Those Flags Are an SOS for the Rest of Us

abuse of power, civil rights, criminal justice reform, current events, insurrection, justice, Supreme Court, Supreme Court rulings, voting rights 7 Minutes

We have two–at least two–Supreme Court justices who are demonstrably sympathetic to those who attempted to violently overthrow our government and who exhibit a Christian nationalist antipathy for the halting progress we’ve made since the Civil War to create a more perfect union.

Both Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have demonstrated an angry pomposity to criticisms of them. It is time we demand our democratically elected leaders show them the limits of their power. Though they purport to be strict textualists who are keeping Americans on the path the founders penned, they are, in fact, making up stuff as they go along. Bad stuff. Dangerous stuff.

This past week, there’s been considerable preoccupation with The New York Times’s revelations about Alito’s flying an upside-down American flag during the period between the Insurrection (when many such “Stop the Steal” flags were prominently displayed as a sign of American distress worth fighting over) and President Biden’s assumption of the presidency–and then by Alito’s flying an “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a Revolutionary War symbol that’s been similarly embraced by the Insurrectionists–with a fillip of Christian nationalism to boot.

But while many of us were railing about these dreadful symbols, Alito and his evil twin Thomas were busily wreaking havoc on our constitution and what we’ve assumed to be settled law. And the rest of their radical majority members signed on to the destruction.

Before I go into this truly awful injustice, I think it’s worth noting that Alito has not shown himself to have the qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice.

Think about it. He wasn’t even George W. Bush’s first choice. (That would be “W,” the “compassionate conservative.”) Bush wanted to put his counsel, Harriet Miers, on the bench to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor, but Miers’ nomination was not well-received by “conservatives” and others.

Please note: The sense that “reasonable Republicans” have been pushed away by Trump belies the radical strain of Republicans going back decades.

When Miers withdrew from consideration, the amiable but lethal-to-justice Leonard Leo swept into the breach, and Bush bent to his wishes. Remember Leonard Leo, who’s been trying for decades (see note above) to remake the courts and America in his elitist, Christian image? Surprise, another one of those Insurrectionist-loving/Christian nationalist flags has been spotted flying above his house.

Alito seems to be using his pomposity–“How dare anyone question me, my wife, our flag-flying esthetics?” (I’m paraphrasing)–to distract from his really bad and jaundiced understanding of the law.

Compounding all this was his error-ridden opinion overturning Roe with the Dobbs decision, which has jeopardized the health and lives of millions of American women—and which some court watchers say he may well have leaked precipitously to prevent his court colleagues from finding a compromise.

According to Ian Milhiser in a lengthy, revelatory Vox piece,

“Alito isn’t simply a bad judge; he is the negation of law, frequently embracing claims that even intellectual leaders within the conservative movement find risible.”

Milhiser notes that some of Alito’s opinions are “genuinely embarrassing,” such as those in which he kept trying and failing to kill Obamacare. They’re so bad that Thomas has even on occasion criticized his dissents.

One of the most troubling aspects of Alito’s long career is what Milhiser points out is his “desire to write a presumption of white racial innocence into the law—and especially into voting rights law.” (emphasis mine)

This is exactly what he just did (Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP), claiming South Carolina Republicans’ decision to move Black voters in a gerrymandering way that further reduces their voting power was a political—not racial—decision. (The fact that the Court found political gerrymandering just hunky-dory is itself dreadful, but that’s the current situation.)

What does it mean at this time, with all the shameful drama swirling around Alito, that he got to write that outrageous opinion?

The six-three radical majority shamed itself once again with this ruling, and Alito’s voice committed this backward leap to the SCOTUS canon. He created a “presumption of good faith,” meaning that white legislators who are defying the voting rights law (I think it’s fair to call their position “racist”) must surely be acting solely for political reasons.

Tell that to the Black voters in South Carolina. This is the odious next step arising from Justice Roberts’ odious opening in Shelby v. Holder (2016), when Roberts insisted “our country has changed…” suggesting that the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 proved it was no longer needed.

Of course, Clarence Thomas (Bush Senior’s appointee to the court after the late great Thurgood Marshall died) seized this delicious opportunity to show how much further the court could go–backwards.

Thomas tied this current ruling to the landmark Brown v Board of Education, which rests on the Fourteenth Amendment and decried “separate but equal” education. In his mind, “the Court took a boundless view of equitable remedies” and demonstrated that “redistricting remedies rest on the same questionable understanding of equitable power.”

There is apparently no end to the unraveling of progress that the radical majority is determined to effect.

Of course, there are also the huge ethical lapses that both Alito and Thomas have been shamefully shameless about: their well-documented acceptance of gifts and other favors from billionaires. Recall that Alito’s excuse for accepting a free seat on a private plane was that it would otherwise have been empty, so why not?

We must not let this critical moment of attention on them and the court go by without strong public reaction. At the very least, we must prevent Alito from participating in the two forthcoming cases involving Trump–when he’s so publicly shredded his black robe and revealed his blatant Trumpaphilia.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

—IMPORTANT ADDENDUM: You can file a citizen complaint of misconduct against Alito, which has already been prepared by Alden Hackmann, at votetosavedemocracy@gmail.com. Go to Dump.Alito.com. While you’re there, you can also file a complaint against Judge Aileen Cannon.

Hackmann has entered all the info you need; you just have to fill in your identifying info, print out the document, put a stamp on the envelope, and send it off. He also suggests sending a copy to Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, writing “FYI–filed with the Supreme Court” at the top of the page, Hackmann writes, “to provide him with proof that there is a public outcry over Justice Alito’s bias,” and calling Durbin too. He provides Durbin’s phone numbers and address.

—ENCOURAGE HOUSE INVESTIGATIONS AND CENSURES. Call your members of Congress at the Congressional switchboard (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected with your representative’s office. You’ll be adding to the momentum–and augmenting the public outcry.

To date, Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) a senior member on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a Resolution of Censure against Alito that also demands he recuse himself from all court involvement of the 2020 election and the Insurrection.

Here is the resolution, which has been endorsed by the Alliance for Justice, Common Cause, Court Accountability, and Fix the Court.

Fifty Congressional Democrats wrote directly to Alito on May 21, requesting his recusal from such cases.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said Alito must recuse himself, adding
that he and Justice Thomas

“have demonstrated a degree of political bias that has undermined the image of the high court as a bastion of nonpartisan objectivity. 
Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are totally out of control. These individuals continue to detonate the credibility of the United States Supreme Court.”

—DEMAND SENATE INVESTIGATIONS, CONDEMNATIONS, AND A BINDING ETHICS CODE. Call your senators and Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill) and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at (202) 224-3121. Tell them to pressure Chief Justice Roberts, whose reverence for the Court does not seem to extend to a sensitivity to why its credibility with the American public is plummeting, to urge Alito to recuse himself. If Alito refuses, Roberts should refer these flagrant violations to the Judicial Conference, which is designed to investigate such improprieties.

Senator Durbin has been namby-pamby about Senate action and needs to hear from us, as does Senator Schumer. Durbin said he and his colleagues were quick to condemn Alito, but not ready to call a hearing. But committee members Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), did say an investigation was warranted.

And Whitehouse said these violations were further evidence for the need to pass legislation he introduced, which passed the committee in 2023 with Democratic votes amid “fierce GOP opposition,” according to Politico.

Note that all the above statements were made before the second flag episode reports became known.

Of course, the better option would be for Alito (and Thomas) to be impeached or resign. But there’s no way either will relinquish his role on the court and permit Biden to appoint another justice. Rumor has it that both men are ready to retire—but only if Trump wins in November (which won’t happen!)

—SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE WATCHING THE COURT.

Thanks to Tengrain at MockPaperScissors, I recently learned about a new grassroots organization that formed to address the radicalization of the Supreme Court. Please watch the brief video below. This umbrella organization represents more than one hundred groups that are deeply concerned about the Supreme Court. Their names appear in the Partners section of the website.

Another important organization is Committee for Responsible Ethics in Government (CREW), the group who represented the Colorado Republican voters who sought to keep Trump’s name off the ballot.

Perhaps most important, we must all…

Keep all these bad faith, dangerous Court decisions and behaviors in mind when thinking about November. The power of the Supreme Court cannot be underestimated. Remind everyone you know.

President Biden just appointed his two hundredth federal judge—a vital counterbalance to many of the truly bizarre Trump judges (eg, Aileen Cannon–Trump’s lifeline in the stolen classified documents case–and Matthew Kacsmaryk–the judge whose terrible mifepristone ruling is causing great damage).

The president said:

“Judges matter.

“These men and women have the power to uphold basic rights or to roll them back.

“They hear cases that decide whether women have the freedom to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions; whether Americans have the freedom to cast their ballots; whether workers have the freedom to unionize and make a living wage for their families; and whether children have the freedom to breathe clean air and drink clean water.”

We must get large enough Democratic majorities to EXPAND THE DAMN COURT!

Annie

Published by annieasksyou

I've been a nonfiction writer for many years, exploring diverse topics that pique my curiosity, as noted in my first blog posting (Greetings!). I'm seeking dialogue with others committed to joining me in this exploration, sharing my conviction that different views can be exchanged in a respectful, civil discourse where we can learn from one another and be agreeable, even when we disagree. These postings depend for their enrichment on your participation: your ideas, insights, knowledge, opinions, and personal stories.

Published

40 thoughts on “Those Flags Are an SOS for the Rest of Us”

  1. Case in point his opinion yesterday that South Carolina’s redistricting, which was described as “surgical in it’s targeting of Black voters” is A-Ok because it was aimed at diluting Democratic votes rather than minority votes.

    This absurd ruling utterly eviscerates the Voting Rights Act (after the mortal wound inflicted by Roberts in Rucho), even though the documented evidence in the case makes it crystal clear that the object was to dilute the voting power of the Black voters.

    He is now making shit up out of whole cloth, rubbing his ass in all our faces and actin in high dudgeon when we call him on it.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    1. This post began in response to the double flag flap, but when I read about the shameful 6-3 decision in the South Carolina gerrymandering case, I revised it accordingly, brucedesertrat.

      I assume you saw the reference to Alito’s writing in his longstanding grievance about white guys’ not receiving the benefit of “white good faith.”

      I believe I have described him in my own way much as you have.

      And the fact that Roberts assigned the majority opinion to him—at this point—is even more despicable.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Roberts is just like Alito, except he occasionally recognizes the danger of going too far, as in the first ACA cases they handled. Roberts wrote the majority opinion on Shelby County, the pre-clearance case on the VRA.

        A decision that lead directly to the case they just decided, because South Carolina siezed the opportunity to violate the Voting Rights Act in a way they couldn’t if pre-clearance was still in effect.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Excellent post, as always Annie! We hear the news in bits ‘n pieces, snippets that go into our minds and then are pushed out by the next big story of corruption and insanity. But you have tied this overall picture together, put the finger on Thomas & Alito, and put it in perspective, in relation to the larger picture. Thank you … I shall reblog tomorrow afternoon, for this needs to be heard by as many as possible.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Thanks so much, Jill—for both your kind words and the reblog. This piece morphed a lot. (It actually began as a parody of Alito as SAM-I-AM, a pompous distortion of Dr Seuss’s character in “Green Eggs and Ham”—but when I saw his opinion was the SCOTUS basis for hanging the Voting Rights Act upside down, I felt this moment was too grave for parody.)

      I’m grateful you felt I tied the snippets together, as that was my intent.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. We’re all in this together, Annie, and between us and some of our other blogging friends, the goal must be to spread the word as far and wide as possible in hopes of making people open their eyes and stop to think before November. I think I would have loved the Dr. Seuss version you initially planned, too!

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Agreed!

        As to my parody, I didn’t get beyond “I Do Not Like This SAM-I AM,” and then a stretch to his being a pompous ham, with a penchant for green flags, and idolization of eggs—as long as they’re white.

        So now I’m cleansed and don’t have to pursue it further…didn’t do justice to the good Dr. Seuss!

        Liked by 2 people

  4. There has always been a problem with any lifetime appointment.A structural problem that can only be removed by amending the Constitution. Or, the northern states can do what the southern states have done for years. Ignore SCOTUS decisions . They are only enforceable by the executive branch.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

      1. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about lifetime appointments. The relevant passage is Article III, Section 1. The only reference to length of terms for judges is “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior” — that is, the rules governing the length of terms of judges are the same for both Supreme Court justices and for judges in lower courts. Many of the latter serve only for limited terms, and that has never been judged unconstitutional, so it seems clear that Congress could impose fixed terms for Supreme Court justices. Article II, Section 2, states that the president appoints Supreme Court justices, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, but says nothing about how long their terms on the Court should be.

        Certainly Congress could vote to enlarge the Supreme Court. It has done so several times in the past.

        Congress clearly has the authority to dictate a wide range of changes to the nature and workings of the Supreme Court. The question is whether it has the nerve.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Infidel: Thanks for citing what the Constitution does and does not specify on these important SCOTUS issues.

        In part, I think the Democratic senators’ meh approach—with the exception of stalwarts such as Whitehouse—shows how effective Trump’s trumped-up “weaponization of the justice system” has been. The Dems don’t want to seem to be “piling on,” so they’re making polite statements, inviting Roberts to a meeting he’ll likely ignore, and—IMO—shirking their responsibilities.

        I just hope public pressure will force them to act more decisively.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. All federal judges serve for life, unless they resign, retire or are impeached and convicted. The only stipulation is “good behavior”. The only way to change that is to have an amendment to the US Constitution that would limit their terms of office. That is not going to happen.

        So, what can Congress do? Add members. That’s about it. The SCOTUS is above the law In many ways. A justice is supposed to recuse himself or herself but that is completely up to the justice. And a crooked justice, like Alito or Thomas, is not going to do that. No one can force them.

        Can Congress try to make laws governing the court. Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. For one, too many member of Congress like the crooked court just as it is. They manipulated the system for 40 years to get the 6-3 super majority and are not about to change it. Any laws passed by Congress… and here is your Catch -22 moment… can be ruled “Unconstitutional” by the SCOTUS. So, no matter what Congress does, the SCOTUS can simply rule: No.

        Other than pack the court, which would take having a massive majority in Congress, there is nothing short of impeachment that Congress can do. Leo, McConnell and the other right wingers have effectively captured one branch of the federal government, at least for now.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. The problems of the court IMO will not be fixed by tweaking the edges. If it was the little things then why now the dysfunction? No amount of tweaking will fix the problem of men with broken minds. There will always be men with a deep self-loathing like Thomas that only the complete destruction of everything will suffice. There are others, so many others like Alito who think that they are superior to all others. Believing that when they walk all others must knell. Alito doesn’t look up to the Orange Turd, he looks down with a smile.. It doesn’t matter the plans and preparation, how many or few the resources devoted to keeping the enemy at bay when they are already inside the house. I think there should be 13 justices because of the workload. The biggest problem I see on the horizon is not defeating SFB in November but the malaise of victory that will allow these monsters respite. The problem is not within the court it is within the men and women who sit on it. They are ordinary and Dunning Kruger will ensure they will never know it.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I think they’re worse than ordinary, Richard. It’s true that our history demonstrates a whole lot of mediocrity on the Court, and even Republican justices supporting Republican presidential candidates (Bush v Gore), but I think the refusal to follow precedent and to simply make stuff up are unique. I guess since we’ve never had an insurrection, we don’t know for sure what the justices would do. But it sure scares the hell out of me.

      I do agree that we need broad reform, and you may be right about the “malaise of victory.” As Justice Kagan said in her most recent dissent, “America deserves better.” So let’s hope you’re wrong.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  6. You have indeed tied it all together. I admit that drop by drop, everyday another headline to turn a stomach, makes it hard to absorb the bigger picture. We’re in trouble as a democracy. Pick one’s head up and look around the globe (as urged conservative but reasoned David Brooks) and we are not alone. That makes it even scarier. Agree that’s it high time to get the rest of our leadership active. Leaders lead, as you say here. Having the big picture as you so beautifully present here helps in framing our outreach (and outrage).

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  7. Annie, let’s set politics aside for one minute. Regardless of political persuasion, Clarence Thomas has overly marketed his position to gift givers and donors. They are so doing for influence. At the very minimum, Thomas should be censured and recuse himself if these donors have an issue before the court,

    What I think should happen is Thomas should be suspended and investigated. If the court finds he has violated his ethical and legal requirements, he should be removed. We simply cannot have this kind of behavior on the court.

    As for Alito, he has made two rather stupid errors of judgment. My first response when I read what was done is “You are a Supreme Court justice. Act like you belong there!”

    If I can add politics back to the equation, as an independent and former member of both parties, I can read, see and hear what is wrong with Donald Trump. He is overt with his wrongdoing. My question to Thomas, Alito and other Trump fans is help me understand what is wrong with you to support such an illicit acting person?

    Keith

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. PS – One final comment. How can any judge or justice cater to a person who actively demonstrates such animosity to the profession even encouraging his barking dogs to threaten them and their families? What happens when these two justices fail to genuflect low enough? Remember what happened to his own AGs – Jeff Sessions and William Barr when they failed to do so? Keith

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. I think what Alito has done goes far beyond stupid errors of judgment, Keith. He’s publicly sided with insurrectionists and refuses to recuse himself. And his ethical “lapses,” while not as extensive as Thomas’s, are all of a piece.

      What’s wrong with them “to support such an illicit acting person?” They are severely damaged themselves. They have no ethical codes.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Annie, flying too close to the Trump sun usually singes someone’s reputation. It is a lesson that is often learned too late. The few who decline offers to work with him are the happiest people in America. The second happiest are their spouses. Alito and Thomas are in the former category. Keith

        Liked by 1 person

    3. Thomas should be censured and recuse himself if these donors have an issue before the court….. What I think should happen is Thomas should be suspended and investigated. If the court finds he has violated his ethical and legal requirements, he should be removed.

      Only Congress has the authority to take any such actions. The problem lies with Congress and its lack of will to rein in the Supreme Court.

      As far as I know, the only way to actually remove a Supreme Court justice is an impeachment by the House and conviction by two-thirds the Senate — same as with the president — and the latter would require a lot of Republicans to vote for conviction, since even a massive red wave in November isn’t going to give the Democrats 67 Senate seats. Enlarging the Court, by contrast, could be done by a simple majority in both the House and Senate (assuming the filibuster is abolished).

      Any proposed measure to deal with corruption on the Supreme Court needs to include consideration of how exactly such measures could be carried out, in accordance with the Constitution. Therefore it always comes back to Congress, and to the millions of individual voters who choose its members.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  8. I don’t expect justices ~ at any level ~ not to have political views but when you’re sitting on the bench, you’re not supposed to have any bias whatsoever ~ you’re supposed to be able to hear arguments from either side & decide without your own preferences overriding the facts or the logic of the arguments.

    Of course, these judges were picked, not for their judicial acumen, but for their political stance.

    The thing is ~ they’re so blatant about it. It’s really an insult to the court & to the country as a whole.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. I agree, Polly—with all three of your points. The blatant behavior is due in part, I think, because they see themselves as untouchable. I continue to believe we must show them how wrong they are.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      2. I don’t think so, Polly. We need to do it through Congress, which is why I gave the Congressional switchboard number in my post. And that will happen only with a Democratic majority, but we must, IMO, make our views known now, while the issue is “hot.” You can bet Congress hears regularly from those opposing our quests for equity and justice.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. I’m a gamer. I like the rules. Changing the rules is a loser’s game. As Infidel said, the term is during good behavior. Let Thomas and Alito defend their behavior no need to wait for death to fix the problem. Many jobs have an age limit. Maybe I was washed up at 65. Reminds me of that time I stopped for breakfast at “Mom’s all you can eat” on SR42. Two eggs, bacon or sausage and homemade biscuits and gravy. It was great and I ordered a second round. The counterman goes into the kitchen and returns plateless. He explained that he was sorry but Mom said that was all I could eat. A simple interpretation of the rules left a very bad taste. The easy way entices but it is often not the best way. The Nixon pardon still haunts our society 50 years later.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. It is a reasonable to interpret the rules to require 4 more justices. Congress created 13 Courts of Appeals for submitting cases to the SC suggesting the need for 13 managers.

        U.S. Circuit Courts[edit]

        In addition, the 1869 Act stipulated that each of the nine circuit courts of the United States would have a circuit judge appointed who would reside in that locale and have the same power and jurisdiction as the Supreme Court justice assigned to the circuit. It was stipulated that the chief justice and each of the associate justices had the duty to sit at least one term in the circuit every two years. The circuit court could be held by the circuit judge, the Supreme Court justice, or the two could hold the court together, in which case the Supreme Court justice would preside. Up until this time, circuit courts were normally only staffed by district judges and Supreme Court justices “riding circuit”.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Pingback: Activism, Please | Mock Paper Scissors

Leave a comment