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.

114 points

Maybe it’s time to ratify that “Titles of Nobility” constitutional amendment?

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/10/591758259/the-zombie-amendments-to-the-constitution-youve-probably-never-heard-of

permalink
report
reply
58 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

She’s too hot to disown.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Dude. Come on. Really?

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The fact that the war of 1812 didn’t spur overwhelming support for this amendment is kinda funny, tbh

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

No, a citizen can accept a title. But they cannot hold a title and an office. However Prince Harry would have to give up his title to become an American citizen.

Also the OG document bans exactly what Alito did.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

Doesn’t matter here. The Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) bans public officials from receiving titles of nobility. Alito already falls under this. The writers of the Constitution thought this one was so important that it’s not even an amendment. It’s in the OG document.

permalink
report
parent
reply

I think it means titles of nobility from a state, no?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

" . . . from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

It’s in the OG document.

Alito has the true original Constitution that says otherwise. Before any asks, only Alito can look at it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

This title, from the House of Bourbon–Two Sicilies

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

permalink
report
reply
23 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I feel like I’ve just started listening after zoning out while someone is trying to explain a new TTRPG.

permalink
report
parent
reply
57 points

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!

permalink
report
reply
0 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed on April 7, 2022.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

He could always send up a nomination. There’s nothing illegal about that. If Congress accepts it then their law is moot by their own action.

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

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 :)

permalink
report
reply
19 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah it’s kinda wild. Almost like thats a protected right or something. It’d be a shame if someone wanted to take it away.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Is Trollito in any secret societies like Opus Dei?

permalink
report
reply
8 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Lol what a shit flag. It looks like fucking clip art. Some of the most boomer-coded shit I have ever seen in my life.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 189K

    Comments