Right. Neither Alito's sedition flag nor his Christian Nationalist flag were "political." Just like cramming every black South Carolina voter into one district to disenfranchise them wasn't "racial."
Excellent letter to Roberts! Kudos..I get the feeling that the way to 'bring down' this rogue fascist SCOTUS will be through a campaign of 'death by 1000 cuts"
This was 100% 'chef's kiss
"You may need reminding that the Supreme Court has no army. You have no police; you lack all mechanisms of enforcement. Your authority depends on America’s trust in the rule of law"
Right. It wasn’t political; the Alitos’ house had simply lost engine power and radio connectivity. Besides, it’s not like there was anything particularly politically charged going on in the DC area in January 2021.
Kidding aside, the “pre-Dobbs” copout is an especially craven dodge given that Dobbs was, y’know, two years ago.
Also, why wasn’t the Alitos’ snub of the inauguration front page news? And why didn’t that lead anyone at the Post to reconsider?
It’s really worth noticing when and where news organizations connect dots and when they consider it “speculation”—when they congratulate themselves for cutting through smokescreens and when they literally congratulate themselves for explicitly not doing that.
Semafor's Ben Smith wrote that the Post's "neighborhood dispute" story "never took shape." WTF does this mean? This isn't a direct quote from Cameron Barr. It's a paraphrase from Smith. What did Barr actually say was the reason? Answer: The Post passed on the flag story AND the "neighborhood dispute" because it didn't want to piss off Alito. Simple as that. The Post failed.
To be fair to Nina Totenberg, and the pre-Dobbs decision time. We, all of us, citizens like myself, journalists and even politicians - wanted to believe that the Supreme Court was MOSTLY unbiased and above the fray of politics. Despite evidence to the contrary , Dredd Scott, Gore vs Bush etc , we, the people wanted to believe that the overall arc was towards fairness and principle in the decisions rendered. We wanted to, because it is a necessary pillar of the foundation of our democracy. But alas, much like Bernie Maddoff shook the believe to even the purest capitalists , that the system of capitalism in the USA was built on a real foundation, we now are finding that this pillar of justice is but a facade. Alito and Thomas are taking the cue of Scalia - " just get over it" and doing as they please. They have no regard for tradition responsibility to laws and justice. It is clear that they see themselves as vanguards to fight the laws that they never believed in whether rendered fairy or not. To them, only they know ( with Gods and Leonard Leo's help ) can see what the law should be and what should be discarded.
We are in trouble as a nation as each of the pillars of our system are eroded by zealots such as these people.
"Wanted to believe" is the key here. Who's your "we" here? It definitely isn't "all of us." Whatever illusions I had about the Court started to fray with the 1987 nomination of Robert Bork, which fortunately failed, and were consigned to the ash heap after Clarence Thomas was confirmed in 1991. As to pillars, if you keep your eye on the fourth pillar -- Big Money -- you'll be less surprised by what goes on with the other three.
The media definitely isn’t supposed to act according to what they want to believe but clearly they frequently do. They really wanted to believe that Bush would be a better president than Gore —apparenlty because Gore didn’t pander to them, give them idiotic nicknames, etc. and also expected them to listen to discussions about serious policy issues. In contrast they believed Bush would be “more fun to have a beer with”. I have read this article many times but it still shocks and infuriates me:
As a writer and editor who's got some journalism experience (weekly newspaper division), I know how complex and hierarchical "the media" is so generalizations aren't all that helpful. What "they" are you referring to? Reporters? Editors? Publishers? Owners? Print media, online media, TV and/or cable media?
Heh! Unfortunately, Louis XIV's famous aphorism could be adapted for the occasion: "Après lui le déluge," or (if I can mix my languages) "al nakba." There are quite a few individuals whose croaking I'd celebrate. Better start stockpiling suitable libations -- and chocolate.
The question I have is, when did leadership or Senate Judiciary Dems learn about the flags?
Their flaccid response to the breaking stories wasn’t particularly inspiring. Did any of them know, early on, and just keep it quiet as well, to avoid having to write any sternly worded letters?
The only way WaPo could consider this just a matter of Mrs. Alito's views is if its reporter didn't know that the flag had already been up for several days. Since it had been, in beggars belief that whoever "tipped" the reporter didn't mention that. A Supreme Court Justice--or any judge--has a freakin' (if sadly unenforceable) duty to remain politically neutral unless he chooses to recuse himself from cases that involves the particular point of politics a display shows. It's called "avoiding the appearance of impropriety." How in heaven's name could he think that his wife's "distress" at the neighbor's signs warranted the exception to the flag code that allows the upside down flag. Is her "distress" the same as that of those on a sinking ship? And does he bow to his wife on questions of ethics that apply to him, letting her speak for him with nary an admonition about what his position requires of him?
Whether or not he recognized the reversed flag's appearance on January 6, his wife's use of it was clearly a political statement about TRUMP. And he should recuse himself from any case that involved trump. Period.
Right. Neither Alito's sedition flag nor his Christian Nationalist flag were "political." Just like cramming every black South Carolina voter into one district to disenfranchise them wasn't "racial."
Alito needs to be impeached, along with Thomas. Here's my letter to Roberts, as re-printed by American Lawyers Defending Democracy and others. Pass it on. And thank you for being in this fight. https://sabrinahaake.substack.com/p/alito-and-thomas-need-a-spanking
Excellent letter to Roberts! Kudos..I get the feeling that the way to 'bring down' this rogue fascist SCOTUS will be through a campaign of 'death by 1000 cuts"
This was 100% 'chef's kiss
"You may need reminding that the Supreme Court has no army. You have no police; you lack all mechanisms of enforcement. Your authority depends on America’s trust in the rule of law"
Right. It wasn’t political; the Alitos’ house had simply lost engine power and radio connectivity. Besides, it’s not like there was anything particularly politically charged going on in the DC area in January 2021.
Kidding aside, the “pre-Dobbs” copout is an especially craven dodge given that Dobbs was, y’know, two years ago.
Also, why wasn’t the Alitos’ snub of the inauguration front page news? And why didn’t that lead anyone at the Post to reconsider?
It’s really worth noticing when and where news organizations connect dots and when they consider it “speculation”—when they congratulate themselves for cutting through smokescreens and when they literally congratulate themselves for explicitly not doing that.
Semafor's Ben Smith wrote that the Post's "neighborhood dispute" story "never took shape." WTF does this mean? This isn't a direct quote from Cameron Barr. It's a paraphrase from Smith. What did Barr actually say was the reason? Answer: The Post passed on the flag story AND the "neighborhood dispute" because it didn't want to piss off Alito. Simple as that. The Post failed.
The media has done a disgraceful job covering all things political.
The media's collective shrug during the WHOLE YEAR of an empty SCOTUS seat- regardless of who was responsible- was despicable.
The media's one second OMG when Alito negatively reacted to President Obama's State of the Union address by mumbling & shaking his head.
There's not enough room here to list the plethora of failings from the media.
Suffice it to say the right wing has received quite a number of passes from MSM.
When will the pendulum swing back to the center?
To be fair to Nina Totenberg, and the pre-Dobbs decision time. We, all of us, citizens like myself, journalists and even politicians - wanted to believe that the Supreme Court was MOSTLY unbiased and above the fray of politics. Despite evidence to the contrary , Dredd Scott, Gore vs Bush etc , we, the people wanted to believe that the overall arc was towards fairness and principle in the decisions rendered. We wanted to, because it is a necessary pillar of the foundation of our democracy. But alas, much like Bernie Maddoff shook the believe to even the purest capitalists , that the system of capitalism in the USA was built on a real foundation, we now are finding that this pillar of justice is but a facade. Alito and Thomas are taking the cue of Scalia - " just get over it" and doing as they please. They have no regard for tradition responsibility to laws and justice. It is clear that they see themselves as vanguards to fight the laws that they never believed in whether rendered fairy or not. To them, only they know ( with Gods and Leonard Leo's help ) can see what the law should be and what should be discarded.
We are in trouble as a nation as each of the pillars of our system are eroded by zealots such as these people.
"Wanted to believe" is the key here. Who's your "we" here? It definitely isn't "all of us." Whatever illusions I had about the Court started to fray with the 1987 nomination of Robert Bork, which fortunately failed, and were consigned to the ash heap after Clarence Thomas was confirmed in 1991. As to pillars, if you keep your eye on the fourth pillar -- Big Money -- you'll be less surprised by what goes on with the other three.
The media definitely isn’t supposed to act according to what they want to believe but clearly they frequently do. They really wanted to believe that Bush would be a better president than Gore —apparenlty because Gore didn’t pander to them, give them idiotic nicknames, etc. and also expected them to listen to discussions about serious policy issues. In contrast they believed Bush would be “more fun to have a beer with”. I have read this article many times but it still shocks and infuriates me:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/10/gore200710
OMG. I missed that and I’m a VF subscriber.
It was a prelude for the hatchet job on Clinton - she compounded the problem by being both a wonk and a woman.
And a version is happening today, when Trump’s every word is amplified and voters think Biden is responsible for overturning Roe.
Free link:
https://archive.ph/SA81T
As a writer and editor who's got some journalism experience (weekly newspaper division), I know how complex and hierarchical "the media" is so generalizations aren't all that helpful. What "they" are you referring to? Reporters? Editors? Publishers? Owners? Print media, online media, TV and/or cable media?
Susanna, the VF analysis she mentioned skewers the Washington press corps for something other than odds-not-stakes.
I truly did not realize how perversely and repeatedly political reporters mischaracterized Gore.
https://archive.ph/SA81T
All I know is that I celebrated Scalia's croak with a "black-out-drunk" revelry that began at 9 AM the morning I learned of his croak
Heh! Unfortunately, Louis XIV's famous aphorism could be adapted for the occasion: "Après lui le déluge," or (if I can mix my languages) "al nakba." There are quite a few individuals whose croaking I'd celebrate. Better start stockpiling suitable libations -- and chocolate.
Coronas and ladydrinks!!!!!
HUZZAH!
I'm currently a fan of Sierra Nevada's Torpedo and a local brew named after the brewmaster's bulldog. <g>
Once upon a time, I actually believed newspapers delivered the news.
The question I have is, when did leadership or Senate Judiciary Dems learn about the flags?
Their flaccid response to the breaking stories wasn’t particularly inspiring. Did any of them know, early on, and just keep it quiet as well, to avoid having to write any sternly worded letters?
The only way WaPo could consider this just a matter of Mrs. Alito's views is if its reporter didn't know that the flag had already been up for several days. Since it had been, in beggars belief that whoever "tipped" the reporter didn't mention that. A Supreme Court Justice--or any judge--has a freakin' (if sadly unenforceable) duty to remain politically neutral unless he chooses to recuse himself from cases that involves the particular point of politics a display shows. It's called "avoiding the appearance of impropriety." How in heaven's name could he think that his wife's "distress" at the neighbor's signs warranted the exception to the flag code that allows the upside down flag. Is her "distress" the same as that of those on a sinking ship? And does he bow to his wife on questions of ethics that apply to him, letting her speak for him with nary an admonition about what his position requires of him?
Whether or not he recognized the reversed flag's appearance on January 6, his wife's use of it was clearly a political statement about TRUMP. And he should recuse himself from any case that involved trump. Period.
I seriously doubt they knew. What are the odds that anyone at the WaPo would have told them about it if they weren’t going to publish the story?