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.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    11 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      10 hours ago

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

      • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        33 minutes ago

        Probably because (just like almost everything else) he isn’t a dictator that can unilaterally reshape a whole branch of government. Congress sets the number, not the President. If you want to actually see reforms go out and vote in more Representatives and Senators.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        56 minutes ago

        Because the Democratic Party puts a lot of value on norms and mores. Blowing up the Supreme Court (and then having to deal with whatever reaction that the GOP has when they get power again, which I’m sure would be totally rational and proportionate), is just too much of a massive change in the status quo for Biden.

        I think there are pros and cons to these ideas for expanding the court, etc. But I think it is important for people to realize that it’s not just as simple as flipping a switch or something. The implications and consequences would be massive, and impossible to predict completely.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 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.

        • floofloof@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Well that’s a start, but not enough in itself to fix the problem. He could have done more, and we wouldn’t be looking at a Supreme Court eager to support Trump’s re-election.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        No idea! I have wondered that myself. In fact why doesn’t he do it now, he’s the ultimate lame duck prez, there’d be no consequences for him so he absolutely should a few days after the election – if he truly could (I don’t know enough about the details about how he could so do).

        If your question is not just rhetorical, I totally agree, 100%.

        In fact I wish he’d declare he’s dissolving SCOTUS completely, plus a few levels of courts below and appointing non-partisan judges across the board to clean house and reset the decades of theocratic-proto-fascists that appear to have infiltrated the system at all levels. He could, after all, do anything right? The SCOTUS ruled this summer that Presidents have ‘absolute immunity’, so why not? It would be the ultimate F*ck You to their corruption and would be a historically beautiful way to bow out.

        EDIT: Oh look, I’m not the first to think of it

        • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          28 minutes ago

          He could, after all, do anything right? The SCOTUS ruled this summer that Presidents have ‘absolute immunity’, so why not?

          I am so sick of seeing this argument. SCOTUS didn’t give him any more actual powers, they shielded him from prosecution. He can’t just unilaterally declare he’s dissolving a whole branch of government, because he never had that power in the first place. What do you expect him to do to actually back that up? March the army in?

        • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I mean, he could, but wouldn’t he need Congress to confirm his appointments? They’d just do what they did while Obama was in office and block any motion for a vote, especially since the Democratic party doesn’t hold a filibuster-proof, 60-member Senate majority. Although, Obama had that and still blew it, the price of believing one can still engage in good faith negotiations with bad faith actors, I’m afraid.

          They’re already declaring their intentions to not negotiate with Harris in good faith, should she win the election, and to block all Presidential appointments. Hopefully she will go ahead and do it anyway. SCOTUS does get the final say in what does and does not constitute an “Official Act”, but they don’t have any enforcement mechanism. All they can do is send a strongly-worded letter, asking her to stop, but they can’t force her to stop.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            I mean, he could, but wouldn’t he need Congress to confirm his appointments?

            Just a simple majority in the Senate. And since he has absolute immunity, he can just order the executions of a sufficient number of Republican senators to ensure his appointments make it through confirmation.