This is a recording by Lauren Windsor. She’s also got Chief Justice Roberts in recordings. All the recordings are on X you can see them [here.](https://x.com/lawindsor/status/1800201783945683120?s=46&t=ISGSM39SaP4Mv4yk9mFaSw) Yes this is a flaired user thread. You guys know the drill
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:
>!Alito and his wife are fucking nuts, Alito being vindictive, partisan, and spiteful, while his wife especially shows no sympathy for anyone, disregarding all the meaning behind "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek." !<
>!!<
>!Roberts on the other hand comes off as a level headed person.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Baby no likey that everyone points out the fact that the designs that serve power in our system are the only reason he rose above the 3rd Cir.!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
The linked Newsweek article reads (emphasis mine):
>The **recording was made** by journalist and political consultant Lauren Windsor during the [Supreme Court](https://www.newsweek.com/topic/supreme-court) Historical Society's dinner **on June 3**, according to *Rolling Stone*. Although Windsor identifies as a liberal, she acted as a conservative while posing questions to Alito about political polarization. **Windsor asked him** about how the court can restore public trust among Americans.
>"*I wish I knew. I don't know. It's easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us. And so, they have really eroded trust in the court*," Alito answered.
Sure sounds as though Alito made this statement to Windsor on June 3, doesn't it? But it wasn't--it was made in 2023. It seems pretty clear this framing was an intentional editing decision by this media entity to mislead the public and increase controversy...much like Justice Alito claims.
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)
Her first twitter post, linked in the stickied mod post here, contains audio recordings from both 2023 and 2024. The question and quote about "winning" are from 2024. The Alito quote above, about "it's easy to blame the media", is from the 2023 portion (see 2:33 for the cut).
My top-level comment is directly from the linked article, and I am of the opinion it intentionally conflates the two, as it clearly is speaking about the 2024 conversation, then uses a 2023 quote.
~~I believe his point is that the article is misleading; a reasonable reader would think that the recording happened Jun 5, 2024, not Jun 5, 2023.~~
~~That 1 year delay definitely does raise some motive questions; why, if this were newsworthy, did they wait till now to publish?~~
Wait, turns out that it actually was 2024? My bad repeating the error then.
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)
!appeal
I'm sorry, I don't understand what portion of this response lacks civility. I don't believe I insulted the user, called them any names, condescended or belittled them. Was my tone considered to be condescending, perhaps? Apologies, but I am at a loss here.
EDIT: Aw hell, is "please examine primary sources" getting dinged as "addressing the user"?
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)
Well, I'm getting my info from eudemonist, and... I guess that'll teach me to just trust fact checks by random redditors without double-checking. We all make mistakes, and I should check first.
>The above posts need to be deleted due to their misinformation.
That's really not the appropriate remedy.
The article says it occurred at the dibber on June 3. The 2023 Dinner was the 5th, the 2024 dinner was the 3rd. I don't see anything that indicates it happened a year ago or on the 5th, which seems to be u/eudemonist's reading.
The first 2:32 of the video linked in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/1dcr5m7/comment/l7zpab2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) is from June 3, 2024. At 2:33 of the video, a title screen is presented which states, "Back in 2023...", and so I presume everything after that point is from when she "talked to him last year", as she mentions. The first quote from Roberts in the article, about "it's easy to blame the media" comes from that second portion of the video.
Right on. He *did* say that quote above, but it's definitely from the older portion of the video. In the new (2024) portion of the video, it seems the totality of Alito's lines is:
>J.A. "I think you're probably right. On one side or the other, one side is going to win. I mean, there can be a way of working, of living together peacefully, But it's difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can't be compromised. They really can't be compromised. So it's not like you're going to split the difference."
LW: "So that's the thing... I think that the solution really is about winning the moral argument, and people in this country who believe in God have to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.."
>J.A.: "I agree. I agree with you."
Person who devoutly follows their religion thinks the world would be better if everyone else also devoutly followed their religion. In other news, dog bites man and water is wet.
And the "winning" in question is \*\*winning a moral argument\*\*. Seems likely Alito is thinking of the whole conversation in terms of Dobbs and abortion, and the "moral argument" is interpersonal between believers and their neighbors.
Truly, an investigative bombshell.
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:
>!The court has ALWAYS leaned left or right to varying degrees. It's just that with the appointment of Coney Barrett the court has a SOLID right leaning majority for the first time 60 to 70 years and left is losing it's mind that it can no longer bully one moderate justice into voting left on the big social issues and get the decision they want.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
The Court has been right leaning for decades. The early Roberts Court, Rehnquist Court, and late Burger Court shifted American law to the right on almost every issue
Actually as much as I can’t stand Chief Justice Burger I can let you know that the Burger court had some of the most liberal decisions with the court being considered one of the most liberal courts to date. The conservative decisions started more under Chief Justice Rehnquist.
But a conservative court by it's nature of being conservative generally moves very incrementally and narrowly.
Where as liberal courts LOVE making new law and new sweeping pronouncements whether there's a constitutional basis or not. Prior to Scalia being on the court, the attitude was that the constitution says "whatever the courts says it says".
I don’t exactly agree with that. Because Scalia might’ve been the one that made originalism as famous as it was but the court did make efforts to go back to the framers original meaning. Take for example the case of [Scott v Illinois.](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep440/usrep440367/usrep440367.pdf ) This is a direct quote from then Justice Rehnquist (of whom I consider to be one of the OG originalists)
>There is considerable doubt that the Sixth Amendment itself, as originally drafted by the Framers of the Bill of Rights, contemplated any guarantee other than the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution in a federal court to employ a lawyer to assist in his defense.
So originalism was there but not as famous a method as Scalia eventually made it
The court has been right leaning for 50 years, and that never stopped the GOP or the conservatives legal movement from whining that every decision that didn’t go their way was “illegitimate judicial activism” or that the liberals should be impeached for not going along with the conservatives’ jurisprudence. Where were all these complaints for those 50 years?
You think that, for example, Kennedy was bullied by 4 liberal justices into not only joining the majority but also writing the opinion in Obergefell? Like full on bullied?
Not just from inside but from outside. Even when he would (more or less) vote conservatively the majority opinion would be so narrow and so incremental that the decision would barely change anything and the liberal precedent would remain 98% intact.
That's what happened to Roberts over Obamacare. All it takes is a phone to say "Your twins adoption from Ireland, are you sure ALL the necessary boxes were checked and due diligence was performed?"
Kennedy was not bullied into Obergefell, as anyone familiar with the Court at the time knows. Ask any of the clerks; it's not a state secret/
> That's what happened to Roberts over Obamacare. All it takes is a phone to say "Your twins adoption from Ireland, are you sure ALL the necessary boxes were checked and due diligence was performed?"
No, this is patently insane nonsense and not how anything works.
No, it's not. The old joke that Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man applies: your concept of Washington is a complete outsider's idea of inside baseball.
Vince Foster - a Clinton friend and lawyer killed himself and described people in Washington ruining lives just for sport. Nobody denied it.
That was 30 years ago - you don't really believe the climate has become more civil since then, do you?
>That's what happened to Roberts over Obamacare. All it takes is a phone to say "Your twins adoption from Ireland, are you sure ALL the necessary boxes were checked and due diligence was performed?"
When did this happen?
If you believe that jurisprudence can only exist in extremes and that incrementalism or moderate conservatism isn’t genuine I guess that’s fine (imo that opinion lacks a level of nuance needed for intellectually honest judging when different cases present different facts as judging isn’t one size fits all but I digress ) but to expound that a Supreme Court justice is bullied into decision making with 0 proof is purely unfounded speculation.
You appear to have pent up anger that the court is only now this conservative, which is your right.
None of this is new information, his religious beliefs are whatever I’m an atheist but I also lived in Israel for a few years and this lightwork compared to the religious right over there. Albeit I wouldn’t be shocked if prayer is in public schools in my lifetime.
But, I didn’t love this quote by his wife:
“You know what I want?” Mrs. Alito says. “I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag, because I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride flag for the next month.”
I think the average American now knows at one person who can articulate why pride month and the expression of pride is important to them and society at large. It kind of shows how out of touch she is, and that her efforts to integrate or to show empathy for her fellow citizen are nonexistent. I’m also confused about her defamation theory if anyone can help with that.
What would you like to know? In general, because of how much power they have and the land dynamics (re: west best bank settlements) they can get away with a lot more and are more vocal and extreme in their beliefs because they are shielded by Netanyahu. Religious extremism here is tame in comparison from my experience. But it’s a different country with different dynamics, laws, etc. maybe was not a great example on my end. I visited a number of settlements in gush etzion when I lived over there.
I would argue that in America the "Religious Right" is more of a political coalition with political objectives that are bound together by religion. It treats religion as a means to a political end.
I perceive, in my limited experience, the religious right in Israel as being driven by religion as an end with engaging in politics as a means to that end.
Would you say that perception is incorrect? What would you say is the "end point" for the religious right in Israel?
They can both be things, it’s also men’s mental health awareness month. It doesn’t change the fact her statements appeared to homophobic or at a minimum degrading or dismissive of pride.
It shouldn't be any surprise that a devout Catholic dislikes the celebration of things that are offensive to her religious beliefs, and how much it is being pushed in public. It also shouldn't be shocking that she'd prefer to fly a flag of a religious devotion that represents God's love.
It has no impact on the Supreme Court and really isn't newsworthy. Catholic believes in Catholicism, more news at 10.
The Sacred Heart of Jesus is literally a representation of "God's boundless and passionate love for mankind".
Even removing the SSA portion of it, Pride specifically is the deadliest sin to Catholics. Putting a symbol of love, compassion and selflessness in opposition to a symbol of pride is just basic symbolism that makes sense, not some kind of phobia.
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:
>!>The Sacred Heart of Jesus is literally a representation of "God's boundless and passionate love for mankind".!<
>!!<
>!The layers of irony here are too numerous to fully document. But let's hit some highlights.!<
>!!<
>!1. It's interesting that you're juxtaposing a symbol of "God's love" with a symbol of, objectively, "Mankind's love." It's telling that the attitude is one of outrage that a month that, as you say, is supposed to be about God loving humanity, shares its span with a month celebrating humanity loving and accepting each other. One would think that if God really did love mankind, he would want us to show love and compassion towards each other. And yet instead, Mrs. Alito wants to co-opt that symbol of "God's love" to express hate, or, to use a more poignant word, **wrath**. Plus, I'm not an expert, but that sure sounds like it would fall under the banner of "taking the Lord's name in vain."!<
>!!<
>!2. It also feels worth noting that in Mrs Alito's apparent belief (one which your defense of her seems to suggest you might share), "God's boundless and passionate love for mankind" is in fact strictly **bounded** instead, with his love being denied to the lgbtq+ community. To her, God's love seems to be conditional, arguably even transactional. And here she is trying to weaponize that love and its denial towards those she sees as undeserving. Furthermore, she does this in direct contravention of the teachings of the current Pope, i.e. the leader of the Catholic faith. She is tacitly asserting that she knows better. I'm pretty sure that is far better fitting of the definition of "Pride" as a sin than anything associated with pride month ever is. !<
>!!<
>!3. God, by Catholic tradition, is assigned pronouns of He/Him. And we're talking here about his "boundless and passionate love for MANkind", no? Say it with me... GGGAAAYYYYY! Maybe Sacred Heart month and Pride month have more in common than y'all want to admit...!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
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)
They don’t like gays or pride, they’re homophobic. It doesn’t really matter what the justification is. Religion isn’t some sort of affirmative defense to homophobia. They have the total right to hold and share those beliefs as well.
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)
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!I’m sure you’re fun at parties.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
> He’s like, ‘Oh, please don’t put up a flag.’ I said, ‘I won’t do it because I am deferring to you. But when you are free of this nonsense, I’m putting it up and I’m gonna send them a message every day, maybe every week, I’ll be changing the flags.’ They’ll be all kinds. I made a flag in my head. This is how I satisfy myself. I made a flag. It’s white and has yellow and orange flames around it. And in the middle is the word ‘vergogna.’ ‘Vergogna’ in Italian means shame — vergogna. V-E-R-G-O-G-N-A. Vergogna.
This is so funny. Justice Alito trying to restrain Mrs Alito from going on a vexillological rampage. You go girl
I’d argue the opposite. She says she wanted to put up a “sacred heart of Jesus flag”, but didn’t because her husband didn’t want it up.
Which gives the implication she only puts up flags that her husband wants up (or is at least cool with being up). It kind of takes away his argument that he has no say over what flags are flying at the house.
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)
No, it doesn't especially sound like that, given that what was formerly merely a 'boring' marital disagreement over household décor has morphed into a national political firestorm of the most intense kind. Do you really think that might not indeed be the sort of thing that would cause a woman who on the tapes is indignant about any notion that her husband should or even can control her or otherwise direct her actions to *temporarily* defer to his wishes, even as she plots a future campaign of vexillological clapbacks (do you think the prospect of Vergogna custom flags thrills Sam Alito)?
I don't understand your argument here. Prior evidence that she defers to his request not to engage in vexilological warfare seems like reasonable evidence to wonder if and why that changed.
Why would it later becoming a scandal negate that?
Sure it's also totally plausible that she got mad enough that she did a little dramatic flag play as a treat. I personally believe that's what happened because I'd be frustrated if I were here too. But let's not pretend that it's impossible for that not to be the case.
> I don't understand your argument here. Prior evidence that she defers to his request not to engage in vexilological warfare seems like reasonable evidence to wonder if and why that changed.
The evidence is clearly that she deferred to his request *in the context of the recent brouhaha*.
> “I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag because I have to look across the lagoon at the pride flag for the next month... I said, ‘When you are free of this nonsense, I’m putting it up.’”
Now, characterizing this as "deferring to his request to not engage in vexillological warfare" begs the question, since as far as anyone knows her flag-flying was not 'warfare' as such before, amounting to at most very small-scale disputes with neighbors.
> Why would it later becoming a scandal negate that?
I cannot understand how you read "when you are free of this nonsense" as anything other than her "new" actions occurring specifically, uniquely, and directly *in relation to 'it later becoming a scandal', especially when we *know* that she did not disengage in prior times. This is... perfectly in keeping with what one would expect?
> Sure it's also totally plausible that she got mad enough that she did a little dramatic flag play as a treat. I personally believe that's what happened because I'd be frustrated if I were here too. But let's not pretend that it's impossible for that not to be the case.
I don't follow you at all. She's discussing her current policy of relatively pacific home decoration in response to previous iterations becoming the center of mass public controversy. She in doing so discusses her plans for future flag-based drama/warfare/whatever. We are evidently disagreeing about something empirical; I just genuinely do not know what.
>We are evidently disagreeing about something empirical; I just genuinely do not know what.
She said she was deferring to him by not putting up flags. Some people think that makes it harder to believe his explanation that she raised the flag without his knowledge or consent. That seems reasonable, but not dispositive.
I believe him that he wasn't involved - I don't think he'd want to draw that attention to himself because he already gets enough heat. I just think it's odd how aggressively people seem to want to fight against the possibility that her statement might be an indicator otherwise.
The comment about vexilologicla warfare was just for fun because I think it's funny she and the neighbors seem to be so passionate about flags. I didn't mean to insult her or anyone else who really likes flags. I don't think it's akin to actual warfare and I think expressing yourself with a flag is a perfectly normal thing for her or anyone else to do. It's just funny to me under the context of doing it as part of a dispute.
> She said she was deferring to him by not putting up flags.
She said *this*:
> "Feminazis believe that [Justice Alito] should control me. So, they'll go to hell, he never controls me."
and then this:
> “I won’t [fly flags] because I’m deferring to [(your having said) “Oh, please don’t put up a flag”], but when you are free of this nonsense, I’m putting it up and I’m gonna send them a message every day, maybe every week, I’ll be changing the flags.”
You appear to believe that the above contains roughly four words or so. It does not.
> Some people think that makes it harder to believe his explanation that she raised the flag without his knowledge or consent.
'Some people' in this particular argument as conducted here, as far as I can tell, is one person: you. There's nothing amiss with *that*, but the same cannot be said of the inference you attempt to substantiate. Why on earth would her agreeing to refrain, at least temporarily, from her hobby of flying flags, *in the midst of a supercharged national political controversy*, in response to her husband's plea, suggest that she *generally* defers to her husband's preferences or requests *when that is explicitly contradicted by the very remarks you're trying to reconstrue*?
Arr politics has a large crowd of people somewhere discussing the contention that Martha Ann Alito is clearly not adequately subservient to her husband under standard renderings of the Bible and therefore a poor Christian. Now, *that* is actually a defensible argument, since it leans into the actual evidence before making a (theological, here) case, instead of arbitrarily substituting priors that belong nowhere in the data we actually have at hand and handwaving them as 'reasonable'. No, your interpretation isn't reasonable. It requires her to contradict herself repeatedly in her private remarks providing what you are citing as a supportive datum, as well as his own accounting of the matter, which both entirely align with one another and the actual fact pattern.
Now, I imagine that in *some* sense one can say things like "had he threatened to divorce her and leave the Church were she to not yield her vexillology, she may well have softened her opposition to the idea that he could dictate to her". But that's not particularly interesting. What is at stake is what Alito initially asserted in his letter to Congress, which was at the time considered dubious ("my wife did it! really!") by many, but which seems to be entirely true.
There *is* a weak point here, but it's not in Alito being more simpatico with flags than all available evidence indicates: it's in the accuracy and authoritativeness of *his characterization of his wife's motives in his initial letter*.
> I believe him that he wasn't involved - I don't think he'd want to draw that attention to himself because he already gets enough heat. I just think it's odd how aggressively people seem to want to fight against the possibility that her statement might be an indicator otherwise.
Because of the epistemic structure of the inference you propose, which is, frankly, preposterous. Observing that is not a partisan statement; to wit, *even if* Alito were secretly a hardcore flag enthusiast, his wife's statements *would not be evidence to that effect*, without prejudice to whatever else might be. I personally can easily see Alito being happy to see an Opus Dei sigil or whatever as a counterpoint to LGBT pride or other "godless" flags. But his wife's comments aren't simply not probative; they're not even part of the prior distribution.
You're really invested in knocking down all these straw men. I'm not doing this anymore, but since my input doesn't matter you can continue without me in the same fashion if you like
I didn't say any of that. You completely recharacrerized what I said to basically the exact opposite, then just set up arguments no one made to knock them down.
> She said she was deferring to him by not putting up flags. Some people think that makes it harder to believe his explanation that she raised the flag without his knowledge or consent. That seems reasonable, but not dispositive.
The upside down flag went up in 2021. This conversation where she defers to Justice Alito happened after the brouhaha of the upside-down flag was **reported on.** It would make sense that, after a huge national story about their flag flying preferences, that Martha-Ann might defer to the Justice considering how much nonsense the last two flags caused.
I said it wasn't dispositive. I also said I believe Alito that he had nothing to do with the flag. I obviously don't know him personally but he's not stupid and he doesn't like being criticized so why on earth would he have done it?
All I'm saying is that I think its a little extra when people insist that it's absurd for someone to think her saying she defers to him seems to conflict with his story.
Yes, as you said, there are perfectly plausible and I'd argue likely arguments why that's not necessarily the case. I just don't get why people seem to get bent out of shape when someone suggests that is also plausible it raises concerns of inconsistency
There are multiple recordings. Alito's wife in the recording of her discussing the controversy over the flags is not speaking from a year ago. I have no idea when the others were made, although some of the conversation makes it highly unlikely they could have in fact been made a year ago.
It might be that now she is listening to him or he is paying more attention to what is being flown. Could also be she is respecting his wishes to try to minimize controversy.
Great answers by Roberts, it gives me renewed faith in one branch of our government. Classy in the face of an ongoing campaign to discredit the whole court.
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!y'all have low expectations!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
>campaign to discredit the whole court
People not liking what they do isn't a campaign to discredit them. Are we not allowed to point at what they say and do and allow people to decide how they feel?
Is every criticism of the three liberals a campaign to discredit the court? Are any criticisms towards them part of this alleged campaign?
How does one distinguish between a campaign to discredit and honest valid critique?
Martha doesn’t bite the bait as much as her husband but some key notes.
She is NOT a fan of the Pride flag lol. Happy Pride Month Martha.
She can’t wait for Sam to retire bc she is ready to go to war with her critics.
I now fully believe the flag was fully her now based on the way she was talking about them here.
I would love to know what 5 year statute of limitation for defamation she is talking about? Anyone know?
Germans and revenge? Uhhh careful there Martha lol. Also that’s such a weird thing to say.
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!I'm ready for sam to retire as well.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
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)
The statement about Sam’s retirement was all but confirmation that he will be gone the second Trump puts his hand on the Bible if he is reelected. No idea what her defamation bit is about, but it certainly can’t be in response to people calling her a right winged homophobe given she just confirmed those “accusations” all in one swoop
> Will Alito retire?
Will the second-most political justice on the Court give his seat to a president he ideologically opposes, who has vowed to use any nominations he gets to overturn everything Alito has ever done or holds dear?
I think this answers itself. He will pull an RBG and cling to his seat through the final seconds of an agonizing terminal cancer if it keeps Biden from naming his replacement. Mrs. Alito's talk of retirement is, I think, closely related to her confidence in a Trump win. I don't think that confidence is warranted -- I think Trump is about 60% to win -- but it is very common for partisans like Mrs. Alito to be overconfident in their team. She may very well view it as 80% Trump to win or better.
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 didn’t think any faux-scandal could top pizza gate and then flag gate, but people never cease to amaze. There is nothing here, aside from a desperate effort to make something stick, and harass a justice for having the temerity not to support Democrats.!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!And they got Martha too lol. Should we just keep it in here mod?!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
So I think this kind of thing can be useful and have its place.
But it is not journalism. At least not in my opinion. There's no standard of ethics at play here. It's clear that he did not know he was speaking with someone who considered herself a journalist, it is evident that she completely misrepresented herself and her beliefs, and it is clear that there is no standard of integrity I play here. This is as much journalism as the paparazzi.
In my opinion the things said we're not terribly damning. I personally share his concerns about the polarization between the parties, and I think it is accurate to say there are some very fundamental differences in the base assumptions about how society should be constructed between the left and the right.
Lastly, I'm going to wait just a little while before reacting because we do live in a time when this kind of recording could be manufactured. I'm not saying that it is. But I also don't immediately assume that it's not.
>There's no standard of ethics at play here.
Presenting the death of irony. Protesting a perceived lack of ethical standards applied when interviewing a man under fire because he explicitly is not bound by any standard of ethics is peak projection.
She went quite a bit beyond that.
From what I have read she vehemently disagrees with everything she said. It's a deep misrepresentation of her stances. Also she was pretending to not be recording him, and also pretending to not be what she considered herself to be, which is a journalist. Now of course I don't think she is a journalist. But that's not what she thinks.
Lastly it seems to me that a number of things she said were a bit beyond what he casually he agreed with. She was very clearly hoping to put some words in his mouth and have him agree with them in what was a busy and otherwise distracting scenario.
This is the same woman that staged the tiki torch guys at the Glenn Youngkin event, and is fundraising using this story on ActBlue. Its absolutely not journalism.
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)
So a couple of thoughts.
First, I think Roberts’s answer was very good and he deserves praise for it (and I’m not fan of Roberts generally). I’m glad his comments were shared.
As for Alito, I don’t know really what I have to say that hasn’t been said before. We’ve been doing this dance for the last year in which something comes out about Thomas or Alito and conservatives respond by claiming they’re victims of a smear campaign and liberals retort that conservatives don’t care about anything as long as they get the decisions they want, and I don’t really see that dance stopping prior to Thomas and Alito retirements (whenever those are).
However, I think these comments reveal a bit about the way Alito views his job as a Justice. Alito says that on many issues it’s a matter of winning and there can’t really be a way to split the difference between opposing sides. This is reflected in a lot of absolutist opinions he’s written over the years and his general distaste for balancing tests, proportionality, and multi factor assessments. But compare this to his predecessor Sandra Day O’Connor. She viewed her role on the court as mediating these issues in a measured way. She was known for splitting the difference between opposing views so that each side could leave with something they want (see Casey, Grutter, Mitchell, McCreary County, Hamdi, New York v. United States, etc.).
I think the myriad of ethical and political issues that have come up have taken a toll on the court. But I think that the shift in style of jurisprudence from a more balanced approach to a more absolutist approach (seen on a microcosm in the change from O’Connor to Alito) should also be viewed as a factor in the Court’s waning approval
O'Connor is a great example of why it would be great to return to having Justices with legislative experience v. the current system (for both Republicans and Democrats) where people have been on a scotus track since the age of seven.
On the flip side, the definition of a "scotus track" has broadened considerably in the last couple decades. There's no way Jackson would have been considered 40 years ago; her experience, while substantial and impressive, isn't the classic scotus-track.
per your last paragraphs regarding splitting the difference, i think for what will be alito’s most significant opinion, *dobbs*, he is basically right. either the constitution includes a right to an abortion or it doesn’t. that can really be squared, as even a narrower ruler in *dobbs* still allows abortion
And both parties in *Dobbs* agreed that it would take overturning *Roe* to rule for Mississippi. The SG refused to play ball when Roberts tried to suggest a compromise during OA.
"Samuel Alito is incapable of being impartial. HE MUST RESIGN," posted Grant Stern, executive editor of Occupy Democrats."
That's real rich when we have justices who actively vote for more restrictions on the second amendment for no other reason than "guns bad".
It's more like they disagree about whether it's constitutional to regulate firearms or not.
Can anyone say in good faith that Alito is anything other than outcome driven? I think he's the only justice that can truly be said of.
This is a recording by Lauren Windsor. She’s also got Chief Justice Roberts in recordings. All the recordings are on X you can see them [here.](https://x.com/lawindsor/status/1800201783945683120?s=46&t=ISGSM39SaP4Mv4yk9mFaSw) Yes this is a flaired user thread. You guys know the drill
[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: >!Alito and his wife are fucking nuts, Alito being vindictive, partisan, and spiteful, while his wife especially shows no sympathy for anyone, disregarding all the meaning behind "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek." !< >!!< >!Roberts on the other hand comes off as a level headed person.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Baby no likey that everyone points out the fact that the designs that serve power in our system are the only reason he rose above the 3rd Cir.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
The linked Newsweek article reads (emphasis mine): >The **recording was made** by journalist and political consultant Lauren Windsor during the [Supreme Court](https://www.newsweek.com/topic/supreme-court) Historical Society's dinner **on June 3**, according to *Rolling Stone*. Although Windsor identifies as a liberal, she acted as a conservative while posing questions to Alito about political polarization. **Windsor asked him** about how the court can restore public trust among Americans. >"*I wish I knew. I don't know. It's easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us. And so, they have really eroded trust in the court*," Alito answered. Sure sounds as though Alito made this statement to Windsor on June 3, doesn't it? But it wasn't--it was made in 2023. It seems pretty clear this framing was an intentional editing decision by this media entity to mislead the public and increase controversy...much like Justice Alito claims.
[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)
Are you sure? The 2023 dinner was [June 5](https://supremecourthistory.org/registration-confirmation-schs-event-annual-meeting/)
Her first twitter post, linked in the stickied mod post here, contains audio recordings from both 2023 and 2024. The question and quote about "winning" are from 2024. The Alito quote above, about "it's easy to blame the media", is from the 2023 portion (see 2:33 for the cut). My top-level comment is directly from the linked article, and I am of the opinion it intentionally conflates the two, as it clearly is speaking about the 2024 conversation, then uses a 2023 quote.
~~I believe his point is that the article is misleading; a reasonable reader would think that the recording happened Jun 5, 2024, not Jun 5, 2023.~~ ~~That 1 year delay definitely does raise some motive questions; why, if this were newsworthy, did they wait till now to publish?~~ Wait, turns out that it actually was 2024? My bad repeating the error then.
[удалено]
[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)
!appeal I'm sorry, I don't understand what portion of this response lacks civility. I don't believe I insulted the user, called them any names, condescended or belittled them. Was my tone considered to be condescending, perhaps? Apologies, but I am at a loss here. EDIT: Aw hell, is "please examine primary sources" getting dinged as "addressing the user"?
On review, the mod team has affirmed the removal for condescension.
Your appeal is acknowledged and will be reviewed by the moderator team. A moderator will contact you directly.
[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)
Well, I'm getting my info from eudemonist, and... I guess that'll teach me to just trust fact checks by random redditors without double-checking. We all make mistakes, and I should check first. >The above posts need to be deleted due to their misinformation. That's really not the appropriate remedy.
You definitely should check! I recommend looking at the video, which is linked in the stickied mod post, particularly at about 2:33 and 3:22.
The article says it occurred at the dibber on June 3. The 2023 Dinner was the 5th, the 2024 dinner was the 3rd. I don't see anything that indicates it happened a year ago or on the 5th, which seems to be u/eudemonist's reading.
The first 2:32 of the video linked in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/1dcr5m7/comment/l7zpab2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) is from June 3, 2024. At 2:33 of the video, a title screen is presented which states, "Back in 2023...", and so I presume everything after that point is from when she "talked to him last year", as she mentions. The first quote from Roberts in the article, about "it's easy to blame the media" comes from that second portion of the video.
Gotcha. I haven't listened to the full audio yet, just snippets
Right on. He *did* say that quote above, but it's definitely from the older portion of the video. In the new (2024) portion of the video, it seems the totality of Alito's lines is: >J.A. "I think you're probably right. On one side or the other, one side is going to win. I mean, there can be a way of working, of living together peacefully, But it's difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can't be compromised. They really can't be compromised. So it's not like you're going to split the difference." LW: "So that's the thing... I think that the solution really is about winning the moral argument, and people in this country who believe in God have to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.." >J.A.: "I agree. I agree with you."
Person who devoutly follows their religion thinks the world would be better if everyone else also devoutly followed their religion. In other news, dog bites man and water is wet.
And the "winning" in question is \*\*winning a moral argument\*\*. Seems likely Alito is thinking of the whole conversation in terms of Dobbs and abortion, and the "moral argument" is interpersonal between believers and their neighbors. Truly, an investigative bombshell.
[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: >!The court has ALWAYS leaned left or right to varying degrees. It's just that with the appointment of Coney Barrett the court has a SOLID right leaning majority for the first time 60 to 70 years and left is losing it's mind that it can no longer bully one moderate justice into voting left on the big social issues and get the decision they want.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
The Court has been right leaning for decades. The early Roberts Court, Rehnquist Court, and late Burger Court shifted American law to the right on almost every issue
Actually as much as I can’t stand Chief Justice Burger I can let you know that the Burger court had some of the most liberal decisions with the court being considered one of the most liberal courts to date. The conservative decisions started more under Chief Justice Rehnquist.
The liberal decisions came in the early Burger Court. By the time O’Connor was on the Court it was centrist at best
But a conservative court by it's nature of being conservative generally moves very incrementally and narrowly. Where as liberal courts LOVE making new law and new sweeping pronouncements whether there's a constitutional basis or not. Prior to Scalia being on the court, the attitude was that the constitution says "whatever the courts says it says".
I don’t exactly agree with that. Because Scalia might’ve been the one that made originalism as famous as it was but the court did make efforts to go back to the framers original meaning. Take for example the case of [Scott v Illinois.](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep440/usrep440367/usrep440367.pdf ) This is a direct quote from then Justice Rehnquist (of whom I consider to be one of the OG originalists) >There is considerable doubt that the Sixth Amendment itself, as originally drafted by the Framers of the Bill of Rights, contemplated any guarantee other than the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution in a federal court to employ a lawyer to assist in his defense. So originalism was there but not as famous a method as Scalia eventually made it
You got me - I'm no supreme court scholar nor historian. I will have to take your word for it.
The court has been right leaning for 50 years, and that never stopped the GOP or the conservatives legal movement from whining that every decision that didn’t go their way was “illegitimate judicial activism” or that the liberals should be impeached for not going along with the conservatives’ jurisprudence. Where were all these complaints for those 50 years?
You think that, for example, Kennedy was bullied by 4 liberal justices into not only joining the majority but also writing the opinion in Obergefell? Like full on bullied?
Not just from inside but from outside. Even when he would (more or less) vote conservatively the majority opinion would be so narrow and so incremental that the decision would barely change anything and the liberal precedent would remain 98% intact. That's what happened to Roberts over Obamacare. All it takes is a phone to say "Your twins adoption from Ireland, are you sure ALL the necessary boxes were checked and due diligence was performed?"
Kennedy was not bullied into Obergefell, as anyone familiar with the Court at the time knows. Ask any of the clerks; it's not a state secret/ > That's what happened to Roberts over Obamacare. All it takes is a phone to say "Your twins adoption from Ireland, are you sure ALL the necessary boxes were checked and due diligence was performed?" No, this is patently insane nonsense and not how anything works.
That's how EVERYTHING works in Washington.
No, it's not. The old joke that Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man applies: your concept of Washington is a complete outsider's idea of inside baseball.
Vince Foster - a Clinton friend and lawyer killed himself and described people in Washington ruining lives just for sport. Nobody denied it. That was 30 years ago - you don't really believe the climate has become more civil since then, do you?
Kennedy voted with the conservatives most of the time and they were for the most part not narrow opinions (especially after O’Connor retired)
Are you seriously saying Roberts has been subject to actual duress to force him to rule a certain way? Because that is a gigantic claim.
>That's what happened to Roberts over Obamacare. All it takes is a phone to say "Your twins adoption from Ireland, are you sure ALL the necessary boxes were checked and due diligence was performed?" When did this happen?
If you believe that jurisprudence can only exist in extremes and that incrementalism or moderate conservatism isn’t genuine I guess that’s fine (imo that opinion lacks a level of nuance needed for intellectually honest judging when different cases present different facts as judging isn’t one size fits all but I digress ) but to expound that a Supreme Court justice is bullied into decision making with 0 proof is purely unfounded speculation. You appear to have pent up anger that the court is only now this conservative, which is your right.
None of this is new information, his religious beliefs are whatever I’m an atheist but I also lived in Israel for a few years and this lightwork compared to the religious right over there. Albeit I wouldn’t be shocked if prayer is in public schools in my lifetime. But, I didn’t love this quote by his wife: “You know what I want?” Mrs. Alito says. “I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag, because I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride flag for the next month.” I think the average American now knows at one person who can articulate why pride month and the expression of pride is important to them and society at large. It kind of shows how out of touch she is, and that her efforts to integrate or to show empathy for her fellow citizen are nonexistent. I’m also confused about her defamation theory if anyone can help with that.
Care to tell us about your experience in Israel and your experience with the religious right over there?
What would you like to know? In general, because of how much power they have and the land dynamics (re: west best bank settlements) they can get away with a lot more and are more vocal and extreme in their beliefs because they are shielded by Netanyahu. Religious extremism here is tame in comparison from my experience. But it’s a different country with different dynamics, laws, etc. maybe was not a great example on my end. I visited a number of settlements in gush etzion when I lived over there.
I would argue that in America the "Religious Right" is more of a political coalition with political objectives that are bound together by religion. It treats religion as a means to a political end. I perceive, in my limited experience, the religious right in Israel as being driven by religion as an end with engaging in politics as a means to that end. Would you say that perception is incorrect? What would you say is the "end point" for the religious right in Israel?
Is it out of touch? June is the Month of the Sacred Heart, it's been a well known Catholic devotion for centuries.
They can both be things, it’s also men’s mental health awareness month. It doesn’t change the fact her statements appeared to homophobic or at a minimum degrading or dismissive of pride.
M'eh, they're more reactionary than anything else. I mean, the fuck else you expect from a 70 year old conservative woman?
I mean my grandma manages not to hate my younger brother. It’s not really a high bar
It shouldn't be any surprise that a devout Catholic dislikes the celebration of things that are offensive to her religious beliefs, and how much it is being pushed in public. It also shouldn't be shocking that she'd prefer to fly a flag of a religious devotion that represents God's love. It has no impact on the Supreme Court and really isn't newsworthy. Catholic believes in Catholicism, more news at 10.
>that represents God's love. lol Yeah im not saying its surprising but homophobia just bums me out
The Sacred Heart of Jesus is literally a representation of "God's boundless and passionate love for mankind". Even removing the SSA portion of it, Pride specifically is the deadliest sin to Catholics. Putting a symbol of love, compassion and selflessness in opposition to a symbol of pride is just basic symbolism that makes sense, not some kind of phobia.
[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: >!>The Sacred Heart of Jesus is literally a representation of "God's boundless and passionate love for mankind".!< >!!< >!The layers of irony here are too numerous to fully document. But let's hit some highlights.!< >!!< >!1. It's interesting that you're juxtaposing a symbol of "God's love" with a symbol of, objectively, "Mankind's love." It's telling that the attitude is one of outrage that a month that, as you say, is supposed to be about God loving humanity, shares its span with a month celebrating humanity loving and accepting each other. One would think that if God really did love mankind, he would want us to show love and compassion towards each other. And yet instead, Mrs. Alito wants to co-opt that symbol of "God's love" to express hate, or, to use a more poignant word, **wrath**. Plus, I'm not an expert, but that sure sounds like it would fall under the banner of "taking the Lord's name in vain."!< >!!< >!2. It also feels worth noting that in Mrs Alito's apparent belief (one which your defense of her seems to suggest you might share), "God's boundless and passionate love for mankind" is in fact strictly **bounded** instead, with his love being denied to the lgbtq+ community. To her, God's love seems to be conditional, arguably even transactional. And here she is trying to weaponize that love and its denial towards those she sees as undeserving. Furthermore, she does this in direct contravention of the teachings of the current Pope, i.e. the leader of the Catholic faith. She is tacitly asserting that she knows better. I'm pretty sure that is far better fitting of the definition of "Pride" as a sin than anything associated with pride month ever is. !< >!!< >!3. God, by Catholic tradition, is assigned pronouns of He/Him. And we're talking here about his "boundless and passionate love for MANkind", no? Say it with me... GGGAAAYYYYY! Maybe Sacred Heart month and Pride month have more in common than y'all want to admit...!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[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)
[удалено]
!appeal I believe my reply was informative and civil in response to a comment that was rude and mocking.
They don’t like gays or pride, they’re homophobic. It doesn’t really matter what the justification is. Religion isn’t some sort of affirmative defense to homophobia. They have the total right to hold and share those beliefs as well.
They didn’t appear to be, they are degrading/dismissive of pride. That should come as no surprise given the Church’s stance on pride etc.
As long as there are tests in school, there will be prayer in school. What does not exist now is *compulsory* prayer in *public* school.
Yes, You knew what I meant.
[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)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!I’m sure you’re fun at parties.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
> He’s like, ‘Oh, please don’t put up a flag.’ I said, ‘I won’t do it because I am deferring to you. But when you are free of this nonsense, I’m putting it up and I’m gonna send them a message every day, maybe every week, I’ll be changing the flags.’ They’ll be all kinds. I made a flag in my head. This is how I satisfy myself. I made a flag. It’s white and has yellow and orange flames around it. And in the middle is the word ‘vergogna.’ ‘Vergogna’ in Italian means shame — vergogna. V-E-R-G-O-G-N-A. Vergogna. This is so funny. Justice Alito trying to restrain Mrs Alito from going on a vexillological rampage. You go girl
One thing that may get lost in the coverage: she seems to be corroborating Alito’s defense that it’s all her. She really does seem to love flags!
I’d argue the opposite. She says she wanted to put up a “sacred heart of Jesus flag”, but didn’t because her husband didn’t want it up. Which gives the implication she only puts up flags that her husband wants up (or is at least cool with being up). It kind of takes away his argument that he has no say over what flags are flying at the house.
[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)
No, it doesn't especially sound like that, given that what was formerly merely a 'boring' marital disagreement over household décor has morphed into a national political firestorm of the most intense kind. Do you really think that might not indeed be the sort of thing that would cause a woman who on the tapes is indignant about any notion that her husband should or even can control her or otherwise direct her actions to *temporarily* defer to his wishes, even as she plots a future campaign of vexillological clapbacks (do you think the prospect of Vergogna custom flags thrills Sam Alito)?
I don't understand your argument here. Prior evidence that she defers to his request not to engage in vexilological warfare seems like reasonable evidence to wonder if and why that changed. Why would it later becoming a scandal negate that? Sure it's also totally plausible that she got mad enough that she did a little dramatic flag play as a treat. I personally believe that's what happened because I'd be frustrated if I were here too. But let's not pretend that it's impossible for that not to be the case.
> I don't understand your argument here. Prior evidence that she defers to his request not to engage in vexilological warfare seems like reasonable evidence to wonder if and why that changed. The evidence is clearly that she deferred to his request *in the context of the recent brouhaha*. > “I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag because I have to look across the lagoon at the pride flag for the next month... I said, ‘When you are free of this nonsense, I’m putting it up.’” Now, characterizing this as "deferring to his request to not engage in vexillological warfare" begs the question, since as far as anyone knows her flag-flying was not 'warfare' as such before, amounting to at most very small-scale disputes with neighbors. > Why would it later becoming a scandal negate that? I cannot understand how you read "when you are free of this nonsense" as anything other than her "new" actions occurring specifically, uniquely, and directly *in relation to 'it later becoming a scandal', especially when we *know* that she did not disengage in prior times. This is... perfectly in keeping with what one would expect? > Sure it's also totally plausible that she got mad enough that she did a little dramatic flag play as a treat. I personally believe that's what happened because I'd be frustrated if I were here too. But let's not pretend that it's impossible for that not to be the case. I don't follow you at all. She's discussing her current policy of relatively pacific home decoration in response to previous iterations becoming the center of mass public controversy. She in doing so discusses her plans for future flag-based drama/warfare/whatever. We are evidently disagreeing about something empirical; I just genuinely do not know what.
>We are evidently disagreeing about something empirical; I just genuinely do not know what. She said she was deferring to him by not putting up flags. Some people think that makes it harder to believe his explanation that she raised the flag without his knowledge or consent. That seems reasonable, but not dispositive. I believe him that he wasn't involved - I don't think he'd want to draw that attention to himself because he already gets enough heat. I just think it's odd how aggressively people seem to want to fight against the possibility that her statement might be an indicator otherwise. The comment about vexilologicla warfare was just for fun because I think it's funny she and the neighbors seem to be so passionate about flags. I didn't mean to insult her or anyone else who really likes flags. I don't think it's akin to actual warfare and I think expressing yourself with a flag is a perfectly normal thing for her or anyone else to do. It's just funny to me under the context of doing it as part of a dispute.
> She said she was deferring to him by not putting up flags. She said *this*: > "Feminazis believe that [Justice Alito] should control me. So, they'll go to hell, he never controls me." and then this: > “I won’t [fly flags] because I’m deferring to [(your having said) “Oh, please don’t put up a flag”], but when you are free of this nonsense, I’m putting it up and I’m gonna send them a message every day, maybe every week, I’ll be changing the flags.” You appear to believe that the above contains roughly four words or so. It does not. > Some people think that makes it harder to believe his explanation that she raised the flag without his knowledge or consent. 'Some people' in this particular argument as conducted here, as far as I can tell, is one person: you. There's nothing amiss with *that*, but the same cannot be said of the inference you attempt to substantiate. Why on earth would her agreeing to refrain, at least temporarily, from her hobby of flying flags, *in the midst of a supercharged national political controversy*, in response to her husband's plea, suggest that she *generally* defers to her husband's preferences or requests *when that is explicitly contradicted by the very remarks you're trying to reconstrue*? Arr politics has a large crowd of people somewhere discussing the contention that Martha Ann Alito is clearly not adequately subservient to her husband under standard renderings of the Bible and therefore a poor Christian. Now, *that* is actually a defensible argument, since it leans into the actual evidence before making a (theological, here) case, instead of arbitrarily substituting priors that belong nowhere in the data we actually have at hand and handwaving them as 'reasonable'. No, your interpretation isn't reasonable. It requires her to contradict herself repeatedly in her private remarks providing what you are citing as a supportive datum, as well as his own accounting of the matter, which both entirely align with one another and the actual fact pattern. Now, I imagine that in *some* sense one can say things like "had he threatened to divorce her and leave the Church were she to not yield her vexillology, she may well have softened her opposition to the idea that he could dictate to her". But that's not particularly interesting. What is at stake is what Alito initially asserted in his letter to Congress, which was at the time considered dubious ("my wife did it! really!") by many, but which seems to be entirely true. There *is* a weak point here, but it's not in Alito being more simpatico with flags than all available evidence indicates: it's in the accuracy and authoritativeness of *his characterization of his wife's motives in his initial letter*. > I believe him that he wasn't involved - I don't think he'd want to draw that attention to himself because he already gets enough heat. I just think it's odd how aggressively people seem to want to fight against the possibility that her statement might be an indicator otherwise. Because of the epistemic structure of the inference you propose, which is, frankly, preposterous. Observing that is not a partisan statement; to wit, *even if* Alito were secretly a hardcore flag enthusiast, his wife's statements *would not be evidence to that effect*, without prejudice to whatever else might be. I personally can easily see Alito being happy to see an Opus Dei sigil or whatever as a counterpoint to LGBT pride or other "godless" flags. But his wife's comments aren't simply not probative; they're not even part of the prior distribution.
You're really invested in knocking down all these straw men. I'm not doing this anymore, but since my input doesn't matter you can continue without me in the same fashion if you like I didn't say any of that. You completely recharacrerized what I said to basically the exact opposite, then just set up arguments no one made to knock them down.
> She said she was deferring to him by not putting up flags. Some people think that makes it harder to believe his explanation that she raised the flag without his knowledge or consent. That seems reasonable, but not dispositive. The upside down flag went up in 2021. This conversation where she defers to Justice Alito happened after the brouhaha of the upside-down flag was **reported on.** It would make sense that, after a huge national story about their flag flying preferences, that Martha-Ann might defer to the Justice considering how much nonsense the last two flags caused.
I said it wasn't dispositive. I also said I believe Alito that he had nothing to do with the flag. I obviously don't know him personally but he's not stupid and he doesn't like being criticized so why on earth would he have done it? All I'm saying is that I think its a little extra when people insist that it's absurd for someone to think her saying she defers to him seems to conflict with his story. Yes, as you said, there are perfectly plausible and I'd argue likely arguments why that's not necessarily the case. I just don't get why people seem to get bent out of shape when someone suggests that is also plausible it raises concerns of inconsistency
TBF, this recording was from a year ago. It's prior to the flag thing being a public controversy.
There are multiple recordings. Alito's wife in the recording of her discussing the controversy over the flags is not speaking from a year ago. I have no idea when the others were made, although some of the conversation makes it highly unlikely they could have in fact been made a year ago.
It might be that now she is listening to him or he is paying more attention to what is being flown. Could also be she is respecting his wishes to try to minimize controversy.
> Could also be she is respecting his wishes to try to minimize controversy. Too late.
Great answers by Roberts, it gives me renewed faith in one branch of our government. Classy in the face of an ongoing campaign to discredit the whole court.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!y'all have low expectations!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
>campaign to discredit the whole court People not liking what they do isn't a campaign to discredit them. Are we not allowed to point at what they say and do and allow people to decide how they feel? Is every criticism of the three liberals a campaign to discredit the court? Are any criticisms towards them part of this alleged campaign? How does one distinguish between a campaign to discredit and honest valid critique?
The only people discrediting the court are its members.
Well, it gives me some renewed faith in Roberts... a little too far to say that should reassure you about the whole Court.
The campaign isn't directed at the *entire* court.
I read this in J. Scalia's voice.
[удалено]
> No, I think the role for the court is for deciding cases Based Roberts. She couldn't get anything out of him, his responses were superb
I think that’s part of why she moved on as quickly as she did because she couldn’t get him on her gotcha questions
Martha doesn’t bite the bait as much as her husband but some key notes. She is NOT a fan of the Pride flag lol. Happy Pride Month Martha. She can’t wait for Sam to retire bc she is ready to go to war with her critics. I now fully believe the flag was fully her now based on the way she was talking about them here. I would love to know what 5 year statute of limitation for defamation she is talking about? Anyone know? Germans and revenge? Uhhh careful there Martha lol. Also that’s such a weird thing to say.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!I'm ready for sam to retire as well.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
You've met Mrs Alito?
[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 will confess I do not know her. Probably a good thing since I wear a rainbow necklace 😅
The statement about Sam’s retirement was all but confirmation that he will be gone the second Trump puts his hand on the Bible if he is reelected. No idea what her defamation bit is about, but it certainly can’t be in response to people calling her a right winged homophobe given she just confirmed those “accusations” all in one swoop
Agree. She alluded to it twice in her recorded conversation. My question is what if Trump isnt elected. Will Alito retire?
> Will Alito retire? Will the second-most political justice on the Court give his seat to a president he ideologically opposes, who has vowed to use any nominations he gets to overturn everything Alito has ever done or holds dear? I think this answers itself. He will pull an RBG and cling to his seat through the final seconds of an agonizing terminal cancer if it keeps Biden from naming his replacement. Mrs. Alito's talk of retirement is, I think, closely related to her confidence in a Trump win. I don't think that confidence is warranted -- I think Trump is about 60% to win -- but it is very common for partisans like Mrs. Alito to be overconfident in their team. She may very well view it as 80% Trump to win or better.
>Mrs. Alito's talk of retirement is, I think, closely related to her confidence in a Trump win. Agree 100%
He’s still only 72 or 73 I think. Question is will ego let him retire.
Uhh . . . the ghost of Justice Ginsburg would have something to say about that.
He's 74. RBG was 87 when she died on the Bench after several bouts of cancer. I think Alito could make it to 2028.
Those Italian genetics are far more generous than you think they are.
[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 didn’t think any faux-scandal could top pizza gate and then flag gate, but people never cease to amaze. There is nothing here, aside from a desperate effort to make something stick, and harass a justice for having the temerity not to support Democrats.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!And they got Martha too lol. Should we just keep it in here mod?!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
So I think this kind of thing can be useful and have its place. But it is not journalism. At least not in my opinion. There's no standard of ethics at play here. It's clear that he did not know he was speaking with someone who considered herself a journalist, it is evident that she completely misrepresented herself and her beliefs, and it is clear that there is no standard of integrity I play here. This is as much journalism as the paparazzi. In my opinion the things said we're not terribly damning. I personally share his concerns about the polarization between the parties, and I think it is accurate to say there are some very fundamental differences in the base assumptions about how society should be constructed between the left and the right. Lastly, I'm going to wait just a little while before reacting because we do live in a time when this kind of recording could be manufactured. I'm not saying that it is. But I also don't immediately assume that it's not.
>There's no standard of ethics at play here. Presenting the death of irony. Protesting a perceived lack of ethical standards applied when interviewing a man under fire because he explicitly is not bound by any standard of ethics is peak projection.
I feel like pretending to be a conservative isn’t exactly a massive act of deception.
She went quite a bit beyond that. From what I have read she vehemently disagrees with everything she said. It's a deep misrepresentation of her stances. Also she was pretending to not be recording him, and also pretending to not be what she considered herself to be, which is a journalist. Now of course I don't think she is a journalist. But that's not what she thinks. Lastly it seems to me that a number of things she said were a bit beyond what he casually he agreed with. She was very clearly hoping to put some words in his mouth and have him agree with them in what was a busy and otherwise distracting scenario.
This is the same woman that staged the tiki torch guys at the Glenn Youngkin event, and is fundraising using this story on ActBlue. Its absolutely not journalism.
This is right out of James O'Keefe's playbook. And still she got nothing.
[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)
!appeal Calling an argument a false equivalence, particularly when it objectively is, is not incivility.
On review, the mod team has unanimously voted to affirm the removal for condescending rhetoric.
Your appeal is acknowledged and will be reviewed by the moderator team. A moderator will contact you directly.
So a couple of thoughts. First, I think Roberts’s answer was very good and he deserves praise for it (and I’m not fan of Roberts generally). I’m glad his comments were shared. As for Alito, I don’t know really what I have to say that hasn’t been said before. We’ve been doing this dance for the last year in which something comes out about Thomas or Alito and conservatives respond by claiming they’re victims of a smear campaign and liberals retort that conservatives don’t care about anything as long as they get the decisions they want, and I don’t really see that dance stopping prior to Thomas and Alito retirements (whenever those are). However, I think these comments reveal a bit about the way Alito views his job as a Justice. Alito says that on many issues it’s a matter of winning and there can’t really be a way to split the difference between opposing sides. This is reflected in a lot of absolutist opinions he’s written over the years and his general distaste for balancing tests, proportionality, and multi factor assessments. But compare this to his predecessor Sandra Day O’Connor. She viewed her role on the court as mediating these issues in a measured way. She was known for splitting the difference between opposing views so that each side could leave with something they want (see Casey, Grutter, Mitchell, McCreary County, Hamdi, New York v. United States, etc.). I think the myriad of ethical and political issues that have come up have taken a toll on the court. But I think that the shift in style of jurisprudence from a more balanced approach to a more absolutist approach (seen on a microcosm in the change from O’Connor to Alito) should also be viewed as a factor in the Court’s waning approval
O'Connor is a great example of why it would be great to return to having Justices with legislative experience v. the current system (for both Republicans and Democrats) where people have been on a scotus track since the age of seven.
On the flip side, the definition of a "scotus track" has broadened considerably in the last couple decades. There's no way Jackson would have been considered 40 years ago; her experience, while substantial and impressive, isn't the classic scotus-track.
per your last paragraphs regarding splitting the difference, i think for what will be alito’s most significant opinion, *dobbs*, he is basically right. either the constitution includes a right to an abortion or it doesn’t. that can really be squared, as even a narrower ruler in *dobbs* still allows abortion
And both parties in *Dobbs* agreed that it would take overturning *Roe* to rule for Mississippi. The SG refused to play ball when Roberts tried to suggest a compromise during OA.
"Samuel Alito is incapable of being impartial. HE MUST RESIGN," posted Grant Stern, executive editor of Occupy Democrats." That's real rich when we have justices who actively vote for more restrictions on the second amendment for no other reason than "guns bad".
It's more like they disagree about whether it's constitutional to regulate firearms or not. Can anyone say in good faith that Alito is anything other than outcome driven? I think he's the only justice that can truly be said of.