#alito is not an impartial justice

[contemplatingoutlander]

Some excerpts from the above article:

The “Appeal to Heaven” flag flew last summer at Alito’s vacation home in New Jersey, according to The New York Times. Also known as the Pine Tree flag, it originated as a symbol of the American Revolution but became a symbol of Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement—including one carried by rioters at the Capitol building. Several photos acquired by the Times showed the flag hanging outside of Alito’s residence on Long Beach Island on four separate dates between July and September 2023. [...] Democrats have since called for Alito to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election, and introduced a resolution Tuesday to censure the “shameless” justice for what they call “beyond poor judgment,” arguing that Alito had violated the court’s ethics and invited questions about the court’s impartiality.

The “Appeal to Heaven” flag flew outside the Alitos’ New Jersey vacation home last summer, along with a “2022” Phillies flag and a Long Beach Island flag.--The New York Times

This is infuriating. There's no excuse. Roberts needs to push Alito to recuse himself from anything that has to do with Trump's attempted coup.

This guy is an insurrectionist in a black robe. He is a deeply corrupt, right wing activist who is masquerading as a judge.

This guy should have recused himself from every insurrection-related case, but he didn’t because he is deliberately ruling in support of the insurrectionists, who are his ideological partners.

Justices swear an oath to be impartial. Alito has demonstrated, repeatedly, that he is not impartial in matters related to January 6 and Trump’s coup attempt. He has been, and still is, breaking his sworn oath, in public, without apology.

Alito must be impeached and removed, immediately if not sooner.

[tomorrowusa]

Regardless of emoluments, Justice Alito has shown that he's the most fervent MAGA justice on the US Supreme Court. He now even beats out Justice Thomas.

Samuel Alito Can’t Even Lie Properly About That Upside-Down Flag

At the very least, Alito needs to recuse himself from all Trump-related court cases. Though frankly, he should be impeached.

Alito was appointed to SCOTUS by George W. Bush. Bush won the 2000 election after the Supreme Court stopped vote recounting in Florida as Democrat Al Gore was closing the gap with Bush. And we remember that Alito wrote the majority opinion in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Think of Alito when you're tempted to waste a vote on an impotent third party candidate who has no chance of getting elected president and appointing Supreme Court justices.

[contemplatingoutlander]

How to save the Supreme Court from Alito’s ethical malfeasance

The justice’s unconscionable violations of ethics demand the court be reformed.

Jennifer Rubin clearly explains why Alito went too far in allowing a symbol of the insurrection to fly over his home, and why the Roberts Court needs to stop slow-walking the presidential immunity decision if the Court is to regain any credibility. This is a gift🎁link so anyone can read the full article, even if they don't subscribe to The Washington Post.

Among the Supreme Court’s abominations — shredding precedent to obliterate reproductive freedom, financial impropriety, partisanship — none compares to the upside-down flag, identified with violent insurrectionists, that flew over the home of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Ethics experts and lawyers (including former judges) of all stripes expressed their outrage. “His statement — which says his wife displayed a symbol associated with a failed coup to subvert democracy because she was offended by an anti-Trump sign one of her neighbors displayed — is so incoherent it is insulting to our collective intelligence,” constitutional law professor Leah Litman emails me. “And a Justice who resides in a house that displays symbols glorifying a coup should not participate in cases that will determine whether people who participated in said coup will face any accountability.” [...] Alito (alongside Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife encouraged coup plotters) has heard multiple insurrection-related cases, including the pending immunity case that could absolve Trump of criminal liability. In letting his home stand in solidarity with constitutional arsonists, Alito made a mockery of his oath to “faithfully and impartially discharge” his duties under the Constitution. Any other judge (especially one implicated in financial misconduct) would be compelled to resign and/or face the threat of impeachment. So what about Alito? Immediate Triage Unlike its speedy disposition of the 14th Amendment case (24 days after argument) and of many lesser matters, the court put the immunity case in deep freeze, making it near-impossible to try the ex-president before the next election....The Alito debacle only deepens the impression that the court has its thumb on the scale — or the brake — for Trump. [...] As constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe warns in an email to me, if Roberts “wants the Court to retain any credibility at all,” he must compel the court to “bite the bullet and issue its decision, ....” Then, Tribe explains, “Judge [Tanya S.] Chutkan either can hold whatever hearing the Court thinks necessary to decide exactly which charges against the former president may remain” or can begin the trial itself, which “should have been over by now.” Alito’s ethical self-immolation leaves Roberts no alternative if he wants to dispel the perception that two ethically compromised, partisan justices have thoroughly corrupted the court. (He also should implore Alito to recuse, but who believes that’ll happen?) [emphasis added]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos:

The U.S. Supreme Court heard Donald Trump’s immunity claim in his federal criminal trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election Thursday, and the conservative majority is likely going to give Donald Trump what he wants: a delay of the trial until after the election. If Trump wins again, the conservatives have essentially signaled that they would be open to blanket immunity for him against any future criminal charges.   The fact that Supreme Court justices are suggesting that the president is above the law proves why the court must be reformed. Four of the justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch—even went so far as to suggest that special counsel Jack Smith’s entire prosecution is unconstitutional, and they reinforced Trump’s argument that the president is immune. Kavanaugh even told Michael Dreeben, a lawyer from Smith’s office, that it’s a “serious constitutional question whether a criminal statute can apply to the president’s criminal acts.”

That would be the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for the chief executive, rubber stamped by the highest court of the land. It’s worth remembering that Thomas refused to recuse himself from this—and most of the Trump election interference cases—despite the fact that his wife, Ginni Thomas, was deeply involved in Trump’s coup attempt. When she testified to the Jan. 6 special congressional committee, she maintained that the election was stolen.  His failure to recuse himself comes after a new ethics code has supposedly been enforced, saying that “a Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” So much for that suggestion from Chief Justice John Roberts. His code has no teeth, which is yet another reason why ethics reform—and indeed court reform and expansion—is essential. 

Joan McCarter writes in Daily Kos that the Trump v. United States "immunity" case is a good reason to reform and expand SCOTUS.

[evilmark999]

I feel almost too dirty to be a part of this chain of posts. At the same time, both my respect and sense of duty are elbowing me HARD to not just "like" this and let it slip quietly by...

Judge for yourselves...

Quote of the Day

This is a momentous decision, just to hear this case. There was no reason in this world for the Supreme Court to take this case. Under the constitutional laws of the United States, there has never been an argument that a former president is immune from prosecution for crimes that he committed while in office.

Judge Michael Luttig (ret.)

(Judge Luttig is an icon of the conservative judicial world)

[collapsedsquid]

U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor published an essay in the New York Times arguing that the display of flags associated with President-elect Donald Trump’s MAGA movement at Justice Samuel Alito’s Virginia and New Jersey homes was a breach of public trust. The piece was unusual because judges don’t typically offer personal criticisms of a colleague in public. According to the jurist assigned to review the matter, Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., it was Ponsor who damaged the judiciary. In a previously unreported order filed last week, Diaz found that by commenting on controversial issues and criticizing Alito, Ponsor violated the code of conduct that applies to all federal judges other than Supreme Court justices. Among other transgressions, Ponsor, a 1994 Clinton appointee who sits in Springfield, Mass., was found to violate rules against actions that “detract from the dignity” of a judge’s office and harm “public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Fucking Lèse-majesté

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Horsey

* * *

Justice Alito’s arrogance threatens the Court

May 30, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

In an act oozing with contempt for the American people and reckless disregard for the Supreme Court, Justice Alito refused to recuse himself from cases involving Trump's election interference and unlawful retention of national defense documents. Alito sent two letters to members of Congress asserting that “no reasonable person” would conclude that Alito is required to recuse himself. See Letter from Samuel Alito to Senators Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse.

In his letter to Durbin and Whitehouse, Alito advances factual defenses that were shown to be false or misleading before Alito sent the letter to the Senators. As noted in articles in the NYTimes and Newsweek, Alito’s claim that the Stop the Steal flag was flown in retaliation after a dispute with a neighbor is false. Alito flew the Stop the Steal flag one month prior to the neighborhood dispute. See NYTimes, The Alitos, the Neighborhood Clash and the Upside-Down Flag (accessible to all) and Newsweek, Samuel Alito's Flag Claims Challenged.

Alito also seeks to avoid the controversy by claiming that

His wife is a co-owner of their Virginia home and owner of their beach house, so she “has the right to use the property as she sees fit.”

His “wife is a private citizen, and she possesses the same First Amendment, rights as every other American. She makes her own decisions, and I have always respected her right to do so.”

He “had no involvement in the decision to fly” the Appeal to Heaven flag.

He did not know that the Appeal to Heaven flag supported the “Stop the Steal” message.

His “wife likes flags,” while Alito “does not.”

It is a sad day when a Supreme Court justice lies to US Senators and the American people over a matter of national urgency. But even if we credit Alito’s falsehoods, the question of his recusal is not a close one.

Let’s make this easy. Suppose Alito’s wife flew a Swastika flag over their joint residence for three days. Alito then claims that he asked his wife to remove the flag but she refused. He also claims he did not understand the antisemitic meaning of the Nazi flag. He is then asked to recuse himself from a case before the Court that seeks to prohibit antisemitic speech. Alito could not credibly claim (as he does here) that “no reasonable person” would believe he is required to recuse himself.

The relevant canon of ethics provides:

A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” Canon 3(B)(1)-(2), Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court.

Tens of millions of Americans reasonably doubt that Alito can fairly discharge his duties. Alito is gaslighting the American people—a technique he learned from Trump. Having been caught in his lie he is doubling down on the lie—while pretending to be aggrieved that Americans doubt his veracity.

This debacle is a stain on the Court and an indictment of Justice Robert’s leadership. His silence is an insult to the American people. He is the Chief Justice of the United States—not merely of the Supreme Court. He holds an office created by and mentioned in the Constitution. He has failed miserably in discharging his duties to oversee the courts of the United States.

What can we do? As always, we can gain control of Congress and the Presidency in order to expand the Court and impose an enforceable code of ethics on the Court.

But is there anything else? Representative Jamie Raskin penned an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that the other justices on the Court can force Alito to recuse himself. See Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases. (Accessible to all.)

Rep. Raskin writes that the DOJ “can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law.”

Raskin continues:

The constitutional and statutory standards apply to Supreme Court justices. The Constitution, and the federal laws under it, is the “supreme law of the land,” and the recusal statute explicitly treats Supreme Court justices like other judges. This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. When the arguments are properly before the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor will have both a constitutional obligation and a statutory obligation to enforce recusal standards.

Of course, Jamie Raskin’s approach calls for the cooperation of Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, as well as Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Will that happen? Doubtful, but public pressure may bring about that result.

At a meeting with the newsletter's Founding Members on Wednesday, a reader who is a member of the Supreme Court Bar said that he had just sent a letter to Chief Justice Roberts tendering his resignation. The reader no longer practices before the Supreme Court, so resigning will not interfere with his livelihood.

There are tens of thousands of lawyers in a similar position—they were admitted to the Supreme Court as a ceremonial matter or in connection with briefing on which they appeared. If tens of thousands of lawyers sent similar letters of resignation to Justice Roberts—and published those letters in local newspapers and major media outlets—it would increase pressure on Roberts and focus public attention on the ethics scandal on the Supreme Court.

Sounds like something a lawyer’s group defending American democracy should take on as a project! See also, Slate, (3/13/2020), Judge James Dannenberg writes John Roberts a letter resigning from the Supreme Court Bar.

Sadly, it will likely get worse before it gets better. It will get better, but not before tens of millions of Americans believe they should take to streets in protest. The Supreme Court is systematically stripping Americans of civil liberties and constitutional rights for the first time in the history of our nation. That is worth peaceful protests to protect our rights.

It will take time, but the American people will awaken. Justice Alito is pouring accelerant on the conflagration engulfing the Court. It will take more outrageous decisions and arrogant behavior by Alito, Thomas, and Roberts, but the time will come. Until then, each of us must elevate the crisis on the Supreme Court as an issue that deserves our undivided attention in 2024.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[nancydrewwouldnever]

We absolutely need to be able to "fire" people from the Supreme Court. Samuel Alito needs to get his bigoted ass gone. How can you be an interpreter of "fair and impartial" law and justice when you literally want to make the nation a Theocracy?

These tapes that are coming out are.... something. Alito's were horrible, but, man, his wife is even worse.

[mariacallous]

Fresh on the heels of his Stop the Steal flag scandals, Justice Alito was caught on audio saying he's incapable of being impartial, that "one side or the other is going to win," that he wasn't going to negotiate with the left, and he agreed that we need "to return our country to a place of godliness."

https://x.com/lawindsor/status/1800201783945683120

https://x.com/Janabw81/status/1800214624140501442

Lordy, there is audio.

[markcoatney]

The fact remains that even if Alito and Thomas were not compromised in 12 different ways, the six-justice supermajority would continue to strip away voting rights, environmental protections, agency authority and the congressional authority to grant it, and reproductive freedoms and the rest of the trappings of modern governance. Witness the ways in which the supermajority votes even knowing Alito and Thomas are committing ethics violations: The fact that they know and don’t care amply illustrates that ethics are not the problem, the hard-right supermajority is. Those who are angriest at Martha-Ann Alito’s religious zealotry as expressed at last week’s Supreme Court Historical Society dinner should understand that not a word captured there comes close to the language in her husband’s Obergefell dissent, and that language pales in comparison to his touchdown-dance remarks in Rome after he overturned Roe. Instead of raging that the justices have stopped behaving like impartial oracles, we should acknowledge that they never were, and that the only fix to that problem transcends ethics reform, and looks to a massive course-correction that would return the judicial branch back to coequal size.

[dertaglichedan]

WaPo Debunks NYT: Alito’s Upside Down Flag Was Over ‘Neighborhood Dispute, Not Politics.’

In a rare move, the Washington Post has debunked the New York Times over its story regarding the upside-down U.S. flag being flown over Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s home in 2021. A Post reporter had visited the Alito’s at the time of the incident, enquiring about the flag, but finding nothing more than a neighborhood dispute. The Post explained Saturday:

The Post decided not to report on the episode at the time because the flag-raising appeared to be the work of Martha-Ann Alito, rather than the justice, and connected to a dispute with her neighbors, a Post spokeswoman said. It was not clear then that the argument was rooted in politics, the spokeswoman said.

The Post even takes a dig at left-wing Democrats who have been attempting to use the issue to force Justice Alito off cases as a result:

Since the Times article, dozens of Democratic lawmakers and some legal expertshave called for the justice to recuse himself from the 2020 election-related cases, saying the upside-down flag outside his homeraises questions about his impartiality or creates the appearance of bias. He has drawn rebukes from some Republicans as well.

For now, the neighborhood remains quiet, and no other disturbances have been reported. Further details may emerge as the situation develops and more information is made available.

[beardedmrbean]

Every conservative justice on the Supreme Court bowed out of deciding a case stemming out of Texas.

In a rare move, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett all sat out deciding whether to hear MacTruong v. Abbott, a case arguing that the Texas Heartbeat Act (THA) is constitutional and that the state law violates federal law. The six justices were named as defendants in the case. They did not give a detailed justification as to why they chose not to weigh in, and are not required to do so.

Monday's order list from the Supreme Court states that the six conservatives on the bench "took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition." Because there were not enough justices for a quorum—the court needs at least six and only Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson remained—the court affirmed the judgment of a lower court to dismiss the lawsuit.

The case was brought by MacTruong, a U.S. citizen who resides in New Jersey, against the six conservative justices, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives Dade Phelan and former President Donald Trump. MacTruong alleges the defendants were involved in either passing, enacting or upholding the THA because he believes the Dobbs decision was incorrectly decided and thus, Roe v. Wade is still law.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, ending federal access to abortion.

Judicial politics expert Alex Badas told Newsweek that the justices may be ineligible to partake in the decision because of the court's recent statement on its ethics. "A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties," the statement said.

"I believe being named in the suit falls into this category of disqualification," Badas said.

Affirming the decision from the Fifth Circuit, which ruled against MacTruong and decided that he did not have standing to sue, the Supreme Court effectively tossed the suit altogether.

"The Fifth Circuit was unanimous against MacTruong," Badas said. "It is worth noting that two of the three judges who heard the case were appointed by Democratic presidents. These judges may be sympathetic to his claim that Dobbs was incorrectly decided but it shows that his legal case for standing is very weak that they vote against him."

Badas noted that MacTruong has other pending cases involving the same issue, but it is likely that they will end like this case, "with him losing and the courts issuing decisions arguing that he lacks standing."

Other plaintiffs named in the suit include the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, President Joe Biden, California Governor Gavin Newsom, actors George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Tesla Founder Elon Musk, singer Britney Spears and media expert Norah O'Donnell.

[cazort]

Hey guys, in case anyone missed it, this was a 7-2 decision. Who voted against it? Alito, and Thomas. These are arguably the two most right-biased of the justices on the supreme court.

I know that people on the left like to shit on all of the justices they see as "conservative" (now including Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas), and I definitely see why when they do things like overturning Roe v Wade (although I would point out that Roberts, who is often considered "conservative", dissented from that decision.)

But there is a huge difference in the degrees to which the different justices are biased or partisan, vs. independent.

When Alito was appointed, he didn't get much resistance or criticism from the left. People freaked out, on the other hand, about Barrett, Gorsuch, and especially about Kavanaugh (which I understand giving the allegations about sexual assault.) People even freaked out when Roberts was appointed, yet he has turned out to be one of the more neutral or impartial justices.

I think it is important for us to focus our efforts on blocking and/or removing the worst justices and not just like, uniformly freak out about everyone. I really wish we could get both Alito and Thomas off the court, like maybe put more effort into investigating their alleged wrongdoings and try to build a consensus that actually reaches right-leaning voters too.

We also had the information to know Alito would be bad. The ACLU voiced strong opposition to him, something they very rarely do.

If we had Alito and Thomas replaced by justices like Roberts, we'd have a fundamentally different supreme court. Roe v Wade wouldn't have been overturned, the above decision would be unanimous. We'd probably have more unanimous decisions across the board because Roberts tends to be good at limiting the scope of the court's decisions.

THE ICWA IS UPHELD

THE ICWA STANDS

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jennifer Bendery at HuffPost:

WASHINGTON ― Top Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday told Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts they want to meet with him “as soon as possible” to ensure that Justice Samuel Alito recuses himself from cases relating to the 2020 election after two recent news reports revealed Alito flew flags at two separate residences that insurrectionists at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, had also carried. “By displaying the upside-down and ‘Appeal to Heaven’ flags outside his homes, Justice Alito actively engaged in political activity, failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,” Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) wrote to Roberts in a new letter.

“He also created reasonable doubt about his impartiality and his ability to fairly discharge his duties in cases related to the 2020 presidential election and January 6th attack on the Capitol,” they wrote. “His recusal in these matters is both necessary and required.” (Durbin and Whitehouse are the committee chair and the chair of the subcommittee that deals with federal courts, respectively.) The senators also renewed their call on the Supreme Court to adopt “an enforceable code of conduct for Supreme Court justices.” The court currently has a code of ethics, which it adopted last year and only after intense public scrutiny, but it has no teeth. Still, under that code, which the justices themselves put together, they are required to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Durbin and other Democrats have been demanding the Supreme Court adopt an enforceable code of ethics for years. But they drastically stepped up their calls for action after last year’s bombshell reports by ProPublica that Alito and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted lavish and undisclosed gifts from wealthy political donors for years. Democrats have also urged passage of a bill, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, which would require justices to adopt a binding code of conduct and improve transparency when a justice has ties to a party or amicus before the court. But in a polarized and narrowly divided Senate, that bill is going nowhere. And while Durbin has the authority to subpoena Alito or other Supreme Court justices to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to address ethics questions, he has not done that.

If Durbin were to try to subpoena Alito, he wouldn’t be able to do it unilaterally. He’d need the top Republican on the committee to sign off, which would not happen in this case, or a majority vote in the committee. It’s not clear if all 10 Democrats on the committee would vote to do this.

Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse are urging SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts to meet with them to discuss the ethics breaches of SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito.

[livelaughlacroix]

SCOTUS justices Alito + Thomas called for impeachment by rep AOC

I haven't seen this on my corner of Tumblr yet so felt it was important to highlight:

"Wait, what exactly happened?"

7/10/24: US House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced articles for impeachment of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. (Transcript included here)

Regarding Thomas 3 articles were introduced, 1 with failure to disclose financial gifts and 2 of refusing to recuse (i.e.excuse oneself from a case because of a potential conflict of interest or lack of impartiality) from self evident personal and biased matters (his wife's legal and financial interests).

Regarding Alito 2 articles were introduced, 1 with refusal to recuse on a case he had personal bias and 1 for failure to disclose financial gifts.

"Woah really?/Prove it/Explain more please/Huh?"

Thomas has a personal and financial relationship with billionaire Harlan Crow. This relationship began after his appointment to the Supreme Court. From the sum we currently know, he received over 1.5 million dollars. It is presumed higher given he purposefully has not disclosed these for years. (Purposefully is used here as over these years he did disclose smaller gifts and donations).

Alito has received gifts from billionaire Paul Singer. He did not only not disclose this, but afterwards did not recuse himself and actually reversed court decisions on matters regarding the billionaire. The ruling benefited the billionaire 2.4 billion dollars.

Alito's house publicly flies/flew the upside down American flag and  a flag associated with extreme right wing Christian nationalism. Alito's explanation is that it was his wife's decision to do so - thus he did not recuse from January 6th related cases.

Thomas' wife similarly supports the Stop the Steal movement and the Capitol attack. Thomas however did not recuse himself on January 6th related cases.

"Is that allowed/constitutional?"

Short answer: it shouldn't be.

Section one of Article Three of the Constitution commands federal justices to hold their offices during 'good behavior'. This explicitly prevents treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. More broadly, Congress has used it to reinforce higher standards of the judiciary: 8 federal judges have been impeached or removed for issues from evading income tax, intoxication while working, and, historically, abandonment of office to join the Confederacy.

"What are the greater implications?"

Failure to uphold a centuries old standard on these pretty clear cases casts extreme doubt and scrutiny for these Justices to do so past, present, and future. There are not terms on the Supreme Court, they serve for life. Without people raising concern, these behaviors can be presumed to continue indefinitely from Alito and Thomas. This delegitimatizes the Supreme Court and its role as well as broadly the entire justice system in the US.

"What happens now?"

Most likely, the Republican controlled House (R 200/D 212) will vote against this and similar potential articles such as even an impeachment investigation to uncover more issues or disclose transparency to the US public on the issue. Even if passed, impeachment would require a 2/3rd Senate vote which would most likely not happen.

"If AOC knew it wouldn't pass, then why would she do it"

In her words, "I present them because it is the right thing to do."

She knows this is not going to go anywhere within Congress. The purpose was to highlight the issue to the American public.

VOTE.

-------------------

(To get ahead of any flack against myself)

"Aren't these technically allegations or assumptions/You're reaching with these connections"

Sure! As mentioned above, Republican Congress would presumably never vote in favor for further adding credibility nor proving/disproving the statements. Using conservative rhetoric rooted in logical fallacy "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" - thus it's my opinion to believe the statements.

"I don't like you/AOC/etc"

Not relevant to this but OK.

"Y'all are just trying to be incendiary"

To a degree yes. If the Justice system and Congress is corrupt and does not allow for transparent and good faith practices, people are going to be upset and share their concerns. Also the only behavior I encouraged on this post was to VOTE.

"XYZ statement is just an/your opinion"

I'm not pretending to be a news channel, this is Tumblr darling.