General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Alito admits he cannot/will not be impartial.
Link to tweet
1/ If Justice Alito is making comments like this to a random person at a get-together, what is he saying to his close confidants? How is this impartial justice, especially when his votes/rationale on cases are considered?
End snip
He must resign or be impeached. This cannot go on another day.
Teddy Kennedy tried to tell us at Sammy's confirmation hearing.
/rant off
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Passages
(3,986 posts)
Irish_Dem
(78,964 posts)He is installing his rigid Christian agenda on the nation.
Religious leaders cannot get people to buy into their dogma voluntarily,
so they have to make it the law of the land. And shove it down our throats.
Hermit-The-Prog
(36,631 posts)Irish_Dem
(78,964 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(36,631 posts)If we can break through the propaganda and obtain majorities in both Houses and the White House, something can be done about the MAGAt infection in our government, including the Supreme Court.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2.
Irish_Dem
(78,964 posts)It is just the honor code.
Historic NY
(39,544 posts)
Maraya1969
(23,388 posts)
Ms. Toad
(38,062 posts)To be clear, I don't believe Alito can separate political opinions from his job a supreme court justice.
But having political conversations - without expressly discussing cases before him - is not an admission he cannot be impartial.
I drafted opinions for an old-style Republican. We did not see eye to eye politically - and had political conversations. I would not be surprised to have heard the words quoted in the article come form his mouth - although for him it would have been said with sadness. But every single time I went to him with an opinion that (in my assesment) had to have a progressive outcome (overturning a conviction, police misconduct, etc.), he told me to write it that way - even though his initial impression of what the outcome should be did not match the ultimate opinion. The same was true of the Democratic judge who had Republican clerks.
Personally, when I tried out for the moot court team, I was assigned the side opposing welfare expressly because the coach (a conservative) knew I would naturally take the other side. My legal arguments were strong enough to convince him to assign me the swing position on the team (the person who argues both sides of an issue)
So expressing or having political opinions is not inherently a confession that one cannot be impartial in the role of adjudicator (or advocate, for that matter).
He may have said more. He may have actually made such an admission. But if he did, I would have expected the Rolling Stone to have quoted it in their article.
Again - it is clear to me that Alito is incapable of separating the two. Not because of what he said in casual conversations to a stranger (he is entitled to hold and even share political opinions, so long as it does not extend to discussing or commenting on cases that might cross his desk). I know from what he writes in his actual opinions.
Think. Again.
(22,456 posts)Ms. Toad
(38,062 posts)I wrote out a response with quotes from the tape - and then accidentally closed the wrong tab. So I'll just summarize it.
In response to the general conversation (in which Windsor is nudging him toward saying the court has a role to play) he expressly states the court's role is limited.
The closest he comes is at the very end, when she says something about the fight for unborn babies' rights being so important, he agrees. I haven't read Dobbs recently - but I'm pretty sure it isn't much different from what he says in the actual opinion.
But the entire converstion is about political views, and living with those with fundamentally different moral views than you - and because fundamental views can't be compromised someone has to be the winner. Most of the tape is Windsor opining (I didn't track the time - but about 80-90% of it is Windsor expressing her opinions and mostly unsuccessfully trying to draw Alito out.)
No admission that he can't be impartial in his role on the court.
birdographer
(2,937 posts)An FYI--if you happen to be on a Mac, Command-Shift-T will open closed tabs and put you right back where they were. Very convenient!
Ms. Toad
(38,062 posts)I'm not on a mac, but there's often a Windows equivalent. Looks like Ctrl-shift-t.
My daughter is always appalled at how many tabs I have open (22, at the moment - 
). Chrome has been freezing multiple times a day on me recently - so I'm trying to close tabs when I'm done with them. I had two DU tabs open - the video and the respond window. I picked the wrong one to close.
And with that reminder about how many tabs I have open, I'd better shut most of them before Chrome freezes again.
ancianita
(42,729 posts)Ms. Toad
(38,062 posts)but I decided it was too much work.
maspaha
(698 posts)I’m not an attorney and have no legal training. I depend on people like you to explain what seems like a subtle (or no) difference to me, but actually is quite different. I particularly appreciate your explanation since I know you’re looking in slightly from the left 😉
ancianita
(42,729 posts)Yes, he said what he said. Yet Windsor seems to misrepresent herself as some faith-based anti-abortion person; she overtalks him, and she seems to kinda press him along in agreement.
Think. Again.
(22,456 posts)...when he accepted the seat that he has now been provably dishonest about?
Can that be seen as grounds to nullify his appointment instead of having to impeach him?
After all, he's got every to take a nullification like that all the way to the supreme court if he so chooses ..
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,453 posts)Impeachment and conviction, resignation, or death. No other way to remove them. There is zero chance we can come up with 67 votes in the Senate to remove him during impeachment and I highly doubt he will bother resigning right now, so we are going to be stuck with him until he dies or lets himself be replaced by a republican president.
Think. Again.
(22,456 posts)...if that's true.
Does the consitution explicitly say that ONLY impeachment or resignation are allowed?
Or does it just say that impeachment or resignation are allowed ways to vacate a seat? Leaving other, unmentioned ways also valid.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,453 posts)Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes that all Federal Judges are appointed for life.
Article 2, Section 4 establishes that the President, Vice President, and all civil officers shall be removed from office via impeachment.
Federal judges are considered civil officers of the United States, so impeachment and conviction in the Senate is the only method of removal. Since the Constitution stipulated a method of removal and no other, then that is the only method allowed. If its not in the Constitution, then its not in the Constitution, and we have to follow what is.
Think. Again.
(22,456 posts)
elocs
(24,486 posts)
sanatanadharma
(4,075 posts)Deciding where the Nation goes is the Legislature's job. Judges are restricted by the law*. It is not their place to determine, impede, or delay the law. Judges apply the law as it is. Period. Constitutionality is not a personal preference.
There is a forth way for a Justice to leave the bench; extreme public prejudice.
No one judge can stand before the combined weight of a Nation's indignation.
*Where in the Constitution is the Judiciary given the power to declare laws unconstitutional?
It is a made up power-grab by the early court based NOT on original intent. The precedent was created by Judicial activism.
The Constitution does explicitly give the Legislature some power over the courts. Use it.
NanaCat
(2,332 posts)Needs to have the majority in the House, and 67 votes in the Senate.
We can talk all day about legislative this or that, but it's pissing in the wind as long as we don't have the ability to do anything legislatively about him.
DFW
(59,635 posts)Now, if he were to deny it, THEN it would be a front page story.
Torchlight
(6,261 posts)that Rep. Bryan Slaton resigned prior to commercial consumption of his affair with a teenager, and has lived quietly, if not boringly, in absentia since.
Rep. George Santos however, the man whose stubborn reticence you're now emulating, was dealt with less gracefully and in such a way as to publicly advertise his flaws, creating an absurd caricature of small man.
You still have time to retire quietly and w/ grace, Mr. alito. Otherwise, the secrets you lose to the public in the wake of your own self caricature portrait may not be the most valuable of your losses.
NanaCat
(2,332 posts)Is feet first, toes up. He gets off to his power too much to give it up while he still has breath in his body.
Torchlight
(6,261 posts)And I can only guess.
Initech
(107,159 posts)Fuck MAGA, fuck Trump. It's time to stop coming at them with kid gloves on. 
NanaCat
(2,332 posts)Really? They wouldn't let it come up in committee, never mind getting out of it to the House floor.
Think. Again.
(22,456 posts)...lIke "Final Authority on All Things Socially Enforcable" and then sue ourselves to eliminate the authority to offer him that job after he resigns from the court to take it.
Oh wait, he already has that job.
Dan
(4,920 posts)Then impeach him and Thomas, as a start. I’d love to also impeach Roberts as that would make my day.
Impeaching those two would not have any impacts on the overall court as we would still have a sex offender/drunk and a dishonest broker on the court.
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,362 posts)Harriet Miers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination
We wound up with Alito instead.
Emile
(40,110 posts)are you to judge anything?
twodogsbarking
(17,357 posts)
Skittles
(169,085 posts)THERE, I FIXED IT FOR YOU
LiberaBlueDem
(1,167 posts)Job is to be impartial and let the facts of the matter determine the judgement
Alito had proved he is not fit to be a judge