The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Old Gray Lady In Distress
To be clear, I am referring to the New York Times.
When Jodi Kantor of the New York Times published her story about the Alitos' flag flap from 2021, I wondered why it took more than three years for the story to surface. Turns out a reputable journalist, Bob Barnes of the Washington Post, investigated the issue at the time, and realized there was no story there. And Barnes was right.
Before I proceed, I pause to note my personal regret that I did not write to celebrate Barnes's remarkable career. He stepped down on December 31, 2023, after seventeen years at the Post. (Bob told me he did not have to write about the Chief Justice's New Year's Eve message.) I recently attended a conference with Barnes, and everyone in the room celebrated his careful and accurate reporting. Bob will be sorely missed.
Justin Jouvenal and Ann Marimow, who both now write about the Court for the Post, provide the play-by-play of what happened:
On Jan. 20, 2021 — the day of Biden's inauguration, which the Alitos did not attend — Barnes went to their home to follow up on the tip about the flag. He encountered the couple coming out of the house. Martha-Ann Alito was visibly upset by his presence, demanding that he "get off my property."
As he described the information he was seeking, she yelled, "It's an international signal of distress!"
Alito intervened and directed his wife into a car parked in their driveway, where they had been headed on their way out of the neighborhood. The justice denied the flag was hung upside down as a political protest, saying it stemmed from a neighborhood dispute and indicating that his wife had raised it.
Martha-Ann Alito then got out of the car and shouted in apparent reference to the neighbors: "Ask them what they did!" She said yard signs about the couple had been placed in the neighborhood. After getting back in the car, she exited again and then brought out from their residence a novelty flag, the type that would typically decorate a garden. She hoisted it up the flagpole. "There! Is that better?" she yelled.
Later that week, Samuel Alito issued a statement to The Post in response to written questions about whether it was his decision to fly the flag and whether it was flown to protest the election results, reflect concern about the state of the country or something else.
"I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag," he said, using wording almost identical to the statement provided to the Times last week. "It was placed by Mrs. Alito solely in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."
Knowing what I know about the Alitos, this exchange seems like exactly what would have happened.
Jouvenal and Marimow quote a WaPo spokesperson:
The Post decided not to report on the episode at the time because the flag-raising appeared to be the work of Martha-Ann Alito, rather than the justice, and connected to a dispute with her neighbors, a Post spokeswoman said. It was not clear then that the argument was rooted in politics, the spokeswoman said.
Why did the Post have enough sense sit on the story in 2021, but the Times ran it in 2024? I think the Times had a serious lapse in judgment. Indeed, there was wall-to-wall coverage about a non-story. Here Kantor was so, so eager to make a story happen that she stitched together random tweets and social media posts about the upside down flag, in order to disregard the most likely and natural meaning of Mrs. Alito's acts. To this day, I've not seen a single conservative who had any idea that the upside down flag had anything to do with "Stop the Steal." Even Ann Coulter had no clue!
I follow right wingers more than the average bear, and I had no idea the upside down flag meant, "Stop the Steal" — as opposed to what it's ALWAYS meant: a signal of distress.
You're making this up, @nytimes. pic.twitter.com/7EHMTRDXJt
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) May 17, 2024
There is no story here. There never was a story here. How much time have we all wasted on this non-story.
The byline on the story was significant. It did not include any of the Times's Supreme Court reporters. They didn't even contribute to the story. The article was bylined by Jodi Kantor. I view Jodi Kantor in the same light as I view Emily Bazelon. (For those who do not recall, the Times admitted fault when it assigned Bazleon to report on a story about Brett Kavanaugh throwing ice at someone in 1985, after she had critically tweeted about Kavanaugh.) Kantor and Bazelon are both gifted and knowledgable writers with agendas. That's not to say you shouldn't read their work, but you should read with the proper caveats. Indeed, I've talked to Bazelon, but I was far more guarded than if I talked to a news reporter.
The Old Gray Lady is in distress. And to be clear, I'm talking about the New York Times.
One other question I would love to know the answer to. Did any other outlets sit on the Dobbs leak before Politico ran with it?
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Blackman demonstrates once again that none is so blind as he who will not see.
The justice loves his wife in sickness, in health, and when she's being a **tch. I think that's admirable.
As an aside, has a SCOTUS justice ever gotten divorced, or even *been* divorced? We've had no-fault divorce for 50 years now, but I can't think of any...
Justice Thomas divorced his first wife in 1984. Justice Sotomayor divorced her husband in 1983. Source: Wikipedia articles about them.
As far as I can tell, that's all for current members of the Court. I would be very surprised if there were not many more historical examples.
Justice William O. Douglas divorced three wives.
Justice John Paul Stevens divorced his first wife.
and boy did WOD divorce three wives! Only reason he didn't divorce the last one is J-Hay gave him the Celestial Divorce first.
Douglas's first wife was Mildred Riddle, a teacher at North Yakima High School six years his senior, whom he married on August 16, 1923. They had two children, Mildred and William Jr. William Douglas Jr. became an actor, playing Gerald Zinser in PT 109.
Douglas divorced Riddle in July 1953. Douglas's former friend Thomas Gardiner Corcoran represented Riddle in the divorce, securing alimony with an "escalator clause" that financially motivated Douglas to publish more books.[8] Douglas was not informed about Riddle's 1969 death until several months had passed because his children had stopped talking to him.
While still married to Riddle, Douglas began openly pursuing Mercedes Hester Davidson in 1951. Other justices at the time kept mistresses as secretaries or kept them away from the Court building according to Douglas's messenger Harry Datcher, but Douglas "did what he did in the open. He didn't give a damn what people thought of him." Douglas married Davidson on December 14, 1954.
In 1961, Douglas pursued Joan "Joanie" Martin, an Allegheny College student writing her thesis on him. In the summer of 1963, he divorced Davidson; on August 5, 1963, at the age of 64, Douglas married 23-year-old Martin. Douglas and Martin divorced in 1966.
On July 15, 1966, Douglas married Cathleen Heffernan, then a 22-year-old student at Marylhurst College.
They met when he was vacationing at Mount St. Helens Lodge, a mountain wilderness lodge in Washington state at Spirit Lake, where she was working for the summer as a waitress. Though their age difference was a subject of national controversy at the time of their marriage, they remained together until his death in 1980.
Frank
Fascinating stuff (judging by the first and last paragraphs).
Perhaps you could turn this into a serial, and tell us in installments what happened to each of their ex-spouses, and even more grippingly, their pets.
Said one weed to the other, "I think you're getting lost in yourself."
He sowed his wild oats & by the fourth wife was old enough to be satisfied.
His second wife was largely his equal and that wasn't likely to last.
The third wife was a fling that led to a dubious marriage. It barely was a thing & soon he set in motion the divorce.
The second young wife was a keeper. I guess he avoided the possible "seven-year itch" by having his stroke. She's still alive & occasionally shows up at Supreme Court events.
I'm surprised divorce was so easy to obtain when he started.
The justice loves his wife in sickness, in health, and when she’s being a **tch. I think that’s admirable.
You mean shoveling off the blame is an admirable sign of how much he loves her?
What blame?
See what?
The Post's contemporaneous account from 2021 seems to confirm beyond all doubt A!ito's account of it being a neighborhood dispute.
I realize there are people that think Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh should refuse from anything Trump related, but as long as Sotomayor dries her tears before she mounts the bench she's impartial enough.
Truth is all.the justices have their biases, but I think they are all professional enough to apply the law as they see it.
A neighborhood dispute evokes a dog pissing on hedges, unsightly items piled alongside a public-facing wall, or, in some sections of America, more than three or four rusted pickups perched on concrete blocks in the yard.
This was political, and that eviscerates Barnes' "who knew it was political?" excuse.
No report of this matter is complete without recognition that the Alitos are bigoted, seething, superstition-addled culture war roadkill and that they despise modern American and all of this damned progress, inclusiveness, reason, science, legitimate education, and modernity.
Carry on, clingers . . . so far as your stale, ugly thinking could carry anyone or anything in modern, improving-against-your-wishes America . . . and only so far as better Americans permit.
At this point, all these clingers have left is hope for a miracle delivered by their paltry, illusory god.
And some of them seem to think they should broadcast those biases. Free speech!
Professional enough to ignore their biases? ROTFL, LOL, BWAHAHAHAHAH! That’s one of the most idiotic things I’ve seen posted here. Have you ever practiced law in front of a judge?
A neighborhood dispute that centered on partisan politics. We're really supposed to think she responded to anti-Trump signs with a non-partisan signal of distress? No, she obviously chose a symbol associated with "stop the steal" because trolling the neighbors with a pro-Trump message was the point.
And the Justices have their biases, but they generally try to remain impartial. Alito's issue is that he's seemingly happy to act as a member of the GOP.
There are people at the Post and the NYT who want Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett impeached and removed. Probably Roberts too. Failing that, they want new legislation expanding the Supreme Court as much as possible to insure that the new laws passed by Democrat majorities in the House and Senate that are signed by Biden are ruled constitutional: federal control over state election processes, admission of DC as a state, permission of government censorship, maybe even outlawing certain political parties.
There are idiots who want to use the Pine Tree Flag as the Maine State Flag and that's on the November ballot. See: https://www.bangordailynews.com/2024/05/15/politics/state-politics/maine-november-state-flag-referendum-joam40zk0w/
The proposed new-old Maine state flag that's on the ballot, is actually the flag from 1901 or thereabouts. The "Appeal to Heaven" pine tree flag is entirely different. The only similarity is that they both have a pine tree on them.
FWIW, back in the run-up to the Bicentennial, the Postal Service issued a series of stamps featuring Revolutionary War-era flags. The "Appeal to Heaven" flag was one of them. On a US stamp.
Back when people weren't all Idiots
What did the 20th Maine carry in 1861?
This is mild. The idiots in Minnesota succeeded in establishing the Somali flag as the state flag.
Something to burn....
The fact that Dr. Ed swallows whole (HT: Quint) the assertion than a US state has adopted the Somali flag as its state flag is why I keep coming here. For the comedy.
Tip your server, please.
Sorry, the server's down. Somebody tipped it...off the table. That's why none of your texts are getting through.
Distinguished journalism critic Josh Blackman takes down the tottering New York Times.
"There is no story here. There never was a story here. How much time have we all wasted on this non-story."
And I will continue to write about it on a daily basis until that situation changes!
Well if they stop writing about it so will Blackman.
But Blackman is hardly the only VC'er covering it, Adler is covering it on Twitter, and from the same angle ad Blackman:
https://x.com/jadler1969/status/1794387276379889741
Whooshy-woo...
Weird Adler didn't post it here, eh?
Twitter has a much larger audience for much shorter posts, he's hardly hiding.
He also posted a link on Twitter to this post of Josh's.
Ah, but he's obviously a close friend of the Alitos, so he knows the truth.
What a jackass Blackman is.
Seems to me that what might not have appeared to be an important story in 2021 took on much greater significance over the next three years when the true nature of those notorious, grifting, political animals — Alito and Thomas — became more widely known. The more information about the type of individuals sitting on what used to be one of our more respected institutions the better. By the way, professor, I've been a daily reader of the NYT since 1968 and of the WP for almost that long, and I don't need you to tell me whom to believe and trust.
I'm not going to pay to read it, but NYT circulation in 1968?
And today?
Higher today, if you include digital subscriptions. For print only, it has declined but that's a universal trend for newspapers.
I’m not going to pay to read it,
Given your reading skills that sounds like a wise decision. I don't pay to play golf, myself.
You're certainly welcome to your opinions about Justices Thomas and Alito. However, your opinions are not definitive and authoritative; they are just your opinions.
Mr. Blackman is not telling you who to believe and trust. He is expressing his opinion. Which he is also welcome to do. See how it works? You have a right to your opinion, and he has a right to his opinion.
He even has a right to express his opinion. Even if you disagree with it.
Mr. Blackman is not telling you who to believe and trust. He is expressing his opinion.
"Kantor and Bazelon are both gifted and knowledgable writers with agendas. That's not to say you shouldn't read their work, but you should read with the proper caveats."
He's absolutely telling who to believe and trust.
Some people live in a fairy world where truth and justice and merit prevail. I kind of envy them.
He's not wrong.
He's also telling you they are worth reading as long as you don't take everything they say as gospel.
Bastion of honest Ann Coulter.
Search for stories before this month about the Appeal to Heaven flag. This has been a thing for a while.
It’s also not really news what Alito believes.
Yes, a bunch of jackarses want to make it the Maine flag...
“I don’t make stuff up”
It’s not the same flag!
In an era when flying the American flag is a marker for being a Trump supporter its hardly surprising that flying other revolutionary war flags has taken on other meanings, intended or not.
I do not understand what you're trying to say here. It looks like you're acknowledging the Appeal to Heaven flag is indeed associated with Christian nationalism and Stop the Steal delusion, but that's okay because liberals made the American flag a Trump flag?
[Also the American flag is not generally associated with being a Trump supporter. Wearing a full body outfit is the kind of performative patriotism I'd expect, but not the flag itself.]
Perhaps. He is offering the caution that not all newspaper writers are news reporters; some write political or social commentary.
But, like Blackman, you and I are welcome to our opinions.
He doesn't mention newspapers at all - "has taken on other meanings" seems a general statement.
By taking other meanings I mean different people may mean different things when they fly those flags.
The Gadsden flag has become a contemporary symbol of right wing activists, but I don't think its original provenance has been erased:
"The flag has been described as the "most popular symbol of the American Revolution." Its design proclaims an assertive warning of vigilance and willingness to act in defense against coercion. This has led it to be associated with the ideas of individualism and liberty."
I haven't seen the Appeal to Heaven flag used at all in a contemporary right wing context.
I did see one or two upside down flags around Tucson (Arizona's most Democratic city) during the aftermath of the 2020 election, but I've seem it more ofthen in a left wing context in the decade before that. Sometimes at Seattle's annual May Day march.
The Gadsden flag has become a contemporary symbol of right wing activists, but I don’t think its original provenance has been erased
Actually, I think if someone is flying an American Revolution flag in TYOL 2024, they mean something at least somewhat different from it's late 18th century meaning.
Ummm, the Speaker of the House is not a contemporary right wing figure? With a substantial history of support for Theocratic Nationalism?
You might want to take a look at the flags in the hall beside his office door.
"but I don’t think its original provenance has been erased"
I also think Johnson is a good solid conservative who believes in "ideas of individualism and liberty.”
That checks all the boxes.
It's original provenance, at least as George Washington described in, was a literal call on the gods to intervene on his side, in a revolution against the government.
So I agree, that remains its contemporary meaning by the majority of people who have taken it up in recent years.
Including, most likely, Justice Alito. I do not think that is a good thing.
Not quite right S_0. The issue was a reporter rather than an OP writer.
He said,"I was far more guarded than if I talked to a news reporter."
He = Kaz, not Blackman.
my mistake
He's making an analogy. Many Trump supporters fly the American flag, and it's associated with Trump to the extent that people like Mara Gay find American flags disturbing.
But that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with flying the American flag.
Republicans used to dominate in their projection of patriotism and used the flag to symbolse that. It's difficult to reconcile 'patriotism' with Trumpist nationalism, though, and the flags have mutated it as symbols, and some of the specifics are weird and highly contextualised by some fairly bizarre beliefs.
Nutpicking in service of devaluing the American flag so you can analogize it with fringey right-wing hipster flag-wanks?
Don't do that.
Of course that should be "nitpicking" but you think your cool by using "nutpicking".
Instead of “your cool” I think you mean “thou art cool,” using the language from your preferred historical era.
“Nutpick” is a relatively uncommon word that refers to a small tool used for extracting nuts from their shells. When using “nutpick” in a sentence, it is important to make sure that the context is clear and that the word is being used correctly. Here are some examples of how to use “nutpick” in a sentence:
After cracking the walnut open, she used a nutpick to remove the meat from the shell.
Of course you can properly correct me for the use of "your" instead of the correct "you're".
He always keeps a nutpick in his kitchen drawer for when he needs to crack open a tough nut.
She used a nutpick to extract the almond from its shell before adding it to the recipe.”
“Nutpick”, in this context, means selecting an extreme and fringe person as representative of your opponent’s position (a playful portmanteau of “nut” and “nitpick”). Sarcastr0 badly abuses it to deflect valid criticism, but he didn’t make it up.
That's OK Mr. Bumble. The rest of us know its far more common contemporary American usage. No reason you would know it.
"Nutpicking in service of devaluing the American flag so you can analogize it with fringey right-wing hipster flag-wanks?
Don’t do that."
I'm not doing that, dumbass.
You're lying again.
What was your purpose in citing to Mara Gay? What set is 'people like' her?
To be clear: you don’t think that New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay has a viewpoint that represents a meaningful segment of the left-wing American public, but instead feel that she should be written off as a “nut”?
I'm sure there are plenty of silly people in the NYT editorial board yes indeed set;
I don't think that is meaningful support for TiP's thesis - i.e. that this group makes the American flag effectively associated with Trump in any functional way.
"I don’t think that is meaningful support for TiP’s thesis – i.e. that this group makes the American flag effectively associated with Trump in any functional way."
Lol. Is there any way to stuff more qualifier into that statement?
Stories like this one about San Francisco City Hall?
https://x.com/LoganDobson/status/1794159049254264926
Or maybe you were thinking of this Forbes backgrounder, illustrated with… the Minnesota capitol building?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2024/05/23/appeal-to-heaven-flag-meaing-history-pine-tree-flag-supreme-court-justice-samuel-alito-beach-house/
Yeah, maybe Alito was protesting for women's rights.
The Forbes article you link to:
"More recently, the flag was adopted as the symbol of the "An Appeal to Heaven" initiative of South Carolina preacher Dutch Sheets, which aims to ensure the government of the United States is based on Christian values and support elected officials "who will commit to live and govern based on biblical, constitutional and Federalist principles."
Today, the flag is tied closely to the "Stop the Steal" movement and is usually rooted in religious support of Donald Trump, the Times reported."
You don't need to come into this pretending to have just fallen off the turnup truck - there is a factual context here that was not manufactured just now.
No, I'm not going to bet the farm on what Alito meant and what he believes about the 2020 election generally, but I sure have some ideas.
I am confident that I am well above average in my awareness of fringe right wing movement, but I have never heard of Dutch Sheets before this week. So yes, I absolutely deny that there’s a real factual context there, or that the there’s anything sinister about Alito using (at, to be clear, the very same time it was flying at a government building in San Francisco).
I had a period of time when I followed Free Republic quite closely – had a blog even. So my personal context may be a bit rarified.
But personal knowledge or no does not change the underlying facts of what that flag’s associations are – it’s hipster 3%er nonsense. And I do not like a Justice playing footsie with it.
No practical upshot, I just think even less of Alito than I did previously. I thought he was a tool, now I think he's most likely a deluded tool (reasonable minds can differ on both for now, but the evidence is piling!)
The problem is that there’s absolutely no evidence no reason to think that Alito was attempting to evoke any of that with his flag, which makes the whole thing seem like a pretty pathetic effort to gin up dirt.
And given that Alito was one of a handful of people in a position to actually do something to facilitate Trump’s post-election plans and conspicuously didn’t, the suggestion that he secretly was sympathetic to them, but chose to only express it by flags coded so carefully that it escaped the attention of everyone (including the veteran Washington Post reporter sent to look into it) starts to shade pretty close to BlueAnon nuttery.
This is the age of microaggressions. The okay hand sign is now a White supremacist symbol. If a justice cheered for the KC Chiefs, someone would say that he should recuse himself for endorsing Butker's opinion that wives belong in the kitchen. The NY Times is just a bunch of partisan hacks, grasping at straws.
Butker did not opine in his commencement address that wives belong in the kitchen, nor anything similar to it.
Democrats have mismanaged their way to 3/9 seats on the Supreme Court and now they're doing everything they can to make up for the deficit. Digging up old non-stories and trying to breathe life into them to force a recusal. Hilarious.
Even if the flag story is taken as 100% true, it still wouldn't require recusal because it wasn't Alito who did it. And this is all after RBG conspicuously and notoriously protested the results of the 2016 election herself -- and from the bench. Lmao
I opposed RBG's unprofessional outbursts at the time, and I am very concerned that Alito is now so cavalier about judges sending political messages that he isn't even attempting to conceal it.
Shall we just wait and see which flag he flies during deliberations for Trump's next petition? Gadsden flag, anyone?
What evidence is Alito not trying to conceal?
The Times made an erroneous assertion of motive for flying the flag upside down, now its been convincingly refuted by the Post.
What's to see here?
Nothing was 'convincingly refuted by the Post' what are you talking about?
Post made a judgement call. At best that means reasonable minds can differ.
You are trying to keep it alive, but its dead.
It was never anything in the first place.
It was always dead to you. We all know our priors and how closely you hew to them. Bernard puts your take pretty well below.
This is just another element of what people tend to think Alito thinks already. In that respect it’s not a very hot story beyond Blackman’s lack of impulse control.
…unless a 2020 election fraud case comes before the Court.
It is curious who you obviously choose to believe even when the organization that did contemporaneous investigation found nothing. And now stands by its original work.
"unless a 2020 election fraud case comes before the Court" It's not likely to.
They didn't find nothing - read the OP. They decided to believe Alito, and therefore that the story 'was not clearly political.'
Believing Alito is a judgement call. I'm skeptical but not going to tell anyone they're wrong if they go the other way on that.
I do find the Post's judgement of what's newsworthy to be questionable. I myself would not ignore a straight up flag-related freak out with both Alitos, in their driveway, on the day of Biden’s inauguration.
Political? Hard to say. But certainly of note regarding one of our nine Justices.
And let's not forget that the news business is a business, not some holy order into which journalists are ordained. News businesses make decisions based on considerations other than what the "truth requires" (even if that happens to be their marketing spiel).
And if you don't like that take, how about this one: WaPo may have rationally decided (as NYT may have decided) to sit on the story until a more opportune moment to maximise its political value presented itself. Or are they not evil enough to pull that off?
You're ignoring the second (known; so far) example of the Alito household publicly displaying an un-American, disaffected flag.
And the intervening (known; so far) revelations concerning the Alitos' associations, ethical failures (concealment and worse), and antisocial, disaffected conduct.
Other than that, though, great report from the off-the-grid hermit shack!
WaPo corroborated the NYT story, which was that Alito had made the same nonsensical claim in January 2021 that he made in May 2024. The little woman was flying a "symbol of national distress" in response to a neighborhood spat (over Justice Alito's culpability for the national distress?), which he knew nothing about or decided was nothing for him to be concerned about, and which apparently involved protecting impressionable school children waiting at bus stops for weeks until schools went back into normal session.
Why are you fighting this? Just get on board with Josh Blackman 2024: political messages broadcast by Supreme Court justices are perfectly normal and nothing to get hung about.
There is no "convincing refutation." There is a statement from Alito.
Your comment is sort of like saying a defendant's not guilty plea is a "convincing refutation" of the charges.
Not really bernard. You're pretty badly dissing the WaPo writer's here. But strictly speaking, you're correct. There is no "convincing evidence either way, except to those who want to make a political claim against Alito
I’m unclear how the Democrats could have stopped Republicans from blocking Garland (the best shot, if still small, at getting that seat, an older moderate that Republicans repeatedly said was a great choice), having Kennedy resign, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg die a few months too soon (for their purposes).
The flags are not private ones in Martha-Ann Alito’s personal room or something. They are on Alito’s house. His public remarks have been misleading and troubling. Anyway, the flags are just one of several things cited by critics.
It is unclear that we should take their claims at face value (would people here take a liberal's excuse at face value?). Regardless, the flags themselves are problematic, including on appearance of impropriety grounds.
A "personal dispute" does not give a person a pass. Anyway, it is rather clear that we have not received the full story, and am getting information in dibs and drabs. For instance, why did the NYT release the story now?
I will grant Zombie Ginsburg should have not taken part in the non-existent cases arising from the 2016 election.
(flags were at their houses)
Anyway, let me add for the third time that one issue that seems like a good thing for Volokh "sometimes libertarian" Conspiracy to discuss is how Supreme Court employees are broadly denied the opportunity to promote political opinions, down to bumper stickers on their cars.
It's their blog, so if instead, this contributor wants to continue his trolling, their choice. I would take my opportunity to boo like the libertarians did last night for Trump though. Seems a lost opportunity to address a serious issue.
Time to put Mrs. Alito under oath.
Cope and seethe, Rev.
Open wider, Kleppe.
Your betters will be shoving even more progress down your disaffected, bigoted, worthless right-wing throat.
You get to whine about it as much as you like, just like Blackman, Volokh, and the other obsolete clingers.
You are going to make her cry again.
There should be a hearing & if they can find some neighbors to clarify things, all for the better.
The more that asshole cries, the better for America.
"A “personal dispute” does not give a person a pass."
They don't need a "pass." It's called the First Amendment. Everyone crying about the flags is dumb, dumb, dumb. You're just humiliating yourselves, and I promise you will not get the outcome you want.
There is no "First Amendment" exception here to ethics rules.
Justices do not have a 1A right to campaign for political candidates. That's just an example. Not saying this is exactly that.
Current SCOTUS rules also limit partisan activities of court employees. I personally think that is overbroad in part since they need not follow the same ethics guidelines as judges.
Are you trying to compare Alito's wife flying a lawn flag to Justice Alito campaigning for a presidential candidate?
"I’m unclear how the Democrats could have..."
The elderly and frail RBG could have resigned her seat when urged to, while Democrats controlled the White House and Senate. For some inexplicable reason she decided to stay on the bench, and then everyone on the left cried foul when the Republicans confirmed her successor.
That would be how Ginsburg could have prevented a sixth conservative justice, but how could Democrats have gotten her to do so? How would that have stopped Republicans from blocking Garland?
"Democrats have mismanaged"
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's decision-making is well-trodden ground. Obama himself reportedly hinted to her personally that it was time to go. But, Democrats could not force her to retire.
So, this is not very responsive.
"They are on Alito’s house." No, they are on Alitos' house.
Have you seen the deed?
Regardless, they were there in plain view of Alito, who could easily have had them taken down.
He didn't.
And you have never had an argument with your wife.
Mrs. Alito appears to have a mind of her own. Sam could no more order her to stop expressing her opinion, than Bill could order Hillary to put down that lamp.
How convenient for Mr. Alito!
Digging up old non-stories
Nice to able to just declare something a "non-story" if you don't want it told.
Too bad for you it's not your decision. I mean, I know you just picked the phrase up from Blackman, but it's not his either.
Circulation figures from 1968 vs today are deceptive because readership habits change over time.
Use the information the Market gives to know how relevant the NY Times is, or is not.
A couple years ago when Musk bought Twitter, the market capitalization of Twitter was about what Musk paid, circa $45 billion.
At the same time, the market capitalization of the NY Times was about $5 billion. (It’s about $8 billion, now)
Twitter market cap is still more than 5x the Times market cap.
That should tell you which media empire the market thinks is more important, more influential, and more valuable.
Twitter is now private. How on earth did you come up with that?
The Revolting Reverend could tell you why the readership of the NYT is down. Is there a version of the NYT in Spanish, Chinese, or Arabic? (I-ANAL so I ask questions I don’t already know the answers to) and even if there are, the “Replacements” probably would rather read the news on Tele-Segundo, Charlie Chan Express, or in the Terror-Anne Times
Frank
A couple years ago when Musk bought Twitter, the market capitalization of Twitter was about what Musk paid, circa $45 billion.
You don't know much about the stock market, do you?
Of course the damn price was about what Musk paid, because everyone knew what he was going to pay and that drove the price to that level. It tells us nothing about the value of Twitter except that a fool with a ton of money was willing to pay $44B for it. (Even he knew he was overpaying and tried to back out, but couldn't manage to find a way out of the contract.)
In Jan/Feb 2022, when Musk started buying significant chunks of stock, it was running in the mid-30's/share, and only started to run up when Musk's plans became apparent. In particular, the stock went from about $39 to $50 on April 4, when he announced his recent purchases. (FYI, his purchase offer, made officially on April 14, was at $54.20/share.)
From Salon July 3, 2017:
https://www.salon.com/2017/07/03/an-act-of-true-patriotism-fly-the-american-flag-upside-down-this-fourth-of-july/
The “Money Shot”
“Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign are under federal investigation for conspiring with a foreign power to undermine American democracy (and thus disenfranchise millions of Americans) by stealing the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. Whatever the investigation may reveal, this is an unprecedented event in American history.”
Yes, investigating a newly erected POTUS for made up charges of stealing an erection was certainly unprecedented.
Frank
You mistake the issue here. I don't think many are put out about an American flag being upside down.
Your hypo is a neat indictment of Alito - if someone on the left was a resistance/slacktivist leftist flew their flag upside down on July 04 2017, I might make some assumptions as to what they meant, eh?
So… what exactly are you unhappy about? Because I have to say that I’m having trouble following!
1) It’s bad behavior from a Justice, just as it was from Ginsberg.
2) His explanation is dodgy, especially with the second flag bubbling up as well. Though it is not utterly implausible. Still, just as Thomas's gifts, this bears watching.
3) If his explanation doesn't hold water, it makes me concerned Alito may be part of the delusional stop the steal crowd.
"It’s bad behavior from a Justice, just as it was from Ginsberg."
I didn't and don't find either as being "bad behavior."
Undesirable, maybe at most.
Undesirable behavior vs. bad behavior.
This is a distinction without a difference.
Maybe for you, I see a difference.
Name some examples of undesirable good behavior. Maybe I'll see what you're getting at.
ONS,
Why do you think that there is such. the world is not so cleanly divided. Most behavior is neutral with respect to conseqences
Last time I checked, "undesirable" was not a synonym for "neutral".
So… what do you think actually happened that he’s trying to conceal?
His level of involvement with the flag, and generally his allegiance with patriots.win stop the steal types.
How to make your life instantly easier, at peace, and meaningful: ignore insincere people.
Just ignore them. They don't deserve your attention, so don't give it to them.
That sets aside the much larger problem: sincere people who are wrong.
How does that phrase go? “You may not be interested in war, but war might be interested in you.”
Blackman, you seem to get worked up into a towering rage that lasts more than a week when certain justices get sullied but not others. Why is that?
Perhaps for the same reason you do?
When the liberal justices' malfeasances are reported here I'll jump in and...oh...wait...they haven't commit bribery or sedition yet
On the contrary, I for one strongly disapprove of the large gifts, vacations, private flights, and so on accepted by Kagan, especially..wait, I have to go check.
Look, Bwaaah, Thomas and Alito have, among other things, seriously violated ethics rules, and it wouldn't be a stretch to say they've accepted bribes.
"they’ve accepted bribes"
Please send your specific evidence to the D leadership in Congress and to AG Garland.
In a way, you're right - it wouldn't be a stretch for you to say they've accepted bribes. It fits in well with your other fantasies.
The only thing I find more irritating and frightening than false outrage are those who are genuinely upset over something so trivial. Talk about making mountains out of molehills.
It's the coin of the realm lately.
Like when that trans Justice of the Supreme Court drank a beer on tik-tok and conservatives went mental.
That was also stupid. I am nothing if not consistent . 🙂
True, and while this is also intrinsically stupid in many aspects, that was about a trans person drinking a beer, this is about confusion over whether a Justice of the Supreme Court accepts the legitimacy of the current President.
I misread that as "corn of the realm", but my nutpicking brain made me do a double-take.
The outrage topper seems to be Blackman on this issue. He's up to what, 4 posts on this?
Most of us on the left knew who Alito was well before this.
Now, a liberal justice saying she cries in frustration, and you'll find outrage out of the woodwork.
Outrage? Don't be so melodramatic. The woman cries in her room. That's her right. Full stop.
99.99% of Americans have no idea who Josh Blackman is.
Good.
It would be nice to see that number go up.
Be good for the country too.
Don, you not being outraged doesn't mean the thread on the Sotomayor story isn't full of outraged righties.
Seems you and your douche bro Nige have the most comments so far.
Not sure that's true, but we're not running around calling everyone frat-boy names.
Nobody is outraged.
You seem to have a built in drama multiplier, everyone you disagree with is outraged or angry.
Expressing an opinion is a sign of outrage.
Telling someone to "keep fucking that chicken" probably is a sign of outrage or anger though, so I'm pretty sure its just projection.
Nobody is outraged.
Go read the thread, Kazinski. Outrage spews from the RW commenters
I didn’t see much outrage.
I did see JC call Lee Moore a psychopath, and Sarcastro call him a partisan asshole.
Is that what you are referring to?
That indicates some outrage. I didn’t see anything outrageous in Lee’s comments to provoke that.
I actually provided a link to the wikipedia entry of psychopathy.
I'd also like to inform you that you are not permitted to decide what is or isn't 'outrageous' or 'outrage.' That determination, and all emotional guidelines, are expressly and exclusively the domain of Lee Moore.
Very well, I'll defer to Lee then.
That's the most sensible thing you've ever said.
…
…
Seems like more than polite, measured disagreement to me.
I never said that there were no outraged righties. They're full of BS
It's called TDS these days. (They just don't know it.)
Outrage? Don’t be so melodramatic. The woman cries in her room. That’s her right. Full stop.
Come on Don.
Don't be disingenuous and don't defend vile conduct. Go read the thread and see all the crap thrown at her, plus the inaccurate descriptions of what happened and tell us there was no outrage.
Lots and lots of the RW commenters here not only were outraged, but deliberately misrepresented her behavior. It was very scummy, not that I expect much better from most of them.
Bernard,
What are you complaining about. You mystify me. I defended Sotomayor’s private conduct and you criticize me. Why do you think that I an being disingenuous? I said exactly what I think.
But you seem to prefer to pick a fight.
I did not defend any of the RW outrage. Where did you read that? Why do I have an obligation to do so? The OP was bullshit and most of the comments are bullshit piled higher and deeper. Does that satisfy you.
Next time skip the mind-raping
We are all talking about the Sotomayor thread in general.
You seem the only person to think we're talking about Don's personal take.
S_0,
What a BS observation with no content.
Bernard, who is usually quite calm about things, directly accused me of being disingenuous. I replied to him specifically.
He does not need you to respond, if he cares to.
You seem to be the only person who thinks I was speaking to you.
So bud out.
Are you referring to the false outrage of conservatives, including several Volokh Conspirators, who rail and rage and flail about alleged antisemitism they ascribe to liberals and those opposing Israel's war crimes, yet remain silent concerning the antisemitism of conservatives such as Harrison "Christ Killers" Butker, Elon Musk, Bill Ackman, Donald "Great Money Counters" Trump, etc.?
The New York Times will report Israel's demise.
"alleged antisemitism"
You spelled "overt" wrong.
A Harrison Butker fan checks in.
Carry on, bitter clingers.
I don't know what that is.
Are you attempting to solicit me for gay anal sex?
At least they've moved on from the OK sign.
At least I hope they've moved on from the OK sign.
It depends on the context, as it always did.
But a bunch of white supremacists saying 'lets all use this anodyne thing as a shibboleth to troll the normies' are still using an anodyne sign as a shibboleth to troll the normies.
A photo of a bunch of chinless white dudes all flashing the OK sign at the camera is still raising my antennae.
Trying to provide benefit of doubt to Mr. Barnes, I figure he might have agreed to soft-pedal the Alito histrionics story -- unaware a second incident would develop, perhaps with more to follow given the customary drip-by-drip nature of revelations concerning the Alitos -- in exchange for a more important story.
Did he have a scoop from the right in the wake of the first Alito flag episode?
An old gray lady is in distress.
She just can't abide all of this damned progress (desegregation; gays no longer treated like dirt; diminution of childish superstition; bigots on the defensive; prayer-less schools; interracial marriage) and modernity (reason, legitimate education, science, inclusiveness).
She is offended (and stunned) that "traditional values," "religious values," "family values," "conservative values" and other euphemisms are no longer accepted as persuasive arguments against bigotry, superstition, other bigotry, backwardness, and even more right-wing bigotry.
She flies ridiculous flags to signal her disaffectedness, rage, immaturity, and antisocial nature.
She exhibits un-American views concerning modern America despite suckling at the taxpayer teat for most or all of her deplorable, disaffected life.
To be clear, I refer to Mrs. Alito, the disaffected, pampered, bigoted culture war casualty.
"She exhibits un-American views concerning modern America despite suckling at the taxpayer teat for most or all of her deplorable, disaffected life."
But enough about Nancy Pelosi.
+1
Well, you can’t say Nancy Pelosi wasn’t the one earning her government money. Though I suppose you’re also saying Mrs. Alito could be responsible for Mr. Alito’s income (well, at the least the government fraction).
You are saying that, aren’t you?
I am eagerly awaiting the next JB scoop-
"Hey, don't you believe all the lamestream media coverage about so-called 'Nazi stuff.' I have uncovered that all of this is simply a reflection of an abiding love of ancient Indian religious symbols! Just because they happened to manifest during WW2 and might have acquired a different meaning, doesn't change that fact. Suck it, libs!"
They already have done this with Harlan Crow’s memorabilia museum
Memorabilia Museum And Republican Events Center.
I wonder how many Volokh Conspirators have visited . . . enjoyed . . . maybe even received an opportunity to touch one or two of the sacred items?
Swastikas
Indian use, goes clockwise and is squarely so.
NAZI use, goes counter-clockwise and is diagonally so.
So? You're claiming it's not Nazi memorabilia at all?
That's not true. I've seen swastikas of both directions and square or diagonal in Buddhist temples all over Asia. However it is true that the newer the use and the more likely it is to be seen by westerners the more likely it is to be opposite the appropriated Nazi Swastika.
And I haven't been to India to see even more in Hindu temples.
Fun fact: Swastika comes from the Sanskrit "Swasti".
And I certainly wouldn't claim its not used for Nazi memorabilia or to to show Nazi sympathies, but I will say 90% of its use worldwide is by people who have no idea about its association to Nazis.
Even in the US it was used on every Arizona highway sign for decades before WW2.
Ah, so you must be one of those overtime feeding appropriate nazi-sanitization links to Mr. Trumps information intake coordinator...
For another such contributor to Ms. Harp, search on the name Brenden Dilley and the phrase “German industrial strength and production had significantly increased after 1871, driven by the creation of a unified Reich.” (If you're a Truth Social member, you may recall seeing that phrase recently).
No. My wife is a devout Buddhist and I almost always see swastikas in one form or another when she and her family go to a temple to pray in her native country.
Don't be so monoculturelist.
We really are talking mostly about its continued influence in the United States to represent fascism from in pre-WW2 to it resurgence in contemporary White Nationalist Conservatism. Wikipedia is good enough for that
But, yeah, send your explanations to Natalie Harp, though I doubt there's any shortage of people helping Trump with that.
Nothing like hypothetical outrage.
Can you specify what "Nazi stuff" you are talking about?
The only one I am aware of was a really lame incident a couple of years ago about a sheriff in Washington (or maybe Oregon) that had Nazi symbols on some kind of a display in his office. Turned out, it was a tribute to his father who had fought the Nazis in WWII, and brought home some of these memorabilia.
So, yes, context matters. Equating the honoring of someone who fought and defeated Nazis with supporting Nazis is outrageous and disgusting.
Among others, the paintings and collections (plus the outdoor sculptures of course) of a certain billionaire benefactor of certain Supreme Court Justices seems to have received some attention. You might recognize the name but probably don't want to read anything about that topic, so not surprising you missed it.
But a search on "Harlan Crow and Hilter memorabilia might get a few hits for you to peruse at your leisure. That second phrase (or maybe your “Nazi stuff” instead), plus GOP and politicians or funders should give you a good start on more.
Glad to help. Any other questions?
Oh, and your "sheriff in Washington" rang a bell, as it was Assistant Police Chief Derik Kammerzell in Kent, Washington, a Seattle suburb less than an hour from from me.
Kommerzell's justification was that he had seen the symbol on the Amazon mini-series, Man in the High Castle (which is set after the Nazi alliance with Japan defeated the United States), when a "Good Nazi" in Denver (that is, one who disagreed with his superiors) wore that insignia.
I can't find anything relevant after a number of searches based on varieties of "Local sheriff's office nazi memorabilia was tribute to his father who had fought the Nazis in WWII, and brought home some of these memorabilia." Can you?
Why do you think your memory is of that, and not the real LE-and-Seattle-involved story?
On balance, I think we're probably better off knowing for sure that a particular Supreme Court justice is biased than merely suspecting it.
The current betting odds indicate Trump is likely to be elected, and the GOP is likely to take the Senate. Past experience suggests that narrow Senate majorities tend to go away in midterm elections. That suggests a two-year window for young Trump-appointed conservative Supreme Court justices. In that context, harassment of older conservative justices could be viewed as courageous journalism by the NYT.
Just to be clear, odds do not indicate what's "likely" to happen. Odds indicate what bettors think is likely to happen.
That's true, and only 51% think Trump will win.
interesting thing is only 83% think Biden will be the Dem nominee, and even with all of Trump's court cases, 94% think he will be the GOP nominee:
BETTING ODDS
RCP Average
51.3 36.0
https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president
So a reporter decided not to report the news, and this is a good thing?
THe upside down flag that Ann Coulter claims to not have seen is a right wing conspiracy theorist symbol
That Alito is at best oblivious is not in his favor
I will judge how I take the information presented me.
I am not losing sleep[and am not surprised] at Alito being an anti government extremist.
That is not news
Potential proof of it is reportable.
Now and 3 years ago
Alito has a lot of published opinions. You do not need to snoop around his yard to figure out what his opinions are.
You do for those he doesn't publish.
“snoop”?
If you accept Alito’s story at face value, Mrs. Alito wanted the neighbors to see it. No snooping required.
What would you point someone to as the strongest piece of evidence in support of this claim?
There is this:
Salon 2017: Flying the flag upside down is true patriotism.
Salon 2024: Flying the flag upside down is a huge red flag.
https://x.com/ProfDBernstein/status/1792710748600516806
So sometime between 2017 and 2024 the meaning changed 180 degrees. Whether that happened the day after the election day in 2020, or the day after someone saw the flag in Alito's yard is kind of hard pin down.
'the meaning changed'
Do you think they were both signalling the same meaning?
I guess that's the point, it does have lots of possible meanings, and you've got a mob of outrage peddlers trying to assert Alito (and not his wife) could only of meant one thing.
What is the other thing?
Even that is insufficient. That some "right wing conspiracy theorists" have adopted certain symbols does not mean anyone who uses them intends to convey that message.
Case in point: the OK hand gesture, which 99% of people think means OK, but which has been used as a tar brush to smear certain people.
The upside down flag has long been used to symbolize distress. It's even codified in the US Code:
That statute goes back to 1998, when Trump was still hawking real estate.
The Code goes on to say that the American flag should only ever be burnt with the union up.
Seems mighty strange for one of the people literally at the top of the legal/judicial pyramid in this country is flying a flag referencing “an appeal to heaven.” Perhaps he doesn’t view the rule of law as binding him?
"God save these United States and this Honorable Court."
Opening for US Supreme Court sessions since it was founded.
Kind of weird also that the body makes the laws has a chaplain open their sessions with prayer.
But you probably think Marsh v Chambers was wrongly decided too.
I’m not talking about rote incantations. The guy is literally where the buck stops in terms of rule of law in this country. And he’s flying a flag that suggests he doesn’t believe in it?
Somehow we've gone through about 240 years of a constitutional republic with the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Presidency populated by mostly by religious office holders, and suddenly you see a huge problem.
There is nothing incompatible about religious belief and the rule of law, in fact they often go hand and hand. Maybe we should go back to putting the 10 commandments in classrooms and courtrooms so you can see the connection.
I'm an atheist myself but there is nothing that worries me about god fearing people in charge of protecting our god given rights.
But Locke isn’t talking about religious belief. He’s talking about not believing in the rule of law.
When Alito talks about not believing in the rule of law then you will have a point, and all the headlines you could wish for.
But for the record, in about a year I think it will be time for both Alito and Thomas to resign and step down from the court.
Probably a good time for Sotomayor to dry her tears and retire too.
You didn’t address anything I said and went for argle bargle.
You didn't say anything coherent.
Really try to give me something to work with.
“When Alito talks about not believing in the rule of law then you will have a point, and all the headlines you could wish for”
What? He’s the one flying the flag. It quotes Locke directly. No need for a secret decoder ring— the message is plain. Does it strike you as odd for someone in his position to be endorsing John Locke?
What about the first thing that you said implies the second?
John Locke is talking about abandoning the rule of law in favor of rights bestowed by his particular flavor of Christian God. Does that strike you as an odd position for the most powerful jurist in a supposedly secular country?
Locke himself was a born tyrant, mistakenly remembered now as a leading-edge philosopher of the Enlightenment. He was nothing of the sort. More a last-gasp exemplar of the pre-Enlightenment, behind the times at least since Hobbes.
Locke’s philosophy made every question of state a subject of divine will. He urged a policy of permanent involuntary indentures for the British poor. He wrote the initial charter of the South Carolina colony, which fastened the cruelest slave practices of Barbadian sugar lords on the American Deep South.
I think the vogue for Locke will someday be studied as a problem of intellectual history, and understood as a manifestation of post-Civil War lost-cause advocacy. Whether or not that happens, the best historical exemplar of the Lockean notion of liberty will always remain the American plantation slave driver, with his private rights perfectly fulfilled, any material concerns abolished by the forced labors of his slaves, and a presumed endorsement of God for
all of it.
I'm more of an Algernon Sidney man myself than a Lockean.
But I've never heard Alito mention either.
What? Alito referred to Locke when he flew a flag which quoted Locke. Given that specificity, you don't even need to speculate about context. It was about going to war against unjust government.
Why is this a story here?
Are you asking Josh?
"Why did the Post have enough sense sit on the story in 2021, but the Times ran it in 2024?" Maybe the Times was on to the 2023 story about the New Jersey house with the pine tree flag, which puts the unreported 2021 story in a different light.
It's not much of a story but Mrs. Alito should try to not be provoked so easily. Achieves nothing but causing political distractions for her husband.
"Political distractions for her husband," is a pretty sly dig at a Supreme Court Justice. If that's how you meant it, congratulations.
First, we now know that Alito (and Thomas) are corrupt in a way we did not know three years ago. Second, we now know this was not a one time incident. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/22/us/justice-alito-flag-appeal-to-heaven.html?unlocked_article_code=1.vU0.rbCf.zHlunOse_KQE&smid=url-share (gift link)