A whole nation under threat from Supreme Court justices

A week ago Mark Sumner of Daily Kos reported that for a time just after the Jan. 6 Capitol attack there was an inverted American flag outside Justice Samuel Alito’s home. This inverted flag was originally a signal of an emergency. It became a symbol for supporters of the nasty guy who wanted to overturn the election. Also at that time the Supreme Court was considering whether to hear a case involving the 2020 election results. Alito blamed the flag on his wife Martha-Ann, who he said put it up on response to a neighbor’s anti-nasty guy sign.

Like Thomas, whose wife was directly involved in Jan 6. events, Alito isn’t just conservative; he’s committed to eroding government power to help his billionaire friends. Any pretense that Alito has a judicial philosophy in election matters other than helping Trump is exactly that—pretense. ... As it turns out, an upside-down flag still signals an emergency. In this case, it’s a whole nation under threat from Supreme Court justices putting their support for Trump above the law.

Also last Friday Walter Einenkel of Kos wrote that Rachel Maddow criticized Alito on her program. She doesn’t buy the attempt to blame the wife. Maddow said:

Everybody has different marriage rules, but 'it's my wife's fault' is probably never within the marriage rules, when you are talking to The New York Times about something that you've done that has brought enough scandal upon you and the institution you represent, that it's on the front page of The New York Times. ... Justice Alito has become increasingly unembarrassed about displaying himself as a partisan, as a consumer of partisan narratives and media, and in ruling in ways that are just kind of out loud, all caps disdainful toward a majority of the country, in some cases. And certainly against people who disagree with him. And this fits with that. ... I think Chief Justice Roberts has a problem on his hands in terms of the behavior of some of the more aggressive justices, and those who are really flouting ethics concerns and equanimity concerns with their behavior.

Congressman Jamie Raskin tweeted:

Justice Alito turned the flag upside down. Donald Trump turned the Bible upside down. MAGA turned the Capitol upside down. The Roberts Court turned the Constitution upside down. Let’s set America right side up in November.

Wednesday, two days ago, Kaili Joy Gray of Kos reported there was a second occurrence of Alito flying a “stop the steal” flag. This on was the “Appeal to Heaven” flag and was seen over the Alito’s New Jersey beach house during the summer of 2023. When this one came to light at least Alito didn’t blame his wife. This flag is white with a green pine tree and the words “An Appeal to Heaven.” It was created during the American Revolution and recently adopted by far-right religious fanatics. It also was seen at the Capitol attack. Gray asks the question: How many far-right flags does Alito need to fly before we see it as a problem? Is two enough? In a pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Dahlia Lithwick of Slate. Here’s a bit, which explains what the flag means.

That flag is not merely another January 6 signifier but also rooted in John Locke’s “appeal to heaven,” meaning “a responsibility to rebel, even use violence, to overthrow unjust rule.”

I found the full quote to be: “The people have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no judge on earth, but to appeal to heaven.” But I’m not linking to the page where I found it. Down in the comments is a cartoon by Dennis Goris. It shows a building with two flags, the inverted American flag and the “Appeal to Heaven” flag. A boy asks, “What are those?” His father replies, “Red flags.” In the comments of another pundit roundup are a couple cartoons worth sharing. Joe Heller posted one of a flag outside the Supreme Court. The man says, “The flag is upside down and at half-staff?” The woman replies, “Yeah. Ethics is dead.” Much farther down is a cartoon from the Dallas Voice related to the United Methodist Church removing its bans on what LGBTQ people were allowed to do. The senior pastor says:

In accordance with new Methodist church policy, I will, if asked, agree to perform same-sex weddings. But I will draw the line at becoming a gay pastor myself.

Back to the Supreme Court. Also on Wednesday Sumner reviewed what Republicans had to say about Alito’s flags. Many blamed the press and Democrats for making a story of the flags. Those who had an actual comment gave Alito as much slack as they could or they commented on how bad it looked. Yeah, what we now expect from Republicans.

The depth of the Supreme Court’s corruption needs to be exposed, and the consequences need to be real. So far, no Republican appears ready to take that step.

On Thursday Einenkel reported a discussion Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of RI had with Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC. Whitehouse gave some history. When Bush I had a seat on the Court to fill he chose his own legal counsel Harriet Miers. Bush’s choice was attacked by Leonard Leo, the guy who founded the Federalist Society. Part of his efforts are to influence the Court. It is funded by bllionaires. He proposed Miers be replaced by the billionaire’s choice: Alito. Einenkel reminds us this is Alito’s third scandal in the last twelve months. Alito possibly being the leaker of the draft decision to overturn Roe was more than a year ago. Joan McCarter of Kos reported that pressure is building for Sen. Dick Durban, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to do something. Those two senators, who would love to take over Durban’s job, are Whitehouse and Sen. Richard Blumenthal of CT. So far all Durban has done was to issue stern demands that Alito recuse himself from cases involving the nasty guy or the Capitol attack. And Alito knows he can ignore Durban’s demands. Which is why Whitehouse and Blumenthal are applying more pressure. I had a scary thought...

Alito famously declared himself and the rest of the justices just that in an interview with The Wall Street Journal last year, in which he made a startling assertion of constitutional power: “No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.” That interview was with David Rivkin Jr., a regular contributor to the WSJ who also happens to be a lawyer who was about to argue a major tax case before the court. ... [Blumenthal said] “Justice Alito says the Congress can't regulate, to use his term, the Supreme Court. But the Congress set salaries. It sets rules of procedure. It sets the numbers of justices. The founders didn't want the United States Supreme Court to be above the law.”

One of the duties of the Supreme Court is to examine laws passed by Congress and decide if they are unconstitutional. Consider this scenario: Congress passes a bill that specifies a code of ethics with consequences for violating it and a way to enforce it. The president signs it. And then Alito and colleagues declare the law to be unconstitutional. What happens then? Stephen Wolf of Kos Elections described a recent Court ruling that shows why an ethical court is necessary. The Court had previously ruled that they will do nothing about gerrymandering for partisan purposes, though they could demand maps be redrawn if gerrymandering was for racial purposes, as in limiting minority members of Congress. The just issued ruling from the conservatives on the Court was for a South Carolina case of gerrymandering. It sure looked like a case of districts drawn for racial purposes. But in much of the South party affiliation is very much aligned with race. That allows Alito to reinterpret the motives of those who drew the maps to say, nope, this was for political purposes and we can’t touch it. The effect is to mostly remove race as a reason for a gerrymandering remedy.