412
submitted 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Summary

Justice Samuel Alito, a self-described Originalist, has been criticized for allegedly disregarding the Constitution’s text when it conflicts with his personal views.

Recently, it emerged that Alito accepted a knighthood from a European order, despite the Constitution’s ban on foreign titles for U.S. officials.

This title, from the House of Bourbon–Two Sicilies, raises questions about Alito’s commitment to American democratic ideals, which the Framers aimed to protect from foreign influence.

Critics argue that Alito’s actions reflect hypocrisy in his supposed adherence to Originalism and constitutional principles.

top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 11 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)
[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 24 points 3 hours ago

that's fine, if he wants to be a knight he totally can. And it seems like he's made his choice so let him be.

Harris will be happy to appoint his replacement.

[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 55 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

The key point here, not to get distracted, taking the title is trivial in the modern age. The title has little meaning to someone of today. The hitch is that Altito is a profound originalist. When he interprets the constitution he claims the text should be interpreted exactly as the founders explicited intented. Altogether taking the title against the prohibition of the condition acknowledges what his real intention. By claiming to know the framers exact intentions, something that is clearly unknowable, he can inject his on interests as he pleases.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 8 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

No, it is not trivial, it is a fundamental rejection of (small r) republicanism in the pursuit of personal vainglory.

It is also an aspect of Christofascism that you would, admittedly, need quite a lot of reading on development of the medieval concept of knighthood to pick up on even if modern elements are recognizable but the tl;Dr of it all is that knights as a separate and popular European political class are fundamentally linked to the "Crusader" archetype as an innately Christian warrior who does violence for the faith.

Whether Alito is aware of that specifically or not, and I wouldn't put much money on it as most people are rather surprised to find out even the earliest conceptualization of knight is actually more of a 10th century/Crusade thing than a Dark Age concept, I would certainly argue that that innately Christian aspect is at least subconsciously understood by Western society in general and I can say with certainty that 20th century fascist messaging was aware of it specifically and used it quite a lot.

[-] DancingBear@midwest.social 12 points 4 hours ago

So, he’s either a dumb azz or he is lying?

He's lying. He's a traitorous piece of shit who should be executed thusly.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

I hear Tar and Feathering traitors was all the rage back in the founding father days.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

I would prefer lynching, hang him by his ligaments.

[-] VantaBrandon@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

Rules for thee and not for meeeee, wheeeee

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 19 points 5 hours ago

can he be kicked out for it though?

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago

seems like the president has so much immunity for official actions that Alito accepting his knighthood should be an automatic empty slot on the court, Harris should appoint his replacement immediately so Alito can concentrate on his royal duties.

And when she does, she should point out the law, and Alito's dedication to originalist interpretation of said document.

[-] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 hours ago

With a 50% vote in the house and a 66% vote in the senate

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 72 points 7 hours ago
[-] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 6 hours ago

This has the added benefit of stripping Meghan Markle of her citizenship as well.

I really have no opinion of Meghan Markle but thought this was funny. It's insane that it'd be easier to ratify an amendment from 1810 which would impact a good handful of people to target Alito, than implement robust Supreme Court ethics reforms.

[-] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 3 points 1 hour ago

The Australian woman who married into the Danish royal family had to renounce her Australian citizenship, so that would be fair enough.

[-] P00ptart@lemmy.world -2 points 4 hours ago

She's too hot to disown.

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 30 points 6 hours ago

Who the FUCK cares about the Constitution when it's used to do ANYTHING besides Defend a Gunman who Murdered a CLASSROOM FULL OF CHILDREN! I'm Pro Life btw :)

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 6 hours ago

You have no idea how hard it is to suppress the downvote reflex here.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 11 points 6 hours ago

Pretty neat they could challenge the basis of government in a public forum without fear of retaliation tho.

[-] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 42 points 7 hours ago

W.T.F.

The US needs to clean house, expand the SCOTUS to put these corrupt judges firmly in the minority so they're ineffective for the rest of their miserable life-long-unelected-terms, if it can't outright impeach them!

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago

Why did Joe Biden do nothing to rebalance the Supreme Court in all his 4 years of being President?

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Because he's a typical Clintonite conservative Democrat. 9/10 times he's on the side of defending the political institutions and, at most, patch them up here or there.

He was never going to be a great reformer. Just like he remains a staunch Zionist in spite of 75 years of apartheid rule and other crimes against humanity, he remains firmly convinced that the American political system is fundamentally just and that changing it would be worse than the inequities that come from NOT doing so.

[-] P00ptart@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago

He's still got a couple months, but it shouldn't be about packing the court. It should be about removing the corrupt ones. They need, NEED to have accountability.

[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io 31 points 6 hours ago

Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed on April 7, 2022.

[-] RVGamer06@sh.itjust.works 16 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

This title, from the House of Bourbon–Two Sicilies

Didn't that family go extinct some time after the Italian unification?

Not quite but they did sober up and stopped seeing double.

[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 4 points 5 hours ago

The $upreme Court is a complete joke and they did it to themselves

[-] troglodytis@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

And we did it to ourselves.

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

I thought the 13th amendment of 1812 didn't pass?

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

Is Trollito in any secret societies like Opus Dei?

[-] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Knights of Malta are having a rebirth and have been active with his sort.

(Edit: well, waddaya know: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/justice-alitos-royalist-cosplay.html

Conservative lobbyist and court-packer Leonard Leo belongs to the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta, a Catholic lay order that dates to the Crusades. The Opus Dei organization, best known for its super-kinky corporal-mortification rules, sent a priest wearing a spiked garter under his cassock to convert a swath of Republicans in Washington — a project that has proved quite successful.)

He does fly this flag at his home, though

It's not because of it's original use.

It's because he's a major player/member in the NAR (the new apostolic reformation) which is an accelerationist movement with the explicit intent to bring about Armageddon so Jesus can return.

I shit you not.

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/appeal-to-heaven-flag-nar-alito

[-] Arcka@midwest.social 0 points 4 hours ago

I don't think the U.S. Constitution bans anyone from getting a title from some random French family, only from a "King, Prince, or foreign State".

Is this article intentionally misrepresenting? There's plenty of scummy things he's done without having to invent weird distractions.

this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
412 points (99.5% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4546 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS