Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Alito recording plunges Supreme Court into deeper controversy


OverSword

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

The secret recording of conservative Justice Samuel Alito endorsing the idea that the country should return to a place of “godliness” has further plunged the Supreme Court into controversy, evoking outrage from Senate Democrats and forcing Republicans to play defense.

Senate Democrats are firing off new salvos of criticism at Alito — and at Chief Justice John Roberts for not reining in his conservative colleague — after he appeared to endorse the idea that the nation should embrace Christian principles and failed to distance himself from his wife’s outspoken hostility to a neighbor’s gay pride flag.

“Alito is an extremist who is out of touch with mainstream America. His rising power on the Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said.

 

Link

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the piece:

“It’s a pattern of harassment. These are people who want to destroy public confidence in all of our institutions and they are focused on the Supreme Court in particular,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

The Left has lost control of the SCOTUS and has resorted to undermining trust in it as a means of removing the legitimacy of its rulings.  SCOTUS has been the only branch of our three co-equal power centers that has remained mostly apolitical.  Once faith is lost in the courts, there will be no real, trusted system of checks and balances any longer.  IMO, that Party is intentionally taking America down and they're doing it as rapidly as possible.  I wonder, will their voters still think it's a good idea once things inevitably fall into chaos?  IMO,those who will mock that idea, are like foolish children.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, so this is Lauren Windsor as she depicts herself on her website, https://www.laurenwindsor.com/

LaurenWindsorfromhersite.jpg.d44462823377ed75beb3470112fc82fc.jpg

 

Probably she looks different in evening attire.

I'm agnostic, which means I don't believe in God. Nevertheless, if I encountered the woman in the picture in a social setting, and she proposed that America ought to return to Godliness, then I would be in no hurry to disagree with her.

All that effort, and all she comes away with is iron-clad proof that Associate Justice Alito is straight. Wow.

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you ask a religious person whether more people turning to God is a good thing, they will almost always agree, especially if the person doing the asking is professing to also hold the same religious views! According to the article, Alito also said "There can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.” This seems to suggest working together with all religions and non-religious beliefs is the ideal situation and that it is very much possible, but difficult. And yet, that answer wasn't sufficient for the person pretending to be a fellow Catholic believer, and so they pushed in order to get a soundbite that might be used in a negative story, so the pretend believer said "(we should) return our country to a place of godliness", which required a more direct answer from Alito and he simply happened to say that he agreed with that premise.  And now there's an article posted to UM claiming Alito is an activist. 

How is this even a news story? It's what you would expect every religious person on the planet to say! I know I would have said the same thing when I was a Christian, and I was far from the most preachy Christian out there. 

Edited by Link of Hyrule
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

😆

13 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Um, so this is Lauren Windsor as she depicts herself on her website, https://www.laurenwindsor.com/

LaurenWindsorfromhersite.jpg.d44462823377ed75beb3470112fc82fc.jpg

All that effort, and all she comes away with is iron-clad proof that Associate Justice Alito is straight. Wow.

 

Shocking isn't it...

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, and-then said:

The Left has lost control of the SCOTUS and has resorted to undermining trust in it as a means of removing the legitimacy of its rulings.  SCOTUS has been the only branch of our three co-equal power centers that has remained mostly apolitical.  Once faith is lost in the courts, there will be no real, trusted system of checks and balances any longer.  IMO, that Party is intentionally taking America down and they're doing it as rapidly as possible.  I wonder, will their voters still think it's a good idea once things inevitably fall into chaos?  IMO,those who will mock that idea, are like foolish children.  

Apolitical?  Upside down flags, RV's from Republican donors, free rent for their parents, tuition for nephews.  That's not apolitical.  There are absolutely people compromising Justices.  I mean, Clarence Thomas is the only Justice to dissent in a case involving his wife's text messages?   And we should have faith in the Supreme Court.  This is Mitch McConnell's doing.  We can't vote on a Supreme Court Justice in an election year...when Obama is in office.  We can vote on a Supreme Court Justice in an election year when Trump is in office.  Literally 2 months before an election.  Most people are stupid.  They don't see how these things are happening.  Republicans manipulated the Supreme Court, and now the ramifications are showing themselves.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

This is Mitch McConnell's doing.  We can't vote on a Supreme Court Justice in an election year...when Obama is in office. 

Because Obama was ineligible for re-election in 2016.  

 

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

We can vote on a Supreme Court Justice in an election year when Trump is in office. 

Because Trump was eligible for re-election in 2020. 

If one of the Supreme Court Justices upped and died on you in the final months of Trump's next term (assuming he beats Biden) the same reasoning would disqualify Trump from appointing a new Justice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Because Obama was ineligible for re-election in 2016.  

One thing he is ignoring, cause it isn't to his argument's benefit, is that near if not every time the party controlling the senate and the president are the same party that Supreme Court Justices get passed in election years and near if not every time they are different the president doesn't get his Supreme Court nominees confirmed.  Obama and Trump are no where near the first time either has occurred.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OverSword said:

By and large, I think that is a better cure for America's ills than drugs and rainbow flags 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Because Obama was ineligible for re-election in 2016.  

 

Because Trump was eligible for re-election in 2020. 

If one of the Supreme Court Justices upped and died on you in the final months of Trump's next term (assuming he beats Biden) the same reasoning would disqualify Trump from appointing a new Justice. 

He literally said IN AN ELECTION YEAR.  Not an election year of the second term of the current President.  He said the people have the right to choose.  That has nothing to do with Trump being eligible for re-election.  The people had the right to choose in 2016, and not in 2020.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

One thing he is ignoring, cause it isn't to his argument's benefit, is that near if not every time the party controlling the senate and the president are the same party that Supreme Court Justices get passed in election years and near if not every time they are different the president doesn't get his Supreme Court nominees confirmed.  Obama and Trump are no where near the first time either has occurred.  

Was this even English?  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Was this even English?  

Going straight to insults cause you know you are wrong, pretty standard move from you.

I'm only going to go from 1900 to current date as that will be enough to prove my point and all the years are presidential election years.

1912 - Taft (Republican) - Republican controlled senate - Supreme Court Justice Pitney

1916 - Wilson (Democrat) - Democrat controlled senate - Supreme Court Justices Brandies and Clarke confirmed.

1932 - Hoover (Republican) - Republican controlled senate - Supreme Court Justice Cardozo

1940 - Roosevelt (Democrat) - Democrat controlled Senate - Supreme Court Justice Murphy

1956 - Eisenhower (Republican) - Democrat controlled Senate - Supreme Court Justice Brennan 

1988 - Reagan (Republican) - Democrat controlled Senate - Supreme Court Justice Kennedy

And lastly 2020 with Trump

Out of 8 Supreme Court Justices confirmed in presidential election years 6 of then were when the president and the party in control of the Senate was the same since 1900.  As is also traditional in what you post any type of fact that doesn't support your argument will be ignored and anyone who points it out will be insulted.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, the last two times before 2016 when the president had a Supreme Court appointment in an election year, even with a different party in power in the Senate, the appointment happened.

McConnell blocking the appointment in 2016 was contrary to the previous 8 election year scenarios. It was also contrary to the last 2 election year scenarios with opposite parties in control of WH and Senate.

Mitch remains a hypocrite.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Mitch remains a hypocrite

I thought Timmy turtle died?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So GOP have radicals who want to force religion and spread hate, color me shocked.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Agent0range said:

He literally said IN AN ELECTION YEAR.  Not an election year of the second term of the current President.  He said the people have the right to choose.  That has nothing to do with Trump being eligible for re-election.  The people had the right to choose in 2016, and not in 2020.  

Are you denying that they explicitly stated that Obama was not eligible for reelection as a reason to deny the appointment? Are you denying that Trump's appointment was accepted because he was eligible for reelection? Both these points are on public record!

Are you also denying the trend of opposition parties denying appointments in election year's if they can? I was going to mention this in my last post, much like what @DarkHunter wrote, but I didn't want to make things too muddy all at once, and since you had to ask what language he was speaking I think I did the right thing (though FWIW I could understand his post perfectly).

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

In other words, the last two times before 2016 when the president had a Supreme Court appointment in an election year, even with a different party in power in the Senate, the appointment happened.

McConnell blocking the appointment in 2016 was contrary to the previous 8 election year scenarios. It was also contrary to the last 2 election year scenarios with opposite parties in control of WH and Senate.

Mitch remains a hypocrite.

Of course they did that for dolt45

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2024 at 4:15 PM, and-then said:

From the piece:

“It’s a pattern of harassment. These are people who want to destroy public confidence in all of our institutions and they are focused on the Supreme Court in particular,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

The Left has lost control of the SCOTUS and has resorted to undermining trust in it as a means of removing the legitimacy of its rulings.  SCOTUS has been the only branch of our three co-equal power centers that has remained mostly apolitical.  Once faith is lost in the courts, there will be no real, trusted system of checks and balances any longer.  IMO, that Party is intentionally taking America down and they're doing it as rapidly as possible.  I wonder, will their voters still think it's a good idea once things inevitably fall into chaos?  IMO,those who will mock that idea, are like foolish children.  

Once faith is lost in the courts? What has the  Supreme Court been doing but publicly taking bribes? What  has the MAGA leader been doing but telling us the courts, judges, prosecutors, and jury system are all corrupt because he has never done anything wrong?   

Talk about foolish children,  MAGA can't fix anything.  Big Daddy Trump can't fix America for you either.  MAGA are the worst bad mouthers of this country that exist right up there with the death to America bunch. In fact a lot of MAGA government and religious views would fit right in with  Iran's.  Ayatollah Trumpiola.  What will MAGA call its religious police?  Got a good name for them yet?

You have told us that everything is corrupt and our country is a sh**hole.  Why should anybody have confidence in any institution?  You don't do you?  You think the other half of the country is going to trust  the MAGA proven liars? Does MAGA think they would just burn down the Democratic part, take over with an authoritarian regime and things will return to normal?  Once you burn it down, you burn it all down. 

You cannot have a government with integrity, HONESTY, self reliance, respect, and freedom unless the citizens reflect those values. A government cannot force morality and virtue on citizens.   MAGA takes us further away from all of those values.. Especially Truth.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Once faith is lost in the courts? What has the  Supreme Court been doing but publicly taking bribes? What  has the MAGA leader been doing but telling us the courts, judges, prosecutors, and jury system are all corrupt because he has never done anything wrong?   

Talk about foolish children,  MAGA can't fix anything.  Big Daddy Trump can't fix America for you either.  MAGA are the worst bad mouthers of this country that exist right up there with the death to America bunch. In fact a lot of MAGA government and religious views would fit right in with  Iran's.  Ayatollah Trumpiola.  What will MAGA call its religious police?  Got a good name for them yet?

You have told us that everything is corrupt and our country is a sh**hole.  Why should anybody have confidence in any institution?  You don't do you?  You think the other half of the country is going to trust  the MAGA proven liars? Does MAGA think they would just burn down the Democratic part, take over with an authoritarian regime and things will return to normal?  Once you burn it down, you burn it all down. 

You cannot have a government with integrity, HONESTY, self reliance, respect, and freedom unless the citizens reflect those values. A government cannot force morality and virtue on citizens.   MAGA takes us further away from all of those values.. Especially Truth.

Damn that was great!

Maga and maga man have done more to divide this country and spread hate fear and lies than everything else combined the last century plus.
If you are the one with the match and the gasoline you don't mind things burning if you get your way even if it is thru threats and bullying they down care about anything except themselves in their mind it's those people's fault they are failures it's all great until maga man decides they are one or "those people" too, look how many learned that lesson on the 6th.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Are you also denying the trend of opposition parties denying appointments in election year's if they can?

What trend of this exists? It happened in 2016.

Maybe you'd better read post #12 again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

What trend of this exists? It happened in 2016.

Maybe you'd better read post #12 again.

The following is from this website:

Quote

This is the constitutional process and the historical norm. There has been a Supreme Court vacancy arising in an election years 29 times in American history. In 10 of those cases the presidency was held by one party and the Senate was held by a different party. Nine of those 10 nominees were rejected by the Senate, just like Garland was rejected.

On the other hand, there have been 19 times when a Supreme Court seat became vacant in an election year where both the presidency and the Senate were controlled by the same party. Only one nominee, Abe Fortas, was rejected.

I'm not an expert in US history, is this statement an accurate statement or not? In an election year, has the Supreme Court nomination been rejected 9/10 times when the parties are different and only once (out of 19) when the parties were the same (and according to the article, the one time out of 19 was bipartisan in its rejection of Fortas, arising from an "ethics scandal")? 

If the statement is accurate, then what I have said is factually true and there is a consistent history of this! If the statement is not accurate then I wonder where the information came from, and if I am the victim of misinformation then I hope you can point to a website that explains the real facts in layman terms. 

Post #12 has no source data, as I said I am not an expert in US political history, my comments are based on articles such as the one I provided here. 

Edited by Link of Hyrule
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Are you denying that they explicitly stated that Obama was not eligible for reelection as a reason to deny the appointment? Are you denying that Trump's appointment was accepted because he was eligible for reelection? Both these points are on public record!

McConnell ONLY said that when RBG died.  He never once said that in 2016.  Here's what McConnell said in 2016..

Quote

"The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," he said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-vacancy-election-year-senate/

And here's Lindsey Graham defending Mitch McConnel in 2016.

Quote

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/19/914774433/use-my-words-against-me-lindsey-graham-s-shifting-position-on-court-vacancies

So, no, it had nothing to do with it being his 2nd term.  That's the excuse they manufactured in 2020 to justify their actions, and clearly you people ate it up, and in your heads it is now fact.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Out of 8 Supreme Court Justices confirmed in presidential election years 6 of then were when the president and the party in control of the Senate was the same since 1900.  

So. What.  I don't recall the Constitution mentioning election years as part of the procedure.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

So. What.  I don't recall the Constitution mentioning election years as part of the procedure.

You are the one who initially brought up election year saying how Obama couldn't get his Supreme Court nominee in during an election year but Trump was saying how this is hypocritical when the reality is in general when the president and the party in control of the Senate is the same Supreme Court nominees make it through in election years and when the president and the party in control of the Senate are different in general the nominee doesn't get approved either by rejection or letting the nomination lapse.

Trump was a Republican president with a Republican controlled senate in an election year so got his Supreme Court nominee passed, Obama was a Democrat president with a Republican controlled senate in an election year and didn't get his nominee passed which is usually how stuff works in American politics despite you trying to claim it isn't.

Playing dumb is new for you, guess reairting to immediate insults and personal attacks isn't working as well for you anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should a supreme court justice be allowed to have opinions when not on the bench?  Absolutely, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.