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.
The key point here, not to get distracted, taking the title is trivial in the modern age. The title has little meaning to someone of today. The hitch is that Altito is a profound originalist. When he interprets the constitution he claims the text should be interpreted exactly as the founders explicited intented. All together, taking the title against the prohibition of the constitution acknowledges what his real intentions are. By claiming to know the framers exact intentions, something that is clearly unknowable, he can inject his own interests as he pleases.
No, it is not trivial, it is a fundamental rejection of (small r) republicanism in the pursuit of personal vainglory.
It is also an aspect of Christofascism that you would, admittedly, need quite a lot of reading on development of the medieval concept of knighthood to pick up on even if modern elements are recognizable but the tl;Dr of it all is that knights as a separate and popular European political class are fundamentally linked to the “Crusader” archetype as an innately Christian warrior who does violence for the faith.
Whether Alito is aware of that specifically or not, and I wouldn’t put much money on it as most people are rather surprised to find out even the earliest conceptualization of knight is actually more of a 10th century/Crusade thing than a Dark Age concept, I would certainly argue that that innately Christian aspect is at least subconsciously understood by Western society in general and I can say with certainty that 20th century fascist messaging was aware of it specifically and used it quite a lot.
The specific group that knighted him, the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George, is explicitly along Crusader lines.
https://realcasadiborbone.it/en/constantinian-order/
The Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George is an ancient and internationally recognised Order of Knighthood which, from its remotest origins, has resolved to work for the glorification of the Cross, the propagation of the Faith, and the defence of the Holy Roman Church, to which it is strictly bound through special merits acquired in the East, and for which manifold evidences of gratitude and benevolence have been expressed by successive Supreme Pontiffs of the Roman Catholic Church.
Alito knows.
He’s lying. He’s a traitorous piece of shit who should be executed thusly.
I hear Tar and Feathering traitors was all the rage back in the founding father days.
If you choose to look, Ted Kennedy received an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth 2 whilst a sitting senator. And no one batted an eye. In fact he was widely praised for being knighted when it happened.
There are lots of meaningless honorary titles floating about if you care to actually look. And yes those types of titles, like “knighthood”, are meaningless these days and have been for a number of centuries.
Maybe it’s time to ratify that “Titles of Nobility” constitutional amendment?
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.
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.
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!
Why did Joe Biden do nothing to rebalance the Supreme Court in all his 4 years of being President?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
that’s fine, if he wants to be a knight he totally can. And it seems like he’s made his choice so let him be.
Harris will be happy to appoint his replacement.
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 :)
Pretty neat they could challenge the basis of government in a public forum without fear of retaliation tho.
