On Flags and Collars

RBG wore her dissent jabot the day after the 2016 election.

In 2016, election day was on Tuesday, November 8. Against all odds, Donald Trump prevailed. The next day, the Supreme Court held a session. There were no opinions to hand down. But Justice Ginsburg still wore her "dissent" jabot. Here is Art Lien's sketch:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to be wearing her "dissent" jabot at the Supreme Court today
(sketch by Art Lien) pic.twitter.com/zgIOx0WqQG

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) November 9, 2016

 

RBG: "This is my dissenting collar… It looks fitting for dissents." pic.twitter.com/luNmrN4BCX

— Irin Carmon (@irin) July 31, 2014

The symbolism of Ginsburg's jabot was unmistakable. The Associated Press reported:

The day after Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 presidential election, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the bench wearing a black necklace with crystals. It was a piece she typically wore to express her displeasure while reading a dissent from the bench. But Ginsburg, who had called Trump a faker ahead of the election and then apologized, had no dissents to read.

Ginsburg's collars were more than a subtle statement every time she entered the courtroom.

The Court did not return a request for comment. If you'll notice, Justice Alito is not wearing a MAGA hat.

In 2020, after RBG's death, The New York Times praised her sense of style:

Her dissent collar, a spiky bejeweled necklace on a black band from Banana Republic that had been gifted to her when she was named a Glamour Woman of the Year in 2012, she wore when she read her equally spiky dissents from the bench. (She also wore it the day after the 2016 election, which no one thought was a coincidence; the dissent collar became so famous on its own that it was memorialized in jewelry, magnets and temporary tattoos.)

I have a very, very difficult time taking the outrage over the Alitos' flags seriously. The Justices routinely convey messages through their words and deeds. Who gets to decide what is an appearance of impropriety? People who are inclined to despise the conservative Justices will draw the worst possible inferences from all of their acts. Indeed, the Alitos' neighbors remind me of the "objective observers" under the defunct Establishment Clause jurisprudence. These people are loathe to co-exist with anything they disagree with, so will take umbrage at the slightest sleights.

This story will keep going, nowhere.

Comments

[Randal]

Flying an American flag upside down is offensive in a way that a bejeweled necklace simply isn’t.

If you don’t get that then you’re irretrievably lost. Which we already knew.

[Rossami]

If flying an American flag upside down is offensive, where were your precious sensibilities when any of the two dozen progressive incidents that I can easily recall occurred?

[Magister]

Activists often aim to be offensive. A Supreme Court justice burning a flag would be way different than the many times activists have burned flags.

[kkoshkin]

The commentariat is not mad at Alito because he engaged in "offensive" behavior, they're mad at him because he engaged in behavior construed to indicate support for Donald Trump and should, therefore, recuse in any number of cases.

If that is worthy of condemnation and recusal, so too should RBG's public displays of personal political leaning. IF one were to be principled.

[Randal]

The commentariat is taking advantage of the popular disgust at the offensiveness of the display to push for repercussions.

[damikesc]

"The commentariat is not mad at Alito because he engaged in “offensive” behavior, they’re mad at him because he engaged in behavior construed to indicate support for Donald Trump and should, therefore, recuse in any number of cases."

Except nothing he did actually did that. At all.

I'd say you're making a mountain out of a molehill, but this is not even a molehill.

[OtisAH]

^^^ Can easily recall two dozen similar progressive incidents. Does not provide one. ^^^

[Rossami]

You honestly can't remember any of the war protests that included an upside-down flag? Either you have a highly selective memory or you're lying.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Classy. Accuse the person calling you out as a "liar".

All to avoid providing a few examples?

[Absaroka]

It's pretty common knowledge, I'd think. A couple from the first page of search results:

Pic from 1969, discussing case from 1970

People magazine: "Since June 2022, progressive activists have begun flying their flags upside down, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court decision to overturn the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade." (and other examples across the political spectrum)

There are more examples on the first page of results.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Thanks for illustrating just how easy it would have been for him to provide a few examples! I'm sure you will agree, it wasn't difficult?

[zztop8970]

It's also not that difficult to provide a few examples that the night sky is dark, or that the sun rises in the East, yet mot people don't think it necessary to provide such examples after writing 'the night sky is dark", easy though that may be.
Thats what 'common knowledge' means.
And when some clueless person questioned the veracity, it was easy to humor them.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, I get it. You think Otis was "questioning Rossami's veracity", rather than making a humorous quip about his oddly specific mention of "two dozen progressive incidents" of USD flag-flying--and then citing no specific examples.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Blackman is addressing criticism about the flag being overtly political, not offensive. Please try to keep up.

[Randal]

Hahaha are you for real? So when Josh says

I have a very, very difficult time taking the outrage over the Alitos’ flags seriously.

you think he means he has a very, very difficult time taking the outrage over the Alitos’ flags seriously… to the extent that outrage sems from the political message the flags are sending… but he completely takes the outrage seriously as far as it concerns the offensive aspects?

You may be even more far gone than Josh! I didn’t think that was possible, but here you are, ridiculously defending Josh’s ridiculous defense of Alito.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"you think he means he has a very, very difficult time taking the outrage over the Alitos’ flags seriously… to the extent that outrage sems from the political message the flags are sending… but he completely takes the outrage seriously as far as it concerns the offensive aspects?"

What a ridiculous thing to say. No, I think he's referring to the outrage about the flag being an unduly political message for a judge, and not addressing any other random outrage people happen to feel.

[Randal]

And yet you continue to defend such an asinine strawman.

Abortions don't make that much of a mess! You're a doctor's office, you should have a janitor on staff anyway. I have a very, very difficult time taking the outrage over late term abortion seriously.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From the letter sent to Alito by Congressional Democrats:

Even if you had “no involvement” in the display
yourself, the fact of such a political statement at your home creates, at minimum, the appearance of improper
political bias. According to Canon 5 of the recently promulgated, non-binding, non-enforceable U.S. Supreme
Court ethics guidelines, on which you are listed as a signatory, a Justice “should refrain from political activity.”4
In fact, the Court’s own employee guidelines explicitly prohibit public displays of political views – including
yard signs and bumper stickers — because they create an appearance of a conflict of interest.

Do you have any examples of people criticizing Alito because they thought the flage was offensive?

[Randal]

Literally all of the coverage, including the statements of various pols, including GOP ones?

This is the basic gist...

These latest revelations, in other words, are gross on their face, but they’re even more offensive given the larger pattern of highly dubious conduct.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/justice-samuel-alitos-upside-flag-controversy-matters-rcna152724

[TwelveInchPianist]

From your link:

We are, after all, talking about a sitting justice who has earned a reputation as the high court’s most unyielding ideologue, who has delivered a series of overtly political speeches, who’s issued public endorsements of a conservative advocacy group’s work, who thought it’d be a good idea to defend the Supreme Court’s integrity at a pro-Trump organization exactly two weeks before the 2022 midterm elections, who’s appeared a bit too cozy with the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, and who’s declared his indifference to congressional oversight in ways that were panned as “stunningly wrong.”

He's saying that Alito's partisan conduct is offensive.

[Randal]

I don't get it. Are you now admitting that you were wrong when you said

Blackman is addressing criticism about the flag being overtly political, not offensive.

because really it's both? Ok, I'm ok with that.

[Krayt]

Which would be relevant if the issue were offending people, and not conflict of interest.

If you don't realize get that then you’re irretrievably lost.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How is it a conflict of interest?

[Nige]

If he believes Trump won the election he does not accept the legitimacy of the current president.

[GKHoff]

He did not hoist the upside down flag. And it was a symbol of distress long before it was co-opted to political use by left or right.

[shawn_dude]

It's never been a signal of general distress. The U.S. flag code says that the flag is not to be turned upside-down “except as a signal of dire distress in instance of extreme danger to life or property.” Dire.

If a disagreement with a neighbor gets dire enough that one is considering an upside-down flag, 911 is a quicker way to get actual help. A highly educated person with a deep understanding of the US government and its history knows that. That leaves the co-opted meaning (Stop the Steal) as the reason why it was on the lawn.

Thought experiment: a circuit judge's spouse puts a TRUMP! political sign on their lawn and a similar bumper sticker on one of the family cars. The judge takes that car to work and parks it in their reserved space. Does the judge avoid accusations of impropriety because their spouse stuck that on the bumper? Or put the sign in the lawn? Or holds a campaign event in their shared home?

The Appeal to Heaven/God flag is worse. It's current meaning is associated with white Christian nationalism and placing the law of God before secular law.

Both are offensive when flown by members of the judiciary because they put the lie to the notion that justice is blind.

[Purple Martin]

Interesting example of part of the problem, which is a mindset that seems inherently unable to consistently differentiate between different things happening to share surface similarities, even if the similarities are superficial and the differences are profound. Happens a lot in politics discussions, one current example being the conflating of…

• Specific flags, pennants or banners with an original meaning…

1) upside-down U.S. Flag similar to a Mayday! or SOS distress call or,
2) historical religious symbolism (a call upon the gods to assist in revolution)

…the understanding of which has changed to represent support of and subservience to a master in…

1) an organized effort to block the routine, peaceful transfer of power our representative democracy depends on, though extra-legal means up to and including seditious conspiracy & mob violence and/or,
2) extending those efforts to autogolpe, coup, insurrection, or revolution in hopes of replacing a centuries-old democratic representative republic with an authoritarian White Nationalist theocratic police state.

…with

• single individuals of substantial though shared influence donning a minor item of dark, distinctive apparel on some days that an adverse or damaging topic or event occurs or rises to increased attention, signaling to themselves and perhaps to others who want to pay attention, disapproval of that event or topic.

So, the true comparison to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent jabot would not be Joseph Alito “wearing a MAGA hat” or flying flags of comradeship in mob violence, seditious conspiracy, autogolpe, coup, insurrection, or revolution; but donning a similarly dark and distinctive dissent necktie, in the instances described above (And in the second, there is no RBG parallel to Alito).

As many learned from Sesame Street at an early age:

One of these things is not like the others…all of these things are not the same.

For some people such learning takes longer. And for some steeped in such whataboutism (like Josh and our commenting citizens of the nation of MAGAnistan), it never happens at all.

[Kleppe]

Alito's spouse doing something somehow requires him to recuse, but RGB openly protesting the result of an election from the bench is A-OK.

[DonP]

If not for double standards ... etc.

[Randal]

RGB's dog put that necklace on her.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Fake Banana Republic jewelry for a banana republic judge

[TwelveInchPianist]

Ginsberg exhorted Congress to change to law from the bench in the Ledbetter case. That's about as political as it gets.

Alito, otoh, shares his property with people who have a first amendment right to fly whatever flag they want.

[Nige]

If you don't want people to notice the flags you're flying, maybe you shouldn't fly those flags. By flying a flag you're either declaring an allegiance or honouring someone or something for everyone to see. Everyone saw. Sorr-ee.

[Scooter]

If a woman doesn't want to be raped, may she shouldn't wear her skirts so short. - Nige

[Nige]

A flag is like a skirt and makes me think of rape – Scooter

(This is indicative of the right-wing attitude to speech - criticising certain people, all on the right, is the same as rape, apparently.)

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not saying Ginsberg was a saint, but telling institutions to do a thing you want them to do is nowhere near the same as indicating you want to tear those institutions down to do the thing you want to do.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And if there were any evidence that Alito had done such a thing, you might have an argument.

But:
1. There's no evidence that Alito flew the flag
2. There's no evidence that the flag was an indication that anybody wanted to tear anything down.

Other than that, great comment.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Blackman's whattaboutism assumes Alito himself is sending a message via these flags. And based on the flags and timing, the message is not a good one!

2. There are now 2 flags. And no, we can't be sure. But it's getting pretty coincidental!

[Stephen Lathrop]

We can be absolutely, no doubt at all, certain that the flags destroyed Alito’s capacity to appear impartial with regard to decisions involving Trump’s indictments. No matter what happens henceforward, history will not read that any other way.

The only question left unanswered is whether Alito will dishonor his oath by failure to recuse.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Since there's absolutely no reason for him to recuse, I doubt he will. Do you think justices who express a contrary opinion should recuse?

[shawn_dude]

When the "contrary opinion" is that the peaceful transfer of power to the rightfully elected head-of-state should be prevented so my preferred candidate can dismantle the DOJ, FBI, and other branches of the justice system? Yes.

When I signal that contrary opinion by flying a flag associated with white Christian Nationalism? Yes again.

When I try to pawn all that off on my wife? Hard yes and shame on you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The reason is that he has an ethical obligation to recuse when his appearance of impartiality is compromised. Two partisan flags are overkill; just one would have done it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Even if that were true, it doesn't assume what message he is sending, as you do.

[shawn_dude]

Stop gaslighting.

We know what these symbols are used for in 2024 just as Justice Alito would given his position and proximity to the events on Jan 6th. Just as Justice Thomas and his wife know them, too.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't get to rewrite the OP.

But even if you did, it is enough of a coincidence I think reasonable minds could differ.

[bacchys]

Blackman wouldn't take it seriously if Alito was caught red-handed peddling child porn.

[Bored Lawyer]

NOthing like outrage about a hypothetical!

[bernard11]

B.L.,

You want to criticize Bacchys for putting out a (pretty solid) hypothetical. But you avoid any discussion of Blackman's really moronic whataboutery, suddenly abandoning your role as VC logic critic.

It ought to be obvious that Blackman is pure 100% partisan, to the extent his brain, such as it is, is controlled by Trump-worship.

Yeah. It's hypothetical. So what? We all, including you, I'll bet, know that about Josh. He doesn't give a FF about the issue, and just wants to make sure he keeps his record for toadyism intact.

He really is slime.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Blackman is a pure partisan for the wrong side of history, the weaker side at the marketplace of ideas, and the losing (bigoted, superstitious, ignorant) side of the glorious American culture war. That is how you wind up at one of America’s shittiest law schools and the biggest clown at a white, male, right-wing misfit blog for un-American wingnuts.

Unless UCLA, finding itself down one bigoted Federalist Society jackass and Volokh Conspiracy polemicist, turns its hiring committee’s gaze toward Houston and . . .

[Randal]

NOthing like outrage about a hypothetical!

You're using this attack wrong. There's no outrage, just a funny hypothetical. Hypotheticals aren't fallacies in and of themselves, you know.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hey don't be so anti-gay and anti-semetic

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Don't forget Kagan gay officiating that gay wedding in those gay wedding cases were before the gay court.

[Roger S]

Nobody is outraged over the Alitos' flags. The Left hates Thomas and Alito for other reasons.

[Scooter]

The Left has never gotten over being told they don't get to own other human beings.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s not the left. Usually people who try this nonsense are smart enough to at least say Democrats.

Check who waives the Stars and Bars these days, and on which side of the aisle they sit.

[Scooter]

The folks losing their collective shit over Thomas and Alito aren't on the Right.

[Sarcastr0]

The Left has never gotten over being told they don’t get to own other human beings.

This is what you wrote.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0, not many folks these days wave the Stars and Bars. Many more wave the confederate battle flag, featuring diagonal strips of stars. If you are not sure you know the difference, Google, "Stars and Bars." It may not be what you expect.

This is trivia, of course. But you don't want to run afoul of right-wing pedantry if you can avoid it.

[Nige]

Do you think the right OWNS Thomas?

[Scooter]

I'm not a Lefty, so I don't hold that one person gets to own another. I leave that to the Leftists.

[Nige]

Then what are you on about? You seem scared that the 'leftists' are going to steal him off you or something.

[Nige]

There's absolutely nothing unusual about commenters on Volokh hating Justices of the Supreme Court.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If Trump had been caught on tape boasting about throwing Jews into ghettos and making them wear a yellow star, and got elected anyway, with no loss of support from his followers, Josh would have a different take.

[Roger S]

Trump was President for 4 years, and was a very pro-Jewish President. Admittedly, Biden has gotten more Jewish donations, and appointed more Jews to top positions.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Way to miss the point.

Or maybe you've hit on it, being that Josh's being Jewish makes him lay off Trump, and he would have a different reaction if an avowed antisemite became President.

(Ginsburg was Jewish too.)

[Nige]

I don't think a pro-Jewish politician would tell Jewish people they're not real Jews if they disagree with him politically. That might be the opposite of pro-Jewish. He's pro-Christian Zionist.

[Currentsitguy]

Do you mean like Biden's "You ain't Black" comment?

[Nige]

Right wing commenters sure thought so at the time. Of course, Biden recognises he made a blunder and didn't do it again. Trump on the other hand seems to actually mean it.

[Currentsitguy]

I keep hearing accusations of both racism and anti-semitism against Trump bandied about, but I have yet to see a real example.

[Nige]

Fish can't see water.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is Trump racist? Let us consider some of the evidence.

(Things might look different among the hayseeds in left-behind backwaters.)

Carry on, half-educated, bigoted, worthless clingers.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Then you’re an idiot or a liar (and I don’t discount the possibility of both being true):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/18/politics/trump-antisemitic-jewish-people-israel-support-netanyahu/index.html

[Scooter]

It's really amusing watching the same people who had no qualms over calls to exterminate the citizens of Israel getting the vapors over a piece of cloth.

Comedy
Effing
Gold.

[Sarcastr0]

Having qualms and saying shitty speech is still protected is what people who are good at being Americans do.

You seem to take a different approach. Speech is worth protecting, unless you have…qualms.

Hey any qualms about Nazis on Twitter?

[Scooter]

Like the guy leaving the Mohel, you're missing the point.

As usual.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

I absolutely agree that idiot college students who chant about globalizing the Intifadah and who are currently serving on the Supreme Court should resign from the Supreme Court. I'm surprised anyone would disagree with this.

[Nige]

The right didn't lose it's mind over a Justice of the Supreme Court drinking a beer. No, it was someone else.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I have a very, very difficult time taking the outrage over the Alitos' flags seriously."

Similarly, the people who suffer through your ego-driven blog posts feel the same way.

"This story will keep going, nowhere."

And yet you will continue to bloviate about it in hopes of getting publicity while simultaneously saying nothing of substance, and pulling hypotheses out of your ass without a shred of evidence to support any of them, just like always.

[Bored Lawyer]

The authors of each post are listed prominently. You can always skip his posts.

[Randal]

If only there was a Mute Conspirator button!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's that dial in the middle button on your mouse.

[Bored Lawyer]

To those spouting the "If Trump/Alito did something outrageous you would defend it," let me ask you this.

What would Biden have to do to convince you he is senile?
1. Claimed to have spoken recently to Francois Mitterand, president of France, who has in fact been dead for 28 years?
2. Read a speech off a teleprompter, and included in his speech, read the instructions?
3. Get a blank look on his face for minutes at a time?
4. Refer to his Vice President at President?

I mean they are hypothetical, but . . .
WHOOPS! They are all real!

[Roger S]

Yes, Biden is senile, but has bigger outrages.

1. Invasion by illegal aliens and migrants.
2. Foreign policy fiascos in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Gaza.
3. Inflation.
4. Wrecking democracy by prosecuting political enemies.

[Randal]

Biden's been doing those things his whole life.

Trump, on the other hand, when you watch video of him from just a few years ago versus today... he's deteriorating fast.

[bernard11]

What would Trump have to do to convince you he's not only senile, but a bigot, crook, ignoramus, and incompetent fool to boot?

[Bored Lawyer]

You are directing that comment to the wrong person. I have a low opinion of Trump, and agree he is all those things. (Except senile, although he is beginning to show signs of that.)

[loki13]

To honestly reply to your question (although you should ask yourself, why are you asking this on this particular thread about Alito and JB's continual water carrying?) -
I don't think Biden is senile, but I think that he is over 80, and has the usual issues of people over 80. He's not "senile," but jeez ... other than a few genetic outliers, you don't want octogenarians doing anything important!
And I say the same for Trump.

And I would say that I don't want either of them for President, but given the choice, will vote for Biden because I like boring, and I am truly scared of both what Trump might do, and what those around him could do, this time around. Because they have told us.

Now, your turn. Do you think, partisanship aside, that what is going on with the judiciary in general, and SCOTUS specifically, is a good thing? I wouldn't even say it's an erosion of norms at this point; it's the overt showing that judges no longer have to worry about such things as the appearance of impropriety, or actual impropriety. It used to be that judges were held, and held themselves, to incredibly high standards. Now?

"My wife did it." "I'm just good friends with billionaires." "Screw what looks right, let's just keep funneling all these cases to the exact same judge." And so on.

If judges want to overtly act as policymakers and ignore their high standards, then they shouldn't be judges.

[Mark Regan]

"These people are loathe to co-exist with anything they disagree with, so will take umbrage at the slightest sleights."

"Slightest slights," not "slightest sleights." Maybe the repeated-word part of your grammar checker betrayed you.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"These people are loathe to co-exist with anything they disagree with,"

It's loath, not loathe. Loathe is a verb. Loath is the predicate adjective you're looking for.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's just scholarship, South Texas- and Volokh Conspiracy-style.

[tuphat]

Ah, the venerable legal defense principle of "she started it."

[Jonathansingletary]

So, what’s the ultimate point here? If it’s that it’s ok for Alito to do it because Ginsburg did it, that seems like a shaky standard for ethical behavior. If it’s that Ginsburg was wrong to do it, and he’s drawn a comparison to Alito, then he’s saying Alito is wrong to do it, making his claim that he can’t take it seriously disingenuous.

Maybe argue your case on its merits. There’s no need to drag a dead justice into it.

[Bored Lawyer]

Do you know what the term "double standards" means?

[Jonathansingletary]

There’s no need to be nasty about it. I understand what a double standard is; I just don’t understand the “so what” of the post. Is it to rail against double standards? If so, then mission accomplished. But now what? If fairness or equal treatment is the value violated, what is Blackman’s remedy? That was the part I didn’t get.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Josh is just trying to stay ahead of the wave.

The initial take on this was that the Alito family's flying of the USD flag had nothing whatsoever to do with expressing a political opinion--oh, no, not that!--but was simply the result of the little woman's silly spat with an annoying neighbor. Ha ha ha.

Once further evidence appeared that the Alito family "had priors", the "non-political" claim had to go, so now we get Josh's take on this as simply the justices "convey[ing] messages through their words and deeds", as everyone from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Ruth Bader Ginsburg had also done on a weekly basis when she was still Ruth Bader Ginsburg and not the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

(Did I mention her enough? Maybe someone missed what this post was really about...Ruth Bader Ginsburg!)

[Jonathansingletary]

The whole crux of the argument being: “see, your beloved justice did the same thing, so there. How does -that- feel?” Seems pretty on brand.

It really does sound like the argument a kid makes (“She did it too and she didn’t get in trouble!”) or that a bad spouse makes during an argument (“You did something similar nearly ten years ago and apparently it was ok!”)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed.

But, for the record, she wasn’t my beloved “octogenarian idiot who wouldn’t resign when it was utterly stupid not to”. Her proper role was not to express her views on current affairs, it was simply to interpret the law to the best of her ability.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Did you see what she was wearing?"

And other fascinating issues from the legal world.

[bernard11]

I have a very, very difficult time taking the outrage over the Alitos' flags seriously.

Was it really necessary to announce this? We all knew it.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

You personally called for the Justice to resign because her public politics with respect to Trump were unbecoming of a Judge. https://joshblackman.com/blog/2016/07/10/inglorious-rbg/

I agree with Josh Blackman that Justices who engage in this kind of public politics should resign. RBG should absolutely resign over this.

My first question to you, Josh Blackman, is why you do not agree with Josh Blackman, that Justices who engage in this kind of public politics should resign.

You wrote "The other justices should hold an intervention, and tell her to be quiet or step down. This isn’t funny anymore. She is making overtly political statements about the presidential election that are absolutely unbecoming of a Justice of the Supreme Court". Today you wrote "The Justices routinely convey messages through their words and deeds." and then asked who would decide if such words or deeds crossed the line. How about Josh Blackman in 2016?

My second question to you, Josh Blackman, is why you are calling attention to a circumstance under which you, Josh Blackman, believe a Justice should resign if you do not agree with Josh Blackman that Justices should resign over this.

Is there a second conservative legal commentator named Josh Blackman who I’m confusing you for? Have your views on this evolved? Do you regret the 2016 post? Do you plan to take it down and note how your views have changed? This is not like a particularly sophisticated thing that you’re doing here.

[hobie]

Mike drop. Well, you just won the blog today. Excellent research

[Bored Lawyer]

False equivalency. St. Ruth gave a press interview in which she trashed Trump. She unambiguously endorsed one candidate, and said the other would be a disaster for the country.

Alito, or perhaps his wife, flew a flag, whose meaning is ambiguous at best, and has a long history going back to the American Revolution. If all he meant with the flag is the equivalent of "God Save the United States and this Honorable Court," then there is nothing to it.

As I said before, the burden is on Alito's detractors to show he meant something political. Thus far, it's weak sauce. If, hypothetically, Alito had put a "Stop the Steal" sign on his front lawn, then you'd be closer to what St. Ruth did.

[Jonathansingletary]

If it’s a false equivalency, then Josh Blackman’s argument is moot. He made the equivalency in the first place, not the commenter you’re responding to. They just pointed to the gaping logic hole in the argument.

[Bored Lawyer]

You do know that there were two different events we are talking about, right? One was St. Ruth's interview, which was blatantly political. The one he is talking about here was here wearing here "dissent collar."
This column is comparing the collar to the flag.
His prior column was discussing her interview.

[Jonathansingletary]

Fair enough! I think I conflated it with his post yesterday, which I think referenced her remarks about Trump.

[DaveM]

"This story will keep going, nowhere."

Best placement of a comma I've seen in a long time!

[Swede425]

It always boils down to "No, it's different when WE do it because reasons".

[Nige]

Its mostly different beause there was no coyness about what's going on with Ginsburg, instead of the sheer unmitigated shiftiness going on with and over Alito, and also if he believes Trump won the election that should be in the public domain.

[Nige]

Also, the major difference is Ginsberg was being subtle, Alito is being whatever the word is for doing something really obvious then denying you've done it or claiming it was a joke.

[Swede425]

Yes, yes. Thank you for illustrating my point.

[Nige]

You're welcome.

[Sarcastr0]

Josh, 'The election went badly' is not the same as 'overturning the election is a good idea.'

Someone should ask Alito if he thinks the 2020 election was stolen.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Someone should ask Alito if he thinks the 2020 election was stolen.

You doubt that Leonard Leo, Harlan Crowe, and Ginny Thomas have already discussed that with the Alitos?

Where did the Alitos get those un-American flags? Did he report them as gifts?

When will Senate Democrats convene the hearing on Supreme Court ethics?

[ReaderY]

Professor Blackman can be relied on for dubious attempts to whitewash political cronies just as much as he can be relied on for dubious attempts to find scandal in political opponents. Very reliable man.