#legal and judicial affairs

[biglisbonnews]

Ghana: Ghana Develops Draft Electric-Vehicle Policy [Ghanaian Times] Ghana has developed a draft Electric-Vehicle Policy, to guide the development and upscale of electric vehicles in the country to decarbonise the transport sector. https://allafrica.com/stories/202307170553.html

[1apiwe]

The law's impacts

This decision proved to be a watershed. The effects of the 1971 anti-drug law were immediately evident, falling disproportionately on black South Africans. Cannabis accounted for well over 95% of drug-related arrests and convictions across all "race" groups.

In a 1972 assessment by the Natal Provincial Supreme Court - in the case State v Shangase and Others - judges showed how prison terms of two to ten years were being imposed even for the petty possession of single cannabis "zol" (joint).

The "rehabilitation centres" part of the 1971 law applied only to white offenders since - as Suzman had pointed out - the segregationist state did not provide drug treatment programmes for black people. But, even for convicted white users, sentences involving treatment applied in less than 1% of cases.

Paradoxically, but unsurprisingly, illegal cannabis cultivation increased within the segregated spaces of apartheid.

Read more: A new approach to criminalisation could end Cape Town's drug wars

An illegal crop in high demand was profitable to grow, and even more so to trade. Helicopters spraying herbicides and multiple checkpoints raised the stakes of drug politics for all parties.

The laws's embedded racism meant that as tough drug suppression continued after apartheid ended, its racist effects also continued.

[seemabhatnagar]

"Supreme Court Overturns Premature Bail in Murder Conspiracy Case, Emphasizes Witness Testimonies"

In a #criminalcase, #keywitnesses #play a #crucialrole in the judicial process as they provide #vitaltestimony that can #significantly #influence the #outcome of the #trial. Vibhuti Kumar Singh v Pritesh Kumar & Anr Crl. Appeal 5719/2024 Before the Supreme Court of India Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant J & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan J

The #SupremeCourt #setaside the #PatnaHighCourt's #order granting #bail to Pritesh Kumar. The Court directed Pritesh to #surrender within two weeks. It also instructed the #TrialCourt to #expedite the trial by recording the #statements of#keywitnesses within four months. After these depositions, Pritesh would be at liberty to apply for bail again, which should be considered on its merits. The Court emphasized the need of thorough examination of the evidence before making a decision on bail in cases like murder. Background: Chandan Kumar Singh was allegedly #murdered by his #wife, Nisha Kumari, and her #lover, Pritesh Kumar. Chandan’s cousin, Vibhuti Kumar Singh, filed an FIR against them, accusing them of 3conspiracy after Chandan discovered their affair. On October 27, 2023, Chandan was attacked in his bedroom with a knife, resulting in his #death #onthespot and Pritesh was seen #fleeing #fromthescene half naked. Pritesh was arrested on December 4, 2023, but granted bail on March 14, 2024 within three months of his arrest, on the ground of the time already spent in custody. Issue before the Apex Court Whether the High Court's decision to grant bail to Pritesh Kumar, the accused in a murder case, was justified given the gravity of the allegations and the stage of the trial? Observation of the Apex Court The #HighCourt should have #waited for the #deposition of #keywitnesses, especially those who claimed to have seen Pritesh at the scene of the crime or were aware of the alleged extra-marital relationship. The Court noted that these depositions could provide #crucialinsights into the #culpability of the #accused. The Court also remarked that the High Court's decision to grant bail was #premature, given the early stage of the trial and the importance of the testimonies yet to be recorded. Seema Bhatnagar

[celestialastronmy]

Susato Mikotoba is a unique and refreshing addition to the Ace Attorney series, as she is not a typical legal assistant who mainly provides comic relief or emotional support. Instead, she is a competent and confident young woman who has a keen interest in law and literature and who actively contributes to the defense's arguments and investigations. She is also one of the few female characters in the series who has the opportunity to act as a defense attorney herself, albeit under a male disguise.

Susato's skills and intelligence are evident from her first appearance in the series, where she helps Ryunosuke Naruhodo prepare for his trial and teaches him the basics of cross-examination. She also demonstrates her knowledge of foreign cultures and languages, as she is fluent in English and familiar with British customs and laws. She is able to adapt to the different legal system and courtroom etiquette in London, and often corrects Ryunosuke's mistakes or misunderstandings. She is also well-read and cultured, as she enjoys reading novels and poetry, and has a fondness for tea and sweets.

Susato's deductions are also impressive and often crucial to the defense's case. She is able to notice details and contradictions that others might miss, and she is not afraid to challenge the prosecution or the witnesses with her logic and evidence. She is also able to deduce the true identity and motives of some of the culprits, such as Jezail Brett, Benjamin Dobinbough, and Enoch Drebber. She is also skilled at using the Dance of Deduction, a technique that allows her to make rapid and accurate inferences based on observation and reasoning. She learned this technique from her father, Yujin Mikotoba, who is a renowned forensic scientist and a friend of the great detective Herlock Sholmes.

Susato's involvement in the investigations and trials is much more active and significant than that of most legal assistants in the series. She is not just a sidekick or a cheerleader but a partner and a collaborator who works alongside Ryunosuke and shares his passion for justice. She is also willing to take risks and make sacrifices for the sake of her clients and friends, such as disguising herself as Ryutaro Naruhodo to defend Rei Membami, or leaving Ryunosuke behind to return to Japan and take care of Kazuma Asogi's affairs.

In conclusion, Susato Mikotoba is a remarkable character who deserves more recognition and appreciation from the fans of the Ace Attorney series. She is not only a smart and capable judicial assistant but also a loyal and compassionate friend, a brave and determined lawyer, and a charming and elegant lady. She is a new bloom in the new world and a shining star in the Ace Attorney universe.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

I have no clue if you've done this already, but I would love some royal-related vocabulary!! I write about a royal family (one in the middle ages) and it gets tiring looking for all the correct terms😅

Some Medieval Vocabulary

Amercement - financial penalty imposed by the King or his justices for various minor offences. The word comes from the fact that the offender is said to be ‘in mercy’.

Assize - meeting of feudal vassals with the King, and the edicts issued from it. It comes to have a legal context of court; but then in the early days the king’s court was just that – a place where law was made and justice executed. Hence the double meaning of the word court.

Borough - town with the right of self government granted by royal charter

Chamber - the financial office of the royal household

Chamberlain - officer of the royal household, responsible for the Chamber. He was therefore responsible for administration of the household and the private estates of the King.

Chancellor - officer of the Royal Household who originally served as the monarch’s secretary or notary, managing the Chancery, filled with clerks who produced writs and written instructions and records.

Chivalry - the knightly class of feudal times. The primary sense of the term in Europe in the Middle Ages is “knights,” or “fully armed and mounted fighting men.” Thence the term came to mean the gallantry and honour expected of knights. Later the word came to be used in its general sense of “courtesy.”

Constable - the title of an officer given command in an army or an important garrison. Also the High Constable was the officer who commanded in the King’s absence and commanded the King's army.

Destrier - warhorse; so called because it would be led using the right hand

Diadem - a royal crown

Eyre - the king and his justices would traditionally travel through the kingdom to deliver justice. As the king became more centred at Westminster, justices would continue to travel – and were called Justices in Eyre. From the French errer, "to travel".

Heir apparent - the declared heir to the throne, normally the king’s eldest son

Heir presumptive - the presumed heir to the throne in the event of the king dying without an heir apparent

Justiciar - head of the royal judicial system and the King’s viceroy during his absence from the country

League - somewhere between 1½ to 3 miles. Traditionally, the distance a person or horse can walk in one hour.

Mark - money, worth thirteen shillings and four pence, i.e. two thirds of £1

Mead hall - in the Middle Ages in Northern Europe and Scandinavia, a large building with just one room that was used as a central place for entertainment and as a living place for a lord/king

Minstrel - a traveling musician and singer common between the 11th and 15th centuries

Ordeal - a method of trial in which the accused was given a physical test which could be met successfully only if they were innocent (e.g., ordeal by fire)

Purveyance or prise - in early medieval days, the lord had the right to be entertained by his followers, at their expense. And of course this applied to the greatest lord of all – the king. Over time, the king travelled less, but still wanted the benefit of being able to have him and his household live at someone else's expense – and so he exercised the right to take goods and food in lieu of being there. It was the policy to pay – but payment was often small and late.

Saga - a long story about Scandinavian history, written in the Old Norse language in the Middle Ages, mainly in Iceland

Steward - man responsible for running the day to day affairs of the manor or castle in absence of the lord

Subinfeudation - in medieval Europe, the process by which a vassal (i.e., a man who lived on land given to him by a powerful land owner in exchange for agreeing to fight for him) allowed someone else to use or live on part of their land

Sumpter - packhorse, pony, mule or other animal

Thegn - military companion to the king

Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Here's what I found for you. Hope this helps! Would love to read your work if it does—sounds like the kind of writing I enjoy :)

More: Medieval-Related Vocabulary

[opencommunion]

"Al Mezan’s latest investigation reveals that since the onset of the genocidal military campaign against Gaza, Israeli forces have detained at least 3,000 Palestinian residents of Gaza, including women, children, elderly people, as well as professionals such as doctors, nurses, teachers and journalists. This aggressive detention campaign is unparalleled, with detainees subjected to multiple forms of cruelty, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment from the moment they are arrested and continue throughout their detention at interrogation centers. This occurs without any judicial oversight or legal protection, in blatant defiance of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

Based on its firsthand documentation and available information, Al Mezan has estimated that around 1,650 Palestinian residents of Gaza are interned in Israeli prisons under the Unlawful Combatants Law. This figure represents a substantial increase compared to previous reports. These detainees are held in total isolation from the outside world at Nafha and Negev (Ketziot) prisons. A ruling from the Israeli judiciary prohibits the release of information about them, and they are denied the right to appoint lawyers or receive legal representation.

The ‘Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law’—introduced in 2002 and lastly amended in December 2023—grants the Chief of the General Staff of the Israeli army the power to incarcerate individuals without charge based on suspicion of them being 'unlawful combatants.' This law deprives detainees of any meaningful judicial review and due process rights. ... Detainees held under this law are neither granted the status of prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention, nor afforded the protections of civilian detainees under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

An additional 300 Palestinian residents of Gaza, including 10 children, who are not currently detained under the Unlawful Combatants Law, are being held in Ashkelon and Ofer prisons pending investigation. The Palestinian Commission of Detainees Affairs reported the deaths of at least 13 Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons since 7 October 2023, while the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported the death of 27 Gaza detainees during the same period.

Over the past six months, Al Mezan has been actively monitoring and documenting arrest operations by the Israeli military in Gaza. Recently, Al Mezan lawyer managed to visit approximately 40 detainees in Ashkelon and Ofer prisons. This visit occurred after the Israeli Public Prosecution had exhausted all legal deadlines preventing lawyers from visiting detainees. The testimonies provided by these detainees to Al Mezan unveiled harrowing accounts of torture and inhumane treatment from the moment of their arrest. They were forced to strip naked, wear blindfolds, and have their wrists tied. They were also brutally beaten, deprived of sleep for several days, denied food and deliberately starved as a form of torture and collective punishment.

A 19-year-old detainee told Al Mezan lawyer that he was tortured from the moment he was arrested. He described how three of his fingernails were removed with pliers during interrogation. He also stated that investigators unleashed a dog on him and subjected him to shabeh—a form of torture which involves detainees being handcuffed and bound in stress positions for long periods—three times over three days of interrogation. He was then placed in a cell for 70 days, where he experienced starvation and extreme fatigue.

The detainee described the conditions within the detention rooms, stating that there was nothing in them but mattresses, which were brought in at 10 pm and removed after four hours. He stated that detainees were forced to shower in cold water and that food provisions were meager, with a breakfast of ten slices of bread and one small labneh container for the 12 detainees in the room. The second meal of the day consisted of three tomatoes and a plate of rice and the third meal of either one egg or one can of tuna for the entire room.

Al Mezan lawyer reported that all detainees suffer from acute emaciation, fatigue and back curvature due to being forced to bend their backs and heads while walking. They also bear marks from handcuffs on their wrists. Additionally, detainees are experiencing starvation and difficult psychological conditions, with many unable to even recall the names of people present in the room. The lawyer remarked that in his more than 20 years of working with detainees, he had never encountered conditions as appalling as those observed at Ofer prison. He noted seeing one detainee who, six months after his arrest, had become skeletal, with bruises on his face.

... Issam Younis, Director General of Al Mezan, stated, 'The evidence and testimonies gathered by our lawyer reveal a level of reprisals and torture that lacks any semblance of humanity. What Israel is doing to Palestinian detainees forms part of its genocide against the Palestinian people. It is imperative to halt this genocide and ensure accountability for those responsible for heinous genocidal acts.'"

15 April 24

[wilwheaton]

Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority expressed great skepticism at the Biden White House’s debt-relief plan yesterday. What we should note, however, is how the press and opinion-setting conventional wisdom has reacted to that fact. Every reaction I’ve seen sees it as the White House failing, the White House getting its collective knuckles rapped, basically an attempt and a failure. The White House is in a lot of ways complicit in this state of affairs and that traces back to an abiding set of assumptions, ingrained almost beneath the level of conscious thought, that the Court is a legitimate rule-enforcing body which is owed respect and deference and shouldn’t be pulled into the political fray. That’s a mistake. The current Court is an illegitimate force in our current public life. It continues to enforce not only doctrines that were long hobby horses in right-wing judicial circles but new and ready-made procedures customized to block any and all policy decisions a Democratic president might choose to pursue. This week, it’s the limits of executive powers. In the brief windows of time when Democrats secure a parliamentary trifecta and pass new legislation, that’s just as suspect. And, as always, it’s relying on a farm team of right-wing legal activists to churn up novel legal theories to choose from.

Thoughts on the Corrupt High Court

The current Court is an illegitimate force in our current public life. It continues to enforce not only doctrines that were long hobby horses in right-wing judicial circles but new and ready-made procedures customized to block any and all policy decisions a Democratic president might choose to pursue.

[a-d-nox]

lenormand cards: key phrases and an example of a card combo (part 2)

this is just a beginners guide to the lenormand. these are key phrases that come to mind when i think of the cards - NOT how they should be directly applied. they needs to be thought about situationally - the card / when it is in specific combos can change or alter its meaning in a reading.

child: innocence, nativity, spontaneity, seeing only the good in people, carefree attitude, an actually child, smallness, newness, beginnings, playing, immaturity, etc.

child + heart = young love, blind devotion, puberty, just happy to be around others, small joys in life, parallel play, nostalgia, an olive branch, etc.

fox: plotting, protection, security, stealth, deviousness, treachery, manipulation, deception, trickery, loyalty, work, routine, obligation, responsibility, duty, cons, etc.

fox + child = white lies, feigning ignorance/innocence, impulsive actions based on opportunity, pretending to be better than you are, avoiding responsibilities, etc.

bear: defensive, fierceness, resourcefulness, power, strength, courage, protection, maturity/matriarchy, stability, security, management, finances, investments, income, possessions, diet, food, etc.

bear + fox = protective yourself, a fierce loyalty, seven of swords energy, white collar crime, savings account, etc.

stars: peacefulness, tranquility, guidance, direction, happiness, hope, encouragement, perseverance, confidence, etc.

stars + bear = protecting your peace, the power of ones mindset, seeing a way out of the red / debt, etc.

stork: esteem, admiration, respect, babies, fertility, fruitfulness, productivity, birth, renewal, change, movement, new job, new home, new person in your life, extra money, improvements, pregnancy, adoption, new activity, new projects, progress, advancement, renovations, evolution, etc.

stork + stars = good self-esteem, becoming pregnant soon, encouragement from the universe to get a new job, don't lose hope in a project/task, etc.

dog: best friend, companionship, protection, loyalty, fidelity, guidance, sincerity, partnership, acquaintanceship, therapist, boyfriend/girlfriend, an affair, advisor, doctor, reliability, etc.

dog + stork = your best friend is pregnant, meeting a new friend, renewal of vows, a reliable new source of income, real estate agent, taking things to the next level in a relationship, etc.

tower: shelter, protection, confinement, imprisonment, government, corporation, judicial system, military, guarding, ego, ambition, isolation, guidance, schools, law, hospitals, high self-esteem, condos, movie theaters, office building, mall, airports, chain businesses, legal matters, bureaucracy, etc.

tower + dog = a sheltered friend, a friend you protect, roommate, an egotistical friend, water cooler encounters at the workplace, needing to visit the doctor for testing, etc.

garden: courting, public gatherings, harmony, beauty, relaxation, birthday parties, concert, play, movies, restaurants, public/private occasions, reunions, conferences, seminars, meetings, crowds, audiences, celebrations, abundance, etc.

garden + tower = little to no dating experience, solitude, hotel stay, movie theater, cafeteria, airport reunions, a convention, etc. 

mountain: immobility, resistance, standing still, endurance, blockage, obstacles, what must be overcame, challenges, delays, interruptions, burdens, postponement, procrastination, remoteness, faraway retreats, etc.

mountain + garden = stage fright, an enduring relationship, social anxiety, social burden, secrets, a rain date for an event, etc.

crossroads: options, choices, free will, multiple directions, doubts, hesitation, double lives, cheating, etc.

crossroads + mountain = analysis paralysis, the many ways to overcome an obstacle, challenges within a relationship ("where do we go from here"), etc.

mice: sickness, fast, smart, group work, damage, reproduction, stress, worry, restlessness, agitation, palpitations, anxiety, nervousness, apprehension, tension, fatigue, lost items, small problems, tediousness, repetitiveness, excitement, eagerness, agitation, etc.

mice + crossroads = options of treatment, anxiety, paranoia, worrying about doing the wrong thing or picking the wrong choice, decision fatigue, etc.

heart: love, passion, devotion, affection, emotions, connections with others, appreciation of others, happiness, joy, contentment, satisfaction, fulfillment, gratification, peace, harmony, delight, pleasure, enjoyment, kindness, charity, generosity, hospitality, feelings, desires, fondness, intentions, fidelity, etc.

heart + mice = heart break, a wave of emotions, instant gratification, manifesting, etc.

like what you read? leave a tip and state what post it is for! please use my "suggest a post topic" button if you want to see a specific pac/pile next. if you'd like my input on how i read a specific card or what i like to ask my deck, lenormand combos centered on specific card, etc. feel free to use the ask button for that as well.

click here for the masterlist

click here for more lenormard related posts

want a personal reading? click here to check out my reading options and prices

© a-d-nox 2024 all rights reserved

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Access Now condemns the suspension of X in Brazil

On August 30, 2024, Minister Alexandre de Moraes of Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered the suspension of X, following a months-long legal confrontation. The conflict began in April when the court mandated the suspension of several X accounts for allegedly spreading disinformation and attacking democracy. X’s failure to comply with this order led to the court imposing fines and threatening to imprison company representatives in the country. In response to these measures, the company decided not to pay the fines and instead closed their offices in the country which eventually resulted in the suspension of the entire platform in Brazil. On September 2, First Chamber Justices unanimously endorsed Moraes’ ruling. We note that the text of the proceedings remain sealed and more information is needed for a comprehensive analysis.

Access Now opposes the suspension of X in Brazil and is concerned by the growing trend of blocking of entire online platforms and applications as a response to systemic non-compliance. Such extreme actions are rarely proportionate as they violate people’s fundamental human rights and negatively impact the most marginalized communities instead of ensuring meaningful accountability from the platforms and mitigating their negative impact on human rights.

The recent block on X—formerly Twitter —in Brazil is a clear example of this trend, where approximately 22 million users are caught in the crossfire of platforms and judicial decisions. Moreover, the platform has had a big influence on political affairs and information sharing in Brazil. Blocking a platform does not solve the underlying issues of disinformation and hate speech. Instead, it limits access to information and stifles free expression, broadly, and in particular here, will have major implications for democracy as Brazil prepares to hold local elections in October.

International human rights law considers blocking online platforms a last resort measure if backed by significant procedural safeguards. They include providing advance notification of the blocking measures to affected parties and conducting an impact assessment of the measures to avoid their arbitrary or excessive effects. In addition, a blocking order has to be issued by an independent and impartial judicial body, and the legal basis for ordering platforms’ blocking must, among other things, be clear and predictable. 

Continue reading.

[kairologia]

Houses in traditional astrology.

Instead of making separate posts for each house, I thought it’d be more judicious & practical to compile everything into one singular post for concision’s sake.

Some necessary contextualization before we get to the point:

— Most houses don’t represent personality traits or characteristics. They represent experiences & areas of your life. Your self in the more rudimentary sense of the term is the 1st house. Other houses can be other people, places, or experiences.

— The ascendant/1st house is you, not a “mask”, your “basic self”, a “facade” or a “superficial persona” it’s for the major part everything modern astrology believes the sun to be.

— The ascendant/1H representing you does not mean other placements cannot be relevant or resonant (as explained here), that’s an oversimplification and nothing in life is ever that simple. All elements in a chart matter, but to believe everything is a “me” indicators is far too reductive. This is especially relevant wrt appearance. While the 1H has higher than average chances of coming through when it comes to the visual aspect, there are other things that come into play — namely genetics, the Moon, the 2nd house, the IC, & the Ascendant Lord.

— There are 12 houses and 7 traditional planets. You will most certainly have empty houses — though inactive they are not. Even if there are no planets in a house, there will always be a planet ruling it and its themes will still hold significance to you & your life experiences, there just won’t be as much focus on them as there would be with houses containing planets.

— Signs don’t “naturally” rule houses. Aries does NOT signify the 1H unless you’re an Aries rising. In fact, “rulership” is something only planets can do. Not signs, not houses, just planets! The signs are a celestial system that shows HOW a planet’s energy expresses itself, whereas houses are a terrestial system that shows WHERE that energy is expressed (areas of life). You can read ABC house system debunks online, or wait for me to write one!

🪞 1st House 🪞

— Angular house

— Mercury’s joy

— “The Helm”

— Eastern horizon

— Horoskopos (hour marker)

— Inceptions

— Beginnings

— Life

— Body

— Appearance

— Personality

— Self & Identity

— Self Expression

— Vitality & Health

💰 2nd House 💰

— Succedent house

— “The Gate of Hades”

— Livelihood

— Prospects

— Desires

— Money & assets

— Physical posessions

— End of youth

— Financial affairs

— Time

— Value

— Materiality

— Ownership

— Sustenance

📜 3rd House 📜

— Cadent House

— The Moon’s joy

— “Goddess”

— Siblings

— Extended Relatives

— Short Distance Travel

— Religious sites & rites

— Places of worship

— Neighborhoods

— Small communities

— Communication & Writing

— School

— Learning

— Education

— Everyday life, routines

🪦 4th House 🪦

— Angular house

— Lowest angle of the chart

— “Subterranean”

— Family

— Parents

— Land

— Home & Property

— Privacy

— Secrets

— Roots & lineage

— Ancestry & genealogy

— Place(s) of Origin

— Inheritance

— The “past”

— Generational trauma

— Hidden treasures

— End of life

— Death & rituals surrounding it

— Endings

— Graveyards

— The Underground

🌹 5th House 🌹

— Succedent house

— Venus’ joy

— “Good Fortune”

— Romance

— Relationships

— Desire & Pleasure

— Praise & Worship

— Sexuality/Sex

— Creativity & Creation

— Art & artistic expression

— Children

— Charity

— Diplomacy & diplomats

— Pleasant pursuits & joy

— Gambling

🩸 6th House 🩸

— Cadent house

— Mars’ joy

— “Bad Fortune”

— Illness & Injury

— Health & Sickness

— Servitude

— Employees & subordinates

— Labor

— Work

— Sports

— Fighting

— Physical Harm

— Medical Professionals

— Herbalism & medicine

— Small animals & pets

⚖️ 7th House ⚖️

— Angular house

— “Setting” angle

— Marriage

— Spouse

— Partnerships

— Open enemies

— the “Other” (≠ of the self, the 1H)

— Commitments& agreements

— Confrontation

— Lawsuits

— Legal disputes

— Contracts

— Business

💸 8th House 💸

— Succedent house

— “Idle Place”

— Death & Endings

— Other people’s money & assets

— Debt

— Taxes

— Legacies

— Inheritance

— Grief

— Trauma

— Psychology & shadow work

— Shared resources & belongings

— Stagnation

— Fears

— Secrets

🔮 9th House 🔮

— Cadent house

— Joy of the Sun

— “God”

— Higher education & academic pursuits

— Pursuit of knowledge

— Teachers & professors

— Occult pursuits & faculties

— Religion

— Foreign places

— Long distance travel

— Pilgrimage

— Divination & Astrology

— Philosophy

— Dreams

— Prophecies

💼 10th House 💼

— Angular house

— “Midheaven”

— Highest angle of the chart

— Vocation

— Career

— Mother

— Fame

— Ambition & aspiration

— Recognition

— Influence

— The future

— Goals

— Social status

— Achievements

— Profession

— Public affairs

— Reputation

— Authority figures & leaders

— Government

— Social aspirations

🎉 11th House 🎉

— Succedent house

— Jupiter’s joy

— “Good Spirit”

— Friends

— Alliances

— Trust

— Emancipation

— Community

— Network

— Supporters & patrons

— Organizations

— Groups

— Mutual aid & support

🏥 12th House 🏥

— Cadent house

— Saturn’s joy

— ”Bad Spirit”

— Prior to birth: mother's labor

— Isolation

— Retreat

— Large animals

— Exile

— Rumors

— Misfortunes

— Envy

— Hidden enemies

— Betrayal

— (of Self or otherwise) Sabotage

— Mental health

— Restrictions

— Hospitals

— Incarceration

[goodqueenaly]

Not sure if you are the right person to ask this but what is the deal with Gerion's trip to Valyria? Because according to Fire and Blood, after Aerea died Jaehaerys forbid anyone from Westeros from ever going there and ordered than any ship suspected of having been there should be turned away from ports.

Did somebody later overturned that order so it was again legal to go there, did Gerion think it wouldn't apply to him because he's a Lannister or did Tywin find a neat way to get rid of problematic brother without dirtying his hands personally?

I think the No-Prize Answer is that even if this law was still on the books, so to speak, and remembered by anyone (except, say, the platinum-link maesters of the Citadel) by 291 AC, Robert Baratheon was probably not particularly inclined either to recall this bit of history or enforce it as king, especially when it came to his uncle by marriage. Robert was by no means stupid, but his areas of expertise were never highly scholastic, and so a decree issued nearly two and a half centuries prior may not have even registered in Robert’s mind as an important point in his education. Moreover, as king - especially a king almost a decade into his reign by 291 AC - Robert displayed little interest in his role as supreme judicial authority in the realm, calling laws a “tedious business” and bemoaning the work of “listen[ing] to them [i.e. his subjects] complain until my mind is numb and my ass is raw”. It is possible, if not indeed probable, that Robert was too busy hunting, hawking, and/or pursuing a fleeting extramarital affair to even bat an eye at the idea of one of his subjects sailing to the ruins of Valyria, much less whether such a voyage would be legally forbidden.

Too, even if Robert had thought to bring up Jaehaerys I’s decree, he may have refrained from doing so in deference to his Lannister in-laws. It is no secret, certainly by the time of AGOT, that Robert had allowed Lannister influence to flourish at court, to the exclusion of virtually any other aristocratic faction: his acceptance of Tyrek and Lancel Lannister as his squires, his acceptance of Jaime as the Warden of the East following the death of Jon Arryn, his concession to Cersei over Lady at Darry. While Gerion Lannister left Westeros some seven years before the start of the main novels, I could very much believe that Robert had already begun to allow this Lannister domination at court: after all, he had seemingly raised no objection to his (ostensible) firstborn son being given an explicitly Lannister( and to that point, historically pointed) name, nor to his daughter being given a very Lannister-like name (and in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Cersei named Tommen after Uncle Gerion himself and his voyage, a nod to the Lannister glory once lost by King Tommen which this favorite uncle hoped to reclaim). I don’t tend to think Tywin engineered Gerion’s voyage - an audaciously confident far-reaching quest to reclaim the symbol of Lannister regal power, undertaken by this most reckless of Tytos Lannister’s sons, doesn’t seem too far off from some of the actions of, say, Jaime or Tyrion - but I do think that if some or all of the Lannisters supported Gerion in this voyage (and funded him going on it), Robert may not have been personally inclined to fight his queen and/or the Lannister faction about it.

Of course, the practical answer is that GRRM introduced the idea of Gerion Lannister sailing to Valyria, (almost certainly) never to return, many years before he described Jaehaerys I forbidding Westerosi from sailing to Valyria. Just as Fire and Blood Volume 1 described the infrastructure improvements in the capital instituted by Jaehaerys I without acknowledging what happened to King’s Landing thereafter to make it the stinking cesspit of the main novels, for example, and alluded to hatchlings and young drakes extant during the reigns of Jaehaerys I and Viserys I without ever explaining why there were no more adult dragons than those we already knew going into that book, so F&B gave us this decree without attempting to reconcile it with the current attitude of the Westerosi legal system toward voyages to the Smoking Sea. It’s entirely possible we get an answer to this apparent contradiction in a future novel, and/or in Fire and Blood Volume 2, but for now it simply remains an apparent unanswered question.

[kemetic-dreams]

Ledell Lee (July 31, 1965 – April 20, 2017) was an American man convicted and executed for the 1993 murder of his neighbor, Debra Reese. He was convicted in 1995 and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction in 1997, but numerous questions have been raised about the justice of his trial and post-conviction representation. Issues have included conflict of interest for the judge, inebriation of counsel, and ineffective defense counsel. A request to postpone the execution in order to test DNA on the murder weapon was denied by a circuit judge. After Lee's execution, it was proven that the DNA on the murder weapon belonged to another person, an unknown male.

Controversy over judge's conflict of interest

According to the ACLU:

Additionally, Lee was tried by a judge who concealed his own conflict of interest: an affair with the assistant prosecutor, to whom the judge was later married. Mr. Lee's first state post-conviction counsel introduced the evidence of the affair by calling the judge's ex-wife, who testified about the affair after opposing the subpoena. That lawyer, however, was so intoxicated at the hearing that the state moved for him to be drug tested after he slurred, stumbled, and made incoherent arguments. The inebriated lawyer also represented Lee briefly in federal court, where he raised the important claim that Lee was ineligible for execution because of intellectual disability. Lee won new proceedings because of the lawyer's drunkenness, though his representation did not improve afterward. His next lawyers failed to introduce evidence of the affair, giving up one of many of Lee's important arguments, and never pursued his innocence or intellectual disability claims.

"This is a story of the judicial process gone totally wrong," Lee's lawyer said. "The kinds of attorney failures here: an affair with the presiding judge by the prosecutor, gross intoxication by defense counsel, and wild incompetence undermine our profession as a whole. Mr. Lee has never had the opportunity to have his case truly investigated, despite serious questions about guilt, and his intellectual disability."[11][5]

Throughout the legal challenges, the family of Debra Reese hoped that the execution would go through as scheduled.

                                 HE WAS INNOCENT 

[qqueenofhades]

Do you have any idea why Gorsuch, a generally terrible human being, is so firm in defending the rights of Native Americans?

Honestly, no. It's a mystery to everyone why the only people apart from white men that he sees as people, legally speaking, are Native Americans. Which is good in that sense, but also... nope, women aren't people. Nope, Black people aren't people. Nope, working-class and labor rights organizers aren't people. But Native Americans? I guess that's the one judicial principle he adheres to, to the point of probably being the best justice ever on this issue. Yet all the rest is so generally awful, because he is, after all, a Trump judge.

I will say this for Gorsuch: of the three SCOTUS justices that Felonies Georg appointed, he's the only one who I would classify as a real judge, even as I often sharply disagree with him. He has joined a few gay-rights opinions, he is, as noted, very good on Indian affairs, and he at least has a coherent legal philosophy, even if it often sucks. By contrast, Kavanaugh is a frat-boy rapist who is deep in SOMEONE'S pocket for paying off all his debts (I'm guessing Harlan Crow, Clarence Thomas's sugar daddy, or equally reprehensible far-right dark-money forces) and Barrett is a theocrat. I'm just worried that all these objectively good decisions (upholding the VRA, upholding the ICWA) are a deliberate plan by Roberts to make the court look "moderate," so as to tamp down calls for reform and expansion, and that the media will immediately run with it, because of course they will. (Of course, if SCOTUS then guts affirmative action right on Juneteenth, good luck with that narrative, but alas.)

[posttexasstressdisorder]

The Alito Scandal Is Worse Than It Seems

Over the last two weeks, The New York Times revealed that two political flags were flown at Justice Samuel Alito’s homes — an upside-down American flag in the days after Jan. 6, 2021, and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag in the summer of 2023. | Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images

By Ankush Khardori

05/30/2024 10:00 AM EDT

Ankush Khardori is a senior writer for POLITICO Magazine and a former federal prosecutor at the Department of Justice, where he specialized in financial fraud and white-collar crime. He has also worked in the private sector on complex commercial litigation and white-collar corporate defense. His column, Rules of Law, offers an unvarnished look at national legal affairs and the political dimensions of the law at a moment when the two are inextricably linked.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has been infuriating his critics for years. He has gone on undisclosed luxury vacations with conservative donors who have business before the court. He appears to have leaked the result of a major case to conservative activists before the decision was announced. And that doesn’t even get into his jurisprudence, including the opinion that threw out Roe v. Wade.

But the revelations over the last two weeks from The New York Times concerning the political flags flown at Alito’s homes — an upside-down American flag in the days after Jan. 6, 2021, and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag in the summer of 2023 — have pushed Alito’s behavior into an entirely different realm, one that raises serious questions about Alito’s partisanship, his ethics and the integrity of the court.

The upside-down American flag has historically been used as a sign of distress by the U.S. military but became a symbol of support for Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement following the 2020 election, and the Appeal to Heaven flag has been used by Christian nationalists. Both were flown by Jan. 6 rioters.

The Alito household’s display of those flags — no matter what prompted it or whose decision it was to fly them — means that Alito should recuse himself from the cases pending before the court concerning Trump’s alleged efforts to steal the election. His stated refusal to do so in a letter to senior Democrats Wednesday runs afoul of the most basic judicial ethical norms: Judges are not supposed to signal their views on matters that are likely to come before the court.

But this whole episode also shows the fecklessness of Democrats, who seem to be reluctant to try to hold the court to account — which may have only encouraged the conservative justices to feel like they have free rein to flout judicial norms. President Joe Biden, in particular, has been far too reluctant to challenge the court, both with his early, toothless effort to float court reforms and now amid a series of clear ethical breaches by the justices.

There are a few problems with Alito’s behavior.

For one, Alito may have intentionally tried to mislead the public about what happened and to position himself and his wife as the victims. Alito told Fox News that his wife hoisted the first flag after a neighbor had put up a sign blaming her for the Jan. 6 riot and had used derogatory language toward her, “including the C-word.” But the Times’ latest story reports that verbal altercation took place weeks after the flag had flown and come down.

Even if Alito’s account is completely true, though, there would still be no excuse for a Supreme Court justice to allow such a partisan symbol to fly outside of their home, especially one whose message overlaps with a pending case.

In the letter that Alito sent to lawmakers explaining his decision not to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election, Alito claimed that he “had nothing whatsoever to do with the flying of [the upside-down] flag.” He also said that his wife “has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit”; that she also flew the Appeal to Heaven flag but that neither of them was “aware of any connection” to Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement; and that no one could reasonably question his impartiality unless they were motivated by “political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases.”

His wife might have been the one who raised it, but given that it flew outside a house he lives in, it is entirely reasonable to assume that Alito explicitly or tacitly endorsed the message of the flag. As one sitting federal judge put it, “Any judge with reasonable ethical instincts would have realized immediately that flying the flag then and in that way was improper. And dumb.”

Alito himself has acknowledged the danger of overtly signaling political views. Here is what he said in his confirmation hearing when he was dodging questions about what he thought about Roe v. Wade or whether it was considered settled law: “It would be wrong for me to say to anybody who might be bringing any case before my court, ‘If you bring your case before my court, I’m not even going to listen to you. I’ve made up my mind on this issue.

The proposition that justices should not express opinions on issues that may come before them provides a basis for his recusal, but so does another basic and closely related principle that you can also find in the ethics code issued by the Supreme Court late last year, after a flurry of controversies involving Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. The code provides 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.

That standard is met here too.

Many conservatives have rushed to Alito’s defense. After the first Times story, one Republican lawyer quickly derided the reporting and mounted a classic “they did it too” defense, pointing to liberal judges whose spouses engaged in activism related to cases before them. But none of them did anything remotely like what Alito’s wife did. Alito’s defenders have pointed to remarks that former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made about Trump — that he was a “faker” and would be bad for the country. They may be right that those comments were unwise and perhaps even improper, but she has long since passed away, so it is a debater’s point at best.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the Democratic Party are struggling to figure out how to react.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin has refused calls to bring Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts in for a formal hearing on the issue. Instead, he and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, another senior Democrat on the panel, merely asked Roberts to push Alito to recuse himself on cases related to the 2020 election and to come in for a meeting. According to White House aides, President Joe Biden is reluctant to engage on the controversy because he fears that criticizing the conservative justices will undermine the court’s legitimacy as well as the president’s claim to be a supporter of the country’s democratic institutions and norms.

The latest Alito scandal has crystallized some of the most disturbing dynamics surrounding the court.

First, Alito’s conduct, including his potentially dishonest public defense, demonstrates the contempt that he has for his critics and for people outside of his political tribe — which appears to be far-right religious conservatives and Trump supporters. Supreme Court justices have long been reluctant to engage in full transparency, but at a time of growing public skepticism toward the court, he owes the country far more detailed — and far more substantive — answers to the serious questions that have been raised about his conduct and the backstory to the raising of both flags at his homes, including the evolution of his accounts in the media.

Second, the concept of recusal at the court appears to be dead, at least for the conservative justices; some liberal justices still do. Clarence Thomas should already have recused himself from the 2020 election cases but hasn’t. Alito should do the same but won’t. Such a decision could ultimately tip the balance in Trump’s immunity case.

Third, the court’s relatively new ethics rules — which were self-imposed and are unenforceable — are basically a sham. Alito and Thomas in particular appear to think that they can do whatever they want, and they appear to be right that Roberts will do nothing unless he is somehow forced to change course by virtue of political circumstances and public pressure. In the meantime, Roberts has tried to convince the public into thinking that the court is attending to its ethical problems, when it clearly is not.

Finally, and just as importantly, the Democratic Party — and Biden in particular — has fallen down on the job.

The court is in desperate need of structural reform. But instead of seriously pursuing that effort after his election (be it expanding the court, instituting term limits or anything else), Biden convened a largely pointless commission to study potential reforms. Their work — a ponderous, 300-page report issued in late 2021 — was barely read and promptly forgotten, perhaps by design.

There are reasonable debates to be had about the political viability of such a reform effort, but the Biden White House has shown through its own actions that they will invest considerable time and political capital into legislative efforts that they believe are worthy of their attention. Just as importantly, even if a court reform initiative had failed, Biden and the White House could have raised the salience of the issue among the general public and begun building the necessary political momentum over time. (That, after all, is precisely what conservatives did in order to secure their supermajority on the court.)

That might have positioned Biden to make court reform a real campaign issue in the 2024 presidential campaign, which would have paired well with his drive to reenshrine abortion rights. Instead, he voluntarily ceded the ground, and an about-face on the issue in the run-up to November will likely look politically motivated to many people.

Ironically, Biden’s solicitousness of the Supreme Court could ultimately prove to be the downfall of his own presidency.

He has essentially stood idly by while the court has upended key aspects of American life — from abortion to affirmative action — and angered huge swaths of the country, likely contributing to the widespread national discontent that threatens his reelection. The conservatives also gutted one of Biden’s most significant domestic policy initiatives by striking down his student-loan relief program. And they may be on the cusp of letting Trump escape without a trial on the Justice Department’s 2020 election prosecution before November.

That case is the most politically and legally significant of Trump’s pending criminal cases, including the hush-money prosecution in Manhattan. If Trump were convicted in the federal election subversion case, the result could plausibly swing the election against him — and with good reason: The American public should probably know whether a candidate engaged in an egregious and unprecedented criminal conspiracy to steal the last presidential election.

Instead, Biden finds his political fortunes beholden to a court that he has failed to control and that, in the end, could doom his own presidency.

[mariacallous]

so what's next in American Judicial Antics? 5th circuit issuing a nationwide injunction requiring everyone to vote for trump? SCOTUS ruling that corporations have a constitutional right to poison the water?

Here's the cases SCOTUS agreed to hear (so far) and will issue rulings on by next June:

Williams v. Washington, No. 23-191

Issue(s): Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.

Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22-7466

Issue(s): (1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.

Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852

Issue(s): (1) Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.

Lackey v. Stinnie, No. 23-621

Issue(s): (1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988.

Bufkin v. McDonough, No. 23-713

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which directs the court to “take due account” of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of that rule.

Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677

Issue(s): (1) Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Medical Marijuana v. Horn, No. 23-365

Issue(s): Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, No. 23-583

Issue(s): Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.

City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23-753

Issue(s): Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.

Delligatti v. U.S., No. 23-825

Issue(s): Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra, No. 23-715

Issue(s): Whether the phrase “entitled ... to benefits,” used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.

Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 23-980

Issue(s): Whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm.

E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera, No. 23-217

Issue(s): Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.

Kousisis v. U.S., No. 23-909

Issue(s): (1) Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme; (2) whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services; and (3) whether all contract rights are “property.”

NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, No. 23-970

Issue(s): (1) Whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents; and (2) whether plaintiffs can satisfy the Act's falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.

Wisconsin Bell v. U.S., ex rel. Todd Heath, No. 23-1127

Issue(s): Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, No. 23-861

Issue(s): Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.

Republic of Hungary v. Simon, No. 23-867

Issue(s): (1) Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; (2) whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference; and (3) whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the FSIA.

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, No. 23-975

Issue(s): Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.

Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers, No. 23-900

Issue(s): Whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.

Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, No. 23-997

Issue(s): Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.

U.S. v. Miller, No. 23-824

Issue(s): Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy.

U.S. v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477

Issue(s): Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

[kp777]

By Julia Conley

Common Dreams

May 29, 2024

"It's hard to read this comically bad letter as anything other than a challenge to Congress to either assert its constitutional authority or admit fecklessness," said one group.

Despite his family's display of two flags associated with the "Stop the Steal" movement that baselessly claims the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said Wednesday that he will not recuse himself from two cases that pertain to the election and Trump supporters' effort to stop the results from being certified.

The justice wrote to the House of Representatives and the Senate to tell lawmakers that his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, was solely responsible for flying the two flags on the family's properties in Virginia in 2021 and New Jersey last year.

Justice advocates and Democrats in Congress have called on Alito to recuse from a case regarding Trump's claim that he has immunity from federal election interference charges and one in which the court is deliberating whether defendants who participated in the January 6, 2021 attempted insurrection should be charged with obstructing an official proceeding.

The demands for recusal—not the first to target Alito—came in recent weeks after The New York Times reported that an upside down flag had flown at his family home in Virginia just after January 6, and that a flag reading, "Appeal to Heaven" had been displayed last year at his New Jersey beach house, right around the time that one of the cases arrived at the Supreme Court.

Both flags were carried by some rioters on January 6 and have been embraced by the Stop the Steal movement.

The display of the flags, said Alito, "do not meet the conditions for recusal set out" by the court's ethics code, which was introduced last year and does not include an enforcement mechanism.

In his letters, Alito suggested that the push for accountability for the flag displays represents a violation of his wife's rights, noting that "she has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit."

"She makes her own decisions, and I have always respected her right to do so," wrote Alito, leading one progressive strategist to point out that the justice wrote the majority opinion in the Supreme Court ruling that revoked the constitutional right to obtain abortion care.

Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs for Stand Up America, called on the Senate to take "immediate action" to stop Alito's "bald-faced display of judicial misconduct."

"Justice Alito's refusal to recuse himself from cases related to January 6th is unacceptable," said Edkins. "By dismissing concerns about potential bias and conflicts of interest and placing the blame on his wife, he is making a mockery of the fundamental principles of impartiality and fairness upon which the Supreme Court was founded."

Edkins called on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to "schedule a floor vote on a binding code of conduct for justices" and urged Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) to "fulfill his duty as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee by launching a thorough investigation into Justice Alito's actions and corruption on the court."

Durbin sent a letter last week to Chief Justice John Roberts asking him to support the call for Alito's recusal and requesting a meeting with him, but progressives have said the senator should go further to ensure accountability for Alito's actions.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said last week that the Senate Judiciary Committee should subpoena Alito and open a formal investigation into his family's display of the flags.

Sarah Lipton-Lubet, president of Take Back the Court Action Fund, said Wednesday that it was tempting to "make fun of Alito for scribbling off the judicial equivalent of a 'my wife ate my homework' note."

"But the joke will be on all of us if Congress lets this be the last word on his recusal from election-related cases," said Lipton-Lubet. "It's hard to read this comically bad letter as anything other than a challenge to Congress to either assert its constitutional authority or admit fecklessness."

The court is expected to rule on the two Trump-related cases in late June.

Advocates have previously called on Alito to recuse from certain cases after it was revealed that he benefited from luxury travel paid for by a billionaire who had had business before the court.