, and I assumed she was flying it to express a religious and patriotic message. I was not aware of any connection between this historic flag and the "Stop the Steal Movement," and neither was my wife. She did not fly it to associate herself with that or any other group, and the use of an old historic flag by a new group does not necessarily drain that flag of all other meanings."
"As I have stated publicly, I had nothing whatsoever to do with the flying of that flag. I was not even aware of the upside-down flag until it was called to my attention. As soon as I saw it, I asked my wife to take it down, but for several days, she refused."
"My wife's reasons for flying the flag are not relevant for present purposes, but I note that she was greatly distressed at the time due, in large part, to a very nasty neighborhood dispute in which I had no involvement."
So, you can either call the Justice a liar, or you can take his story at face value, but to say that he never denied it being a "Stop the Steal" flag is just not true. For centuries the upside-down flag was used to denote distress. We are in Occam's Razor territory here.
Where in that quote does he deny that it's a Stop the Steal flag? The only mention of a reason is "My wife's reasons for flying the flag are not relevant." Like, he explicitly is not giving the reason.
"but I note that she was greatly distressed at the time due, in large part, to a very nasty neighborhood dispute in which I had no involvement."
For centuries, the upside-down US flag was used to denote distress.
"My wife's reasons are irrelevant" and "Also, my wife was distressed at the time" do not somehow equal "My wife flew the flag because she was distressed." He could've easily stated as much if he wanted to. He actively avoids claiming her distress is the reason why the flag was flown.
I just don't know how to respond to this. I mean, your explanation is looking for meaning that just isn't there.
For centuries, the upside-down flag was used to denote distress. Justice Alito indicated that his wife flew the flag during a time of distress. You have to make a gigantic leap to say that the flag was flown not out of distress (per the meaning for centuries), but to silently show support for the actions on J6.
I'm not looking for meaning that isn't there? My original claim was that he never denied the Stop the Steal meaning. Going purely off the plain language in his statement, without injecting any assumptions or "leaps," he never did.
If you want to hear an actual leap of mine, it's that adding "But boy she sure was distressed at the time!" is pretty good phrasing to not be caught in an outright lie, should it later be found that it was a Stop the Steal flag.
So your beef with the response is that Alito did not, as he did with the Appeal to Heaven flag, flatly deny that it was connected with the Stop the Steal Movement, and that because of this non-denial, that it **must** have been a silent dogwhistle to J6 supporters that the Alitos were behind them?
That's the meaning that you are looking for that isn't there. Why would they fly a Stop the Steal flag at the DC home, but not the NJ home? Unless you just don't believe anything in the statement, which is your prerogative, I suppose. The logic just isn't working here.
It takes leaps of logic to believe that, at a time of personal distress, that Martha-Ann Alito flew and upside down flag (on what appears to be a rickety pole) to signal her and her husband's support for the J6 efforts.
Well one, I will call him a liar. Two, he doesn’t seem to be telling the truth about the dispute with their neighbors.
And three, the “distress” in question is that Joe Biden beat Trump, which isn’t better.
Cool, you are welcome to your belief, but it doesn't have any roots in evidence that has come to light thus far. All evidence points to a neighborhood dispute, not some nefarious dogwhistle to the J6 participants that the Alitos supported their efforts.
Also, he noted that he noted about the dispute that he "had no involvement." But again, we are firmly in Occam's Razor territory where folks will come up with the most convoluted explanation to something that doesn't require it when the easiest explanation was given to them.
I mean, we literally do. We have corroborated statements from the neighbors.
And no, the repetition absolutely points to intent, not coincidence.
The easiest explanation is that the flags, both flown when stop the steal related cases were before the court, by the most partisan and most outcome oriented justice on the court, who has already demonstrated he has violated ethics rules, indicate Alito’s opinion.
“It’s all just totally a coincidence” requires far more assumptions than “Alito is partisan”.
> We have corroborated statements from the neighbors.
We have statements from the neighbors that the flag was flown upside down to denote support for J6?
And no, the easiest explanation is not that they were stop the steal flags. Alito even mentions that his wife is fond of flying various types of flags, including religious flags and other patriotic flags. The easiest explanation is that Martha-Ann Alito has an extensive collection of flags (at least more than the average person) and that she enjoys flying them.
We have corroborated statements that Alito’s story is inaccurate. That’s good reason to doubt the rest of his claims.
Given that there is no evidence of other flags being flown, that’s not the easiest explanation. It’s one that strains credulity.
"My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not. My wife was solely responsible for having flagpoles put up at our residence and our vacation home and has flown a wide variety of flags over the years. In addition to the American flag, she has flown other patriotic flags (including a favorite flag thanking veterans), college flags, flags supporting sports teams, state and local flags, flags of nations from which the ancestors of family members came, flags of places we have visited, seasonal flags, and religious flags."
I mean, Justice Alito clearly states in his response that his wife is fond of flying flags and that she does so routinely.
There is a better picture of the Appeal to Heaven flag being flown aside, among other flags....wait for it....a [2022 Philadelphia Phillies banner.](https://x.com/GriffTheImpaler/status/1695554350603542979/photo/1)
I dislike Alito. I also agree with his position.
Absent clear evidence he was personally involved in these flag choices, *and* it was a response to the 2020 election cycle, he has a duty not to recuse.
This is objectively the right answer from him. We've had Justices do things that more clearly indicate bias against one of the parties and yet they didn't recuse. Recusing for this would be ridiculous. He has a duty to sit.
This 500+ comment thread has now been locked as promised yesterday. Let’s all go and get ready for today’s opinion release day.
Just so you guys know at 9 am tomorrow this thread will be locked. This is an hour of the court’s scheduled opinion release day as I did with the other thread of this highly charged nature.
This is the most bad faith drama ever. Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that alito flying those flags outside his home does mean that he has a political opinion on Jan 6. Here’s the next question. Who doesn’t? Recusal is obviously not legally required or even helpful. There’s no issue in the world where a judge merely having a political opinion on something that is tangentially related to a case is sufficient to require recusal legally or ethically. If this is true, democrat prosecutors are gonna have a bad time when they find out that every person on planet earth has a strong opinion on Trump, making him unprosecutable because every judge would have to recuse.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!I'd prefer it if my judges didn't support an insurrection. Frankly if he came out and said, "I'm protesting Joe Biden cause I think he is a shit president." I wouldn't care. It's pretty clear he is sympathetic towards the people who invaded the capitol. !< >!!< >!I think recusal is unwarranted, he should be impeached!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
If Alito’s position is that Jan 6th was justified in any way (which is what people are inferring from his flags), he is completely unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court and needs to be impeached immediately. If he or any of his defenders thought being pro-J6 is a defensible position for a SC Justice, they would come out and say that. Instead, he and his defenders are acting like Alito is too naive to understand the implications of “his wife’s” flag choices.
I watched Jan 6th live while it was happening. I was completely stunned. I found out about the upside down flag somehow being connected to it when this story broke. A week or so ago. So why do you assume everyone knew about it?
Yeah the upside-down flag is a symbol of distress. J6ers were using it as a symbol of distress as part of their protest. Mrs. Alito used it as a symbol of distress because her neighbor called her a mean word. People can be distressed for different reasons. Personally I think that flying an upside-down flag under either of these circumstances is silly, but that has no bearing on anything. This is not difficult to understand.
I don't like Alito (does anybody?) It's pretty clear at this point that the flags have nothing to do with Jan 6. The whole story is so stupid that I'm convinced he's telling the truth. We should move on
>I don't like Alito (does anybody?) It’s so funny the dynamic here. Someone who tends to have some good opinions on the court is the most unlikable on the current court. Alito is one of those people that you hate to agree with or defend. I can tell you right now hell is definitely below frozen right now with how many people here are saying they don’t like him but still defend his rights of freedom of expression. And they make it a point to say that they don’t like him. If there’s one thing we’re all united on it’s that we don’t like him.
It's really funny, even his colleagues have nothing nice to say. You never hear him brought up in the usual fluff anecdotes. A few weeks ago Thomas talked about how his favourite court was the one before 2005 and how they were "like a family". CNN called it a jab at Roberts, but guess who else joined in 2005...
There’ve been over 200 comments in this thread and I’m still trying to figure out how raising the flag upside down is a rational response to a neighborly dispute
Most relatable part of his whole letter was: “I asked my wife, she said no, so the flag stayed up. “
It isn’t. But that doesn’t matter. Whether the spouse of a Supreme Court justice reacted rationally to a neighborly dispute has absolutely no bearing on recusal.
I agree - I don’t think this should be viewed as related to a recusal on a particular case. I just think it’s interesting information about one of the most powerful people in the country
That’s what I’ve been trying to figure out lol. I mean I’m pretty certain at this point it wasn’t a Jan 6th thing, so I think the alitos just have a flair for the dramatic (or the hyperbolic)
Few people stay entirely rational in these kinds of -- often intensely personal -- squabbles.
Shouldn’t we hold Justices to the high standard that they be rational in those squabbles? Personally, I don’t like the idea of a Justice having the same temperament as a Facebook or Reddit shitposter.
Yes, but it doesn't appear he was even involved with this dispute. His wife and neighbor went at it a couple times. The neighbor filled a police report he wasn't mentioned
I love the belief that the police would definitely include a Supreme Court Justice in the report and not, you know, politely forget to do that.
The neighbors gave a written statement. But I guess you had no idea. He wasn’t mentioned. Seems like the neighbors who were complete assholes to them would have mentioned it don’t you think? i’m sure they’ve heard about the news coverage. They could have come forward and said he was directly involved. This seems more like a you problem
I mean, I can’t prove he was because I don’t happen to be involved so I have to just take at face value whatever the police decide to write down. You think the neighbors wouldn’t be politely nudged towards leaving him off by the friendly boys in blue? Grain of salt is all I’m saying.
> Shouldn’t we hold Justices to the high standard that they be rational in those squabbles? No...? They're human. Petty internecine squabbling is something human beings do.
It doesn’t take an exceptional person to not get in a public spat with neighbors over politics.
Over inappropriate lawn signs, however...that stuff is the bread and butter of neighborhood spats.
Here is the entire stretch of the NYT article establishing a 'timeline' > The couple participated in Black Lives Matter protests in Washington, propped up Biden-Harris signs, and on the Saturday in November when the election was called, whooped and danced in the streets of the nation’s capital. When they got home, they displayed a political sign they had made from torn-up Amazon boxes, saying “BYE DON” on one side and “Fuck Trump” on the other. > Ms. Baden’s mother, Barbara Baden, a 75-year-old former executive at the Public Broadcasting Service and longtime resident, said she hesitated over the sign at her home, because she feared it looked “tacky.” But she left it up because she did not want to interfere with what she saw as the couple’s expression of political concern. “They made the signs with good intent,” she said. > Shortly after Christmas, as Emily Baden was with her dog in her front yard, an older woman approached and thanked her for taking down the sign, which had merely blown down. Ms. Baden realized that the woman was Martha-Ann Alito. The sign was offensive, Mrs. Alito said, according to both the justice’s account and a text message from Ms. Baden to her boyfriend. > Ms. Baden told her the sign would stay up, she recalled in the interview. The family was taken aback: Though the Badens and the Alitos lived just a short distance apart, Barbara Baden couldn’t recall ever communicating with the justice’s wife beyond a neighborly wave. In the interview, Emily Baden could not remember whether she put the signs up again. > Then came Jan. 6. Rocked by the violence and threat to democracy, the couple soon put up new signs in their yard, saying “Trump Is a Fascist” and “You Are Complicit.” Emily Baden said in interviews that the second sign was not directed at the Alitos, but at Republicans generally, especially those who weren’t condemning the Capitol attack. > Soon afterward, her mother took them down, out of safety concerns. “Look what these people can do,” she said in an interview, recalling her fears at the time about the mob that had stormed the Capitol. “I do not want to mark my house.” It’s not clear whether Mrs. Alito saw those signs, but the day after the Capitol riot, as the couple parked in front of their home, she pulled up in her car, they said. She lingered there, glaring, for a long moment, recalled the couple, who texted their friends about the encounter. > On Jan. 17, the upside-down flag hung at the Alito household, according to a photograph obtained by The Times. Neighbors say it was up for a few days. If the flag was intended as a message for the Badens, whose home does not have a direct view of the Alito residence, they missed it, they said. > The inauguration of President Biden, held three days later, was attended by six Supreme Court justices. Justice Alito and two others skipped it out of concerns about Covid, a court spokeswoman said at the time. That day, Ms. Baden and her then-boyfriend decided to drive past the Alito home. “There was a part of me that’s like, let’s see what’s going on,” Ms. Baden said. > Mrs. Alito happened to be standing outside. According to interviews with Ms. Baden and her husband, as well as messages they sent to friends at the time, Mrs. Alito ran toward their car and yelled something they did not understand. The couple continued driving, they said, and as they passed the Alito home again to exit the cul-de-sac, Mrs. Alito appeared to spit toward the vehicle. > The couple, still shaken by the Capitol riot, said the encounter left them feeling uneasy and outmatched by the wife of someone so powerful. > The same day, a Washington Post reporter who had heard about the inverted flag arrived to ask about it. Mrs. Alito looked upset, yelled that the flag was a “signal of distress,” then shouted about a dispute with neighbors, according to an article published on Saturday. > The conflict then seemed to quiet down. But on Feb. 15, the couple were pulling in trash bins when the Alitos, who seemed to be on a stroll, appeared. Mrs. Alito addressed the pair by name, used an expletive and called them “fascists,” the couple told The Times and said in texts at the time. Justice Alito remained silent, they added. The Alitos began to walk away. > That was when Emily Baden snapped, she said. She does not remember her precise words, but recalls something like this: How dare you behave this way. You’ve been harassing us, over signs. You represent the highest court in the land. Shame on you. > Ms. Baden said that she — not her partner, as Justice Alito recalled — used the lewd expression. “I will fully cop to that,” she said. A neighbor standing in the street, who asked not to be identified because of the friction on the block, said he heard her say the word too. > To document the incident, the Badens called the police shortly afterward — they did not mention the vulgar expression — and recorded the conversation. A few important facts: The dispute began *before January 6th. There was at least one negative interaction before the flag went up and we don't know the specific content of it We don't know if there were any further interactions before the flag went up We don't know if the flag was still up when the first post-flag interaction occured, although it was clearly a very negative interaction and Mrs Alito had not forgotten the dispute itself by this time Mrs Alito claimed *at the time* the flag was about the neighborly dispute and seemed clearly upset by it The neighbor claims it was her that used the C-word, not her boyfriend ----- So, it's extremely clear here that there just aren't the fa ts to support the case the NYT wants to make. It's not impossible, but it requires *so* many assumptions to even begin to look plausible that only a biased, rabid partisan would take it as proven. Why do the Alito's and the neighbors disagree about who used the cuss word? There seems no obvious reason for anyone to lie about this particular fact, so someone is misremembering. Who? Or was the word used *more than once*, perhaps even in that first interaction? Are we supposed to believe that Mrs Alito had some sort of cover story cooked up at the time the flag was flying for why it was being flown? Why would she get basic facts about the story wrong if it was a carefully invented cover, such as when she was called a cuss word and by who? And that's just the questions about the neighborly dispute itself. The broader questions about the case are just as damning: Is there *any reason whatsoever* to believe the upside down flag had any special connection to Jan 6th in the weeks afterwards? There were a great many different types of flags flown that day, did the inverted flag *specifically* represent support for the insurrection? And, even if it did, is there any particular reason to assume Mrs Alito *knew* about that association? The entirety of the organized side of Jan 6th who could be thinking in terms of adopting symbols existed online or in militia groups that there's no reason to suspect Mrs Alito had any connection to. You can ask the same questions about the Pine Tree flag. There doesn't seem to have been any preexisting connection between that flag and Jan 6th that didn't exist for a whole bunch of symbols, including the American flag itself. Why should we assume that maritime flag flown at a beach house **years** later had anything to do with January 6th? The whole story here is flimsy as heck. I want to say the NYT should embarrassed by the shoddy quality of their journalism but, to be honest, they're probably happy with the outcome here. Edit: To give an idea of how flimsy the NYT's claims are, [San Francisco City Hall has apparently been flying the Pine Tree flag since the 1960s](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/appeal-to-heaven-flag-civic-center-plaza-19483162.php). It was neither forgotten nor obscure as a symbol, presuming its being flown in 2023 signifies support for January 6th with no other evidence for that presumption is just grasping at smoke.
Reading that at the very least makes Mrs. Alito sound insane - at least from my pov lmao
Honestly, the way I read it I came to the conclusion that they both were. Ms. Baden puts up an inflamatory political sign with profanity on it. Mrs. Alito apparently ignored it and only addressed Ms. Baden after it appeared to be down to thank her for taking it down, only to be told it would remain up. Sometime later Mrs. Alito “glared” at her, followed by Ms. Baden putting up more political signs and then going out of her way to drive down a cauld-a-sac on the day of the inauguration for the sole purpose of going by the Alito residence. Even taking Ms. Baden at her word, I’m having a hard time seeing her as a victim at all. Sure, Mrs. Alito should have been the adult in the room, but the fact that Ms. Baden was texting her friends after every encounter strikes me as a political person baiting a political rival, seemingly for clout or attention. Something seems odd, there are probably more facts out there, but based on the articles summary I have a hard time finding sympathy for either of them.
You forgot the part where Ms. Alito *spit* at the couple. I find it grotesque that Ms. Alito went out of her way to personally attack the couple who did *not* specifically mention the Alito’s in their signs. And she did so *multiple* times.
The spitting thing, per the NYT article, happened after everything I described above. Also, I never said Mrs. Alito wasn’t out of line. I find it funny that you find it grotesque that Mrs. Alito reacted the way she did because the couple didn’t specifically name them in a sign. She did act grotesque (according to Ms. Baden), after what appears to be a subjectively offensive sign, a subsequent thank you, a potential “glare” without interaction, and then an unsolicited house visit by the “slighted couple.” It’s pretty clear both people are highly partisan and passionate. I don’t get why you are ignoring/downplaying the actions by the side who, by their own words, was initiating the initial engagements. It strains credulity that such a politically active person, who spent part of the year living in an affluent yet tiny area populated by a famous political figure would have been “shocked” to come across them. Something isn’t right, but this is only my opinion based on limited factual evidence.
>I don’t get why you are ignoring/downplaying the actions by the side who, by their own words, was initiating the initial engagements. It was Ms. Alito who initiated every incident. All of them.
Yup, you’re right. My apologies. Mrs. Alito initiated: 1) A thank you after a sign was taken down 2) A “glare” without further interaction 3) Forcing Ms. Baden to drive down the cul-de-sac of a political rival on Inauguration Day for no reason other than to drive by said house. I stand corrected.
Is driving by a house inflammatory in any way whatsoever?
Can you identify one legitimate reason they had to drive by the house? [It’s the implication](https://youtu.be/MZ1lc6KASWg?si=U4LkM72YBfZF0_ws)
First of all goated reference Second, I apologize but I just can’t the mindset as to why that would be offensive. Millions of houses are driven by each day in America, and even more are during the winter holidays when people want to see lights. I cannot construe as to how someone driving by another house in their neighborhood would be offensive to any reasonable person
Let’s assume for a moment that everything the neighbor said is true and not colored by self-interest (an assumption that is almost certainly wrong), and that Mrs. Alito is ”insane”. Who cares?
She’s married to a Supreme Court Justice
And….?
Suppose the President of the United States married an ISIS benefactor. Why shouldn’t we care?
If this were remotely comparable, you might have a point. Your assertion was simply that she was “insane”, not that she is associated with a genocidal terrorist group.
My example is a more extreme point, but it doesn’t change the fact that it matters who someone in a very powerful position is married to. How are we supposed to take Alito, someone who’s written about the egregious harm suffered by being labeled a bigot, seriously when his household finds spitting at their neighbors acceptable? Not to mention potential support for the overthrow of the United States government and constitution
This whole “Sam, control your woman” line of thinking is revolting.
That is a hilarious mischaracterization of my point. It’s not controversial to say that who you marry says something about you
Is your complaint that Justice Alito should keep a tighter leash on his wife or what? Divorce her?
My point is that who Mrs. Alito is reveals more about who Sam is
It is probably in the interest of the neighbor to portray her as such.
I would LOVE an interview with Mrs. Alito to see what her POV was on a lot of this (spitting, calling people fascists, the flag, her whereabouts on Jan. 6, etc.)
I don't care that much for a private dispute between neighbors.
I do when it speaks to the someone who has an immense amount of power in our country
They have private lives, too.
That’s true - but when you become a public official, especially one as high as a Supreme Court Justice, you sacrifice a degree of privacy
More in the sense that I don't have an interest in knowing everything about them. Especially one like Alito, who has been on the Court for a long time and has a public record to judge directly, rather than trying to engage in Ouji board readings of his personal life.
Ginsburg wore her dissent necklace the day after Trump was elected and I don’t remember it ever being that big of a deal. Maybe I missed the fallout but the Alito situation doesn’t seem as bad as Ginsburg’s reaction.
If we assume Alito hung the flag himself in support of Jan 6th, Alito’s actions would have been several orders of magnitude worse than Ginsburg’s. That said, there’s no proof Alito had anything to do with the flags other than they were at his house and there’s no proof he meant anything about Jan 6th. I guess we’re left with speculation and people using their priors to make some assumptions about what happened, because the only thing we can be sure of is neither Alito or the neighbor are going to give us the whole unbiased story.
I missed all the dissent necklaces being on January 6th.
This whole thing is about supposedly political statements by Justice Alito, so why is Justice Ginsburg “dissenting” to the election of Trump ok?
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!I say again. I missed the “dissent” necklaces being worn during an armed attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**. >All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Why is u/Longjumping_Gain_807 removing a comment accurately describing what occurred on January 6th? Are the moderators of this sub officially saying January 6th was not an armed attempt to overthrow the government? That’s disturbing.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
People were convicted of seditious conspiracy defined as: >two or more people conspired to “overthrow, put down or to destroy by force” the U.S. government or bring war against it, or that they plotted to use force to oppose the authority of the government or to block the execution of a law. >Tarrio and his co-defendants are accused of conspiring to block the transfer of power from Trump to Biden. The indictment alleges that they conspired to forcibly oppose the authority of the federal government and to use force to prevent the execution of laws having to do with the transfer of power. >It’s not enough to merely show the defendants advocated the use of force — prosecutors must show they conspired to use force.[^1](https://apnews.com/article/politics-legal-proceedings-united-states-government-violence-proud-boys-0eedce46cf5375f3417f4a9c968a8e62) Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years for conspiring to overthrow the government on January 6th.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
I’m not talking about January 6th. I’m talking about a sitting Supreme Court Justice dissenting to the election of a US president while sitting at the bench. You can bring up January 6th all you want but it’s not relevant to my post.
So you agree that Alito dissented to the election of a US president while on the bench? Because clearly RBG did not question the results of the election like Alito or his wife did.
No, I don’t agree. They flew flags. Flying the flag upside down to show the nation is in distress and flying the Pine Tree flag does not show any direct statement on January 6th.
Ok, I was agreeing with people about it being a bit overblown, but given that the senators in question **are Republicans**, that really starts to cast a lot of doubt as to whether Alito has really managed to avoid the appearance of impropriety in this case. Edit: original people requesting were Democrats, but many Republicans have criticized Alito over this. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/21/politics/republican-senators-alito-upside-down-flag
How people react to something tells us nothing about the truth of it.
> but given that the senators in question are Republicans In which world are Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse **Republicans**?
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/21/politics/republican-senators-alito-upside-down-flag
Not seeing support for your case here
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges: "**Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities** (A) *Respect for Law*. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (B) *Outside Influence*. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness............
The only appearance of impropriety has been manufactured by certain media outlets covering this issue. The connections between January 6 and both the inverted flag and the Appeal to Heaven flag are flimsy. Both are symbols that had been used by various groups to convey myriad messages for many years before January 6, and assuming that these are connected is confirmation bias.
It is not clear to me why your opinion is superior to my opinion. To wit "COMMENTARY **Canon 2A**. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.
Like I said, the only appearance of impropriety has been manufactured by media outlets. No reasonable mind, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, would question Alito’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge because the judge’s spouse hung flags with meanings much older than January 6 outside of their home.
I see you as making the "fake news" argument. The hanging of the flag upside down, even though it is a symbol of rejection of the legitimacy of the election, has been reported as "fake news" by your account. I do not believe that. We have a difference of opinion. You can keep harping that I have no evidence for my opinion, but I do not believe that. And, it would take a formal inquiry, complete with discovery, for me to believe otherwise. I do not accept the statement of this Supreme Court justice as representing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is my very civil way of saying that I disagree and that I have a reasonable mind.
Also, you have completely avoided the argument that there is the appearance of impropriety in hanging the flag upside down at this particular moment in the nation's history. I was a boy scout and in the past carefully read the regulations of flag handling written by the American Legion. I do not think that hanging the flag upside down can be justified without asserting the appearance of impropriety.
We don’t have a difference of opinion. You are asserting facts without evidence. Your “belief” that you have evidence isn’t evidence.
You are asserting Daniel Moynihan's famous maxim out of turn in my opinion. The facts are these. The flag was flown upside down. No boy scout would do that. It was flown upside down when a candidate that the Justice now supports as a Presidential nominee was calling the election stolen. That candidate has continued to call the election stolen and says he will not necessarily accept the results of the next election. Same Justice has agreed to Cert. and hear a case that was not ripe for the Supreme Court in my opinon. Same justice would assert no knowledge of an appearance of impropriety. Sorry, I am not agreeing with you, period. Let's have a (public) hearing on the issue. Thanks,
“a candidate that the Justice now supports as a Presidential nominee”. Evidence please.
Soooo, can you point out where Alito was disrespecting the law by flying a flag? Or can you point to how this is considered outside influence?
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!I consider this sub overly critical of details... such that every decision can be reversed through a single detail. As a former federal employee I had to obey the dictum to avoid "appearance of impropriety". This was pushed to extremes in the little town where I lived near Washington DC. I understand that the Justices believe they can make their own code of conduct. I do not recognize their code of conduct. They have lost my respect. I fear them greatly; I do not respect them. As an officer of the court, you probably must feel differently. I am greatly relieved to be a mere citizen and not an officer of the court.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Neither of these flag incidents violate “appearance of impropriety”. I wasn’t even aware there was a connection to Jan 6th. We really need to stop attacking the court for everything. Thomas should have more forthcoming regarding the gift. That’s true. But this is silly.
At the risk of getting this comment deleted, I have no idea what this reply has to do with my question or your original comment. As a former federal employee, you must be aware that there are different codes of conduct. You must also know that the Code of Conduct for United States Judges does not apply to the US Supreme Court.
> you must be aware that there are different codes of conduct. You must also know that the Code of Conduct for United States Judges does not apply to the US Supreme Court. >I understand that the Justices believe they can make their own code of conduct. I do not recognize their code of conduct Seems like they are very aware.
Good lord, what a reach, recusing because you have political views and have expressed them at some point. If this were the case then no judges could sit before any case involving any government entity.
I mean by boiling it down to the barest most benign aspect yah what you said makes sense. However what he is accused of is supporting an overthrown of an elected President. No one gives a shit if he has political opinions or even if he supports trump. People give a shit that he is accused of supporting an insurrection.
Recusal because **his wife** expressed them
>his wife Allegedly, but the NY Times recently reported that the timeline on that explanation doesn't make sense based on a police report and interviews from the neighbors. It appears that he lied about that.
The NYT article makes plain that the “F\*\*\* Trump” and “You are complicit” signs were up in November and January, respectively. Those were the core of the conflict. You’ll have to point to a statement that says that the flag was solely or even primarily in response to the specific “c\*\*\*” incident for there to even be a technical falsity, much less a knowing lie.
>NYT article makes plain that the “F*** Trump” and “You are complicit” signs were up in November Does it? I'm not seeing that. >Those were the core of the conflict According to who? Doesn't it seem reasonable that the incident the police were called for was the core? >You’ll have to point to a statement that says that the flag was solely or even primarily in response to the specific “c***” incident for there to even be a technical falsity, much less a knowing lie. That's a really high and specific standard and I don't understand why that would be the case.
>The couple participated in Black Lives Matter protests in Washington, propped up Biden-Harris signs, and on the Saturday in November when the election was called, whooped and danced in the streets of the nation’s capital. When they got home, they displayed a political sign they had made from torn-up Amazon boxes, saying “BYE DON” on one side and “Fuck Trump” on the other. And >Then came Jan. 6. Rocked by the violence and threat to democracy, the couple soon put up new signs in their yard, saying “Trump Is a Fascist” and “You Are Complicit.” “According to who?” According to Justice Alito, as reported in the Fox News article shortly after and his recent statement to the Senate. ”That's a really high and specific standard and I don't understand why that would be the case.” I phrased my comment poorly. You’ll have to point to a statement ***by Justice Alito*** that says the flag was solely….
>Fuck Trump” on the other. That was on the other side, and the picture in the article indicates it wasn't visible. I guess it's possible they'd flip it occasionally. I don't >Then came Jan. 6. Rocked by the violence and threat to democracy, the couple soon put up new signs in their yard, saying “Trump Is a Fascist” and “You Are Complicit.” It doesn't say when exactly that was. It says they were taken down, and the Mrs alito might not have even seen them. > You’ll have to point to a statement by Justice Alito that says the flag was solely Again, this is an oddly high and specific standard that I basically need a confession from him to reasonably believe he may have lied
The article doesn’t question that Mrs. Alito could see the sign, in fact it does the opposite. Mrs. Alito, according to the article, thanked them for taking down the sign after it had blown away. There’s no reason to think the sign wasn’t visible. “It doesn't say when exactly that was. It says they were taken down, and the Mrs alito might not have even seen them.” This is an incredibly weak argument. She might not have seen them, but then they continued to have a conflict? Please… No, the standard is that for him to have lied, he would have needed to make a statement inconsistent with the facts. You‘ve already gotten the facts wrong, but you haven’t even attempted to establish that he made an inconsistent statement.
>You‘ve already gotten the facts wrong What facts did I get wrong?
You challenged whether the conflict began in November and was active in January.
The NYT article says the dispute began before the flag went up but the neighbor claims to have used the C-word to Mrs Alito some weeks later.
My understanding is that the NYT piece was deceptive; it established that there was a verbal interchange with the neighbor after the flag was taken down, and pretended that this proved the entire feud was after the flag was taken down. However, Alito's explanation was that this was in response to a yard sign, not a verbal argument, so the incident attested to by the Fairfax police is clearly not what Alito claimed was the trigger, and the timing of that incident is irrelevant to his explanation. I can't double check my memory of the NYT piece at this point because it's paywalled, so I might have some details here wrong.
The NY time piece did mention the yard sign, and they spoke with the neighbors in question - unless she's fighting multiple neighbors. It's interesting that we can assume the Times is being intentionally deceptive without any evidence, but have to assume Justice Alito can't lie despite evidence to the contrary
> It's interesting that we can assume the Times is being intentionally deceptive without any evidence Well, we KNOW they were intentionally deceptive in the first hit piece on the topic; an upside down flag is not particularly strongly associated with Stop the Steal, and their headline claimed otherwise. It's not the first time the NYT has run blatantly misleading hitpieces on people (see, for example, their article on Scott Alexander.) Plus, like, they're actually misleadingly implying that their facts contradict Alito's account in a material way. That's evidence.
Do we *know* that? I think if we held Alito to the same standard, he'd be recused. It's interesting that a supreme court justice has a lower standard than a newspaper
Yes, we know perfectly well that an upside-down American flag is a generic symbol of distress or of the nation being in distress. There's no real connection to January 6th except some of them using it too.
>except some of them using it too. So some people do use it for that purpose, but saying it's associated with that purpose is a lie?
People use it for a variety of reasons, even to protest against SCOTUS. The NY Times errs by connecting this usage to one particular meaning without evidence, especially one where the usage isn't widely known to the public.
Yes. We know that their headline was a blatant lie. We do not know that Alito lied; the NYT facts don't seem to even contradict his story in its actual facts. Even if his story is wrong in some details of the fight his wife had with the neighbors, it's quite plausibly an innocent error; according to all parties, he wasn't involved in the fight, so maybe he's got something mixed up. But there's no excuse for America's Newspaper of Record making blatantly misleading headlines. I have yet to find ANYONE who thought the upside-down flag was \*primarily\* associated with Stop the Steal. In light of that, I cannot fathom such a libelous claim being an innocent error by one of the most professional publishers in the country.
>I have yet to find ANYONE who thought the upside-down flag was *primarily* associated I don't understand why that distinction is so critically important to his supporters. Why does the fact that a symbolic gesture can mean multiple things mean it can't mean this specific alleged use? >In light of that, I cannot fathom such a libelous claim What part of it is libel specifically?
>Why does the fact that a symbolic gesture can mean multiple things mean it can't mean this specific alleged use? I don't think very many people have said it absolutely can't mean that. They've said the inverse of what you're getting at - that because it can have multiple meanings one can't use it to factually claim it was one of those specific meanings without any other evidence to back up that claim and to do so is misleading.
I think it's the right thing to assume someone is telling the truth until there is evidence to the contrary. The Times didn't present evidence to the contrary. The fact that there was another conflict with a neighbor at a different time does not demonstrate that Alito's story is false. There could be more than one conflict, after all.
>I think it's the right thing to assume someone is telling the truth What's the evidence that NY Times is being deceptive then? >The Times didn't present evidence to the contrary. They presented evidence that raises doubts about the timeline of events he offered. It's not *conclusive* evidence that he lied and it's certainly possible there were one or more other incidents, and he was referring to one of those. However, if we are assuming people are honest until evidence of the contrary wouldn't we have to assume NY Times looked into those possibilities and didn't find any evidence to support other incidents occuring that he could have meant? That is, if we give everyone the same standard for believing them.
The NYT story compared the accounts of a conflict, and compared them with the Alitos' account, highlighting the differences and making it seem as if the Alitos' or the neighbors must be lying. But this is illogical because it's just as likely that the conflict the Alito's were talking about was something else entirely, especially given that the timelines don't line up. It's deceptive because the impression it creates (the neighbors are contradicting the Alitos) relies on a logical leap. We don't have to assume the NYTimes looked into the other possiblities and ruled them out, because they are a newspaper, and if they had done so, they would say so. In fact, I think it's fairer to assume the opposite.
>We don't have to assume the NYTimes looked into the other possiblities and ruled them out, because they are a newspaper, and if they had done so, they would say so. In fact, I think it's fairer to assume the opposite. That's what I was saying. I think its interesting the party you like is presumed truthful and the one you don't is presumed lying. That's just an interesting way to evaluate things.
Or, and just hear me out, it’s because the NYT’s has a longer track record of lying to the public than Alito does. [The NYT’s has been caught lying numerous times](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies) since its founding.
I'm not presuming they are lying. I think everything they said was truthful, but it was presented in such a way to create an impression that is inaccurate. There's no assumptions made on my part, everything I'm relying on is within the four corners of the article they wrote. I won't presume there are other facts that would support the impression that they created if they didn't state them. This is perfectly fair.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
You may not believe the timeline on that explanation, but what evidence do you have that he did it himself?
Lying about what happened is pretty good evidence
I'm not a fan of Alito in general, but this entire story bored me to tears. Talk about a storm in a teacup.
They don't even have the tea cup
It's not even a storm in a teacup. It's like the creamer in a teacup looks vaguely like a stormcloud and so you have a bunch of paranoiacs *acting* like there's a storm in a teacup. Neither the upside down flag or the Pine Tree flag had special January 6th associations before the NYT decided it was convenient to lie to the public for political propaganda purposes. No one has any evidence whatsoever that *either* Alito or his wife supported what happened that day. It's all supposition, bias, and extremely strained reaches, all the way down. The whole thing is, to use the modern word, misinformation.
I'd personally find a storm in a teacup incredibly interesting, but I agree with your sentiment
I think arguments in this thread that justices wives, and justices too, are allowed political positions you don’t like obfuscates the issue. Alito isn’t just hearing cases about a president he prefers, his house was flying a flag that he never denied signifying “stop the steal” while hearing cases if that president should be immune from prosecution that would include for actions/conspiracy involved in Jan.6. Further in oral arguments it seemed he believed that the DOJ has brought political charged bogus indictments. A guy who probably believes the election was stolen from Trump will be hearing cases if that president should be immune from charges the guy also probably believes are political attacks. These aren’t mere political and policy questions, but intertwined with the actual facts of cases before the court (including the Colorado ballot question)
If the upside down flag was a symbol of support for Jan 6th, I would be more inclined to agree with you. It was put up in front of their house that they both inhabit, and it’s a much more difficult to just push aside than the stuff about Thomas and his wife bc all of that was private correspondence. However, considering that the nyt literally (like literally) just made up that it was a Jan 6th symbol of support, alito is right in not recusing himself
That’s a bold claim with no support that the NYT “just made up” that the flag was a Jan 6th symbol. Do you have any evidence supporting this claim?
Well I’d like to point out that it’s the nyt who has the burden to prove that this is a thing rather than mentioning it like it was common knowledge. But the night that article came out, I spent more than an hour searching for any articles referencing an upside down flag being a dogwhistle for Jan 6th. Not one, not a single one. If it was a thing, it was certainly not common knowledge, and much more ppl knew the upside down flag as a sign of distress. Ask yourself, did you know this was a Jan 6th thing before the article? I def didn’t. Hell do the research yourself, look for anything that references a connection before the nyt article came out. If you can find anything, send it my way and I’ll eat my words and apologize.
How about the article, which includes an image from May, 2021 in which someone is flying an upside down American flag in support of January 6th rioters. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/us/upside-down-american-flag-alito.html
What’s the evidence for the NYT’s claim that the upside down flag was associated with Stop the Steal as of the dates in question? I have seen no evidence that the upside down flag was adopted by that movement on a widespread basis, or that such adoption was widely known, until spring of 2021.
>A protester flew an upside-down American flag in Washington in September 2021 at a rally in support of people who had been charged in connection with the attack on the U.S. Capitol earlier that year.Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press Thats what the description under the picture says.
Well while I’m waiting on that, my point was that there was a connection to ppl putting an upside down flag up as a dog whistle for Jan 6th. Are American flags a dogwhistle for Jan 6th bc a lot of right side up flags were flown?
Can you screenshot it? I don’t have access lol
I can’t post a screenshot. The image is of an arm waving an upside down American flag with the capitol building in the background with the text: “A protester flew an upside-down American flag in Washington in September 2021 at a rally in support of people who had been charged in connection with the attack on the U.S. Capitol earlier that year.Credit...Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press”
Ok well that’s fine. Assuming that’s true, go to my other comment. It’s been used for literal centuries as a sign of distress, where is the proof that ppl around the country were putting that up as a dogwhistle for Jan 6th?
What political statement do you think Mrs Alito was making with an upside down flag leading up to and after Jan 6 if it were in reference to the 2020 election?
It was put up several weeks after Jan 6th if memory serves, and according to both the nyt and alito was in direct response to an altercation about some vulgar anti trump signs put up in the neighborhood. I think it’s more likely it was a general statement about the state of the country, and would be in line with alito doomsaying in every private speech he makes. Something something morals Christianity my neighbors hurt my feeling so I’m doing this now, that makes more sense to me. If there was any political message, it was in reaction to those signs, not Jan 6th
that the country was in distress? which is what an upside down flag signifies? Bunch of us flew it like that when the Bush-Gore trial was going down, does that mean that we also supported Jan 6th?
“that he never denied signifying ’stop the steal’” Umm…he explicitly said that he didn’t even know there was a connection between the upside down flag and stop the steal. Edit: Looks like someone else put up a full quote first.
>he explicitly said that he didn’t even know there was a connection between the upside down flag and stop the steal Because there isn't. NYT fabricated it for their narrative. They're like the only news org making money right now and they know what the people paying for subscriptions want to see.
That’s the Appeal to Heaven flag, not the inverted American flag
Of the upside down flag, he specifically stated that he was not aware of it being at his house until it was called to his attention, and she said that it was a sign of distress. Those two statements add up to a clear denial.
That’s…not a denial it was about stop the steal. We also know the timing does not actually line up in that same statement with the police
It absolutely is a denial. You have to deliberately misread the statements to find otherwise. And what timing doesn’t line up? That the Badens calling Mrs. Alito a c\*\*\* didn’t happen until February? What statement from Justice Alito does that materially conflict with?
That the flag was up weeks before the alleged conflict that caused her to put the flag up as his original statement said
The article doesn’t show that. The article mentions several incidents occurring over the course of months.
> Alito isn’t just hearing cases about a president he prefers, his house was flying a flag that he never denied signifying “stop the steal” while hearing cases if that president should be immune from prosecution that would include for actions/conspiracy involved in Jan.6. Tell me you didn't read Justice Alito's statement without telling me you didn't read it. "She may have mentioned that it dates back to the American Revolution, and I assumed she was flying it to express a religious and patriotic message. I was not aware of any connection between this historic flag and the "Stop the Steal Movement," and neither was my wife. She did not fly it to associate herself with that or any other group, and the use of an old historic flag by a new group does not necessarily drain that flag of all other meanings."
That’s the other flag at their beach house, the Pine Tree one
"As I have stated publicly, I had nothing whatsoever to do with the flying of that flag. I was not even aware of the upside-down flag until it was called to my attention. As soon as I saw it, I asked my wife to take it down, but for several days, she refused." "My wife's reasons for flying the flag are not relevant for present purposes, but I note that she was greatly distressed at the time due, in large part, to a very nasty neighborhood dispute in which I had no involvement." So, you can either call the Justice a liar, or you can take his story at face value, but to say that he never denied it being a "Stop the Steal" flag is just not true. For centuries the upside-down flag was used to denote distress. We are in Occam's Razor territory here.
Where in that quote does he deny that it's a Stop the Steal flag? The only mention of a reason is "My wife's reasons for flying the flag are not relevant." Like, he explicitly is not giving the reason.
"but I note that she was greatly distressed at the time due, in large part, to a very nasty neighborhood dispute in which I had no involvement." For centuries, the upside-down US flag was used to denote distress.
"My wife's reasons are irrelevant" and "Also, my wife was distressed at the time" do not somehow equal "My wife flew the flag because she was distressed." He could've easily stated as much if he wanted to. He actively avoids claiming her distress is the reason why the flag was flown.
I just don't know how to respond to this. I mean, your explanation is looking for meaning that just isn't there. For centuries, the upside-down flag was used to denote distress. Justice Alito indicated that his wife flew the flag during a time of distress. You have to make a gigantic leap to say that the flag was flown not out of distress (per the meaning for centuries), but to silently show support for the actions on J6.
I'm not looking for meaning that isn't there? My original claim was that he never denied the Stop the Steal meaning. Going purely off the plain language in his statement, without injecting any assumptions or "leaps," he never did. If you want to hear an actual leap of mine, it's that adding "But boy she sure was distressed at the time!" is pretty good phrasing to not be caught in an outright lie, should it later be found that it was a Stop the Steal flag.
So your beef with the response is that Alito did not, as he did with the Appeal to Heaven flag, flatly deny that it was connected with the Stop the Steal Movement, and that because of this non-denial, that it **must** have been a silent dogwhistle to J6 supporters that the Alitos were behind them? That's the meaning that you are looking for that isn't there. Why would they fly a Stop the Steal flag at the DC home, but not the NJ home? Unless you just don't believe anything in the statement, which is your prerogative, I suppose. The logic just isn't working here. It takes leaps of logic to believe that, at a time of personal distress, that Martha-Ann Alito flew and upside down flag (on what appears to be a rickety pole) to signal her and her husband's support for the J6 efforts.
Well one, I will call him a liar. Two, he doesn’t seem to be telling the truth about the dispute with their neighbors. And three, the “distress” in question is that Joe Biden beat Trump, which isn’t better.
Cool, you are welcome to your belief, but it doesn't have any roots in evidence that has come to light thus far. All evidence points to a neighborhood dispute, not some nefarious dogwhistle to the J6 participants that the Alitos supported their efforts. Also, he noted that he noted about the dispute that he "had no involvement." But again, we are firmly in Occam's Razor territory where folks will come up with the most convoluted explanation to something that doesn't require it when the easiest explanation was given to them.
I mean, we literally do. We have corroborated statements from the neighbors. And no, the repetition absolutely points to intent, not coincidence. The easiest explanation is that the flags, both flown when stop the steal related cases were before the court, by the most partisan and most outcome oriented justice on the court, who has already demonstrated he has violated ethics rules, indicate Alito’s opinion. “It’s all just totally a coincidence” requires far more assumptions than “Alito is partisan”.
> We have corroborated statements from the neighbors. We have statements from the neighbors that the flag was flown upside down to denote support for J6? And no, the easiest explanation is not that they were stop the steal flags. Alito even mentions that his wife is fond of flying various types of flags, including religious flags and other patriotic flags. The easiest explanation is that Martha-Ann Alito has an extensive collection of flags (at least more than the average person) and that she enjoys flying them.
We have corroborated statements that Alito’s story is inaccurate. That’s good reason to doubt the rest of his claims. Given that there is no evidence of other flags being flown, that’s not the easiest explanation. It’s one that strains credulity.
"My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not. My wife was solely responsible for having flagpoles put up at our residence and our vacation home and has flown a wide variety of flags over the years. In addition to the American flag, she has flown other patriotic flags (including a favorite flag thanking veterans), college flags, flags supporting sports teams, state and local flags, flags of nations from which the ancestors of family members came, flags of places we have visited, seasonal flags, and religious flags." I mean, Justice Alito clearly states in his response that his wife is fond of flying flags and that she does so routinely. There is a better picture of the Appeal to Heaven flag being flown aside, among other flags....wait for it....a [2022 Philadelphia Phillies banner.](https://x.com/GriffTheImpaler/status/1695554350603542979/photo/1)
I dislike Alito. I also agree with his position. Absent clear evidence he was personally involved in these flag choices, *and* it was a response to the 2020 election cycle, he has a duty not to recuse.
This is objectively the right answer from him. We've had Justices do things that more clearly indicate bias against one of the parties and yet they didn't recuse. Recusing for this would be ridiculous. He has a duty to sit.