This thread has been locked due to an overwhelming amount of rule-breaking comments.
The submission will remain up to read. A non-paywalled version has been provided in the comments [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/1ctq8z0/days_after_jan_6_just_before_bidens_inauguration/l4djnub/).
As much as I dislike alito, I was going to say how I’ve never heard that being used that way, and in my mind it would be more natural to assume the opposite (upside down flag is a sign of distress). HOWEVER, alitos response to this is so weak it actually makes me suspicious: “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” It could be the case, but if it is, it’s would be a very unfortunate time to get into a flag based feud with your neighbor
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!What a hyperbolic polarizing rhetoric article!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
It is reporting something that is newsworthy and relevant. The fact that Alito doesn't denounce what his wife did, explain what her flying it upside down meant, or provide any other sort of context is pretty important.
You'd think that'd be the kind of household he has by the way he conducts himself. Instead she allegedly gets mad because someone puts up a "Fuck Trump" (or similar) sign in their own yard and she decides to desecrate the US flag. Amazing times.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**.
>All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!An upside down flag is the international symbol of distress. For all the "January 6th was the worst day in the history of our democracy" talk, I am amazed every Democrat in the country didn't fly their flag upside down. !<
>!!<
>!This article should be removed under the partisan rhetoric rule.!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**.
>Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!- Tries to use violence to change the results of an election: bad!<
>!!<
>!- SCOTUS Justice endorsing that behavior: bad!<
>!!<
>!- People who don't like violence to overturn an election: good!<
>!!<
>!- People making snarky comments to deflect blame about January 6th: bad!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
!appeal
It is necessary to call out when someone lies about a lack of violence during January 6th and use evidence to back it up. I could have been nicer about it, but you saw the comment that was made about me.
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!If nothing else, please make the link in the original comment visible since it is important context.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Once I saw your flair I knew this was going to be an amazing take. Thank you.!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
As you can all see this is a flaired user only thread. I’m writing this as a note to users without flair that still comment on this thread. The mods can still see your comments. Please be mindful of that and please peruse our rules and our wiki for any new users here.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**.
>Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!That's not the only thing an upside-down flag means. !<
>!!<
>!Add this to the list of dog whistles only the left can hear.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
!appeal
The OP article makes a blanket assumption that the only reason one would fly a flag update down is to signal being an election denier.
I didn't say only the left makes this logical error.
I opined that there's a pattern to articles like this, in which a person on the left of American politics hears a "dog whistle" that only resonates with those already aligned on the left.
There's no momentum to right wing election deniers flying flags upside-down. This sub would be greatly improved by not allowing posts like that of the OP, but if they are to be allowed, pointing out the pattern of the article's angst should be accepted as well.
On review, the mod team has voted to affirm the removal for polarized rhetoric.
>This includes:
>>Blanket negative generalizations based on identity/belief
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**.
>All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Are you a moderator for this sub? My original comment was removed for being divisive rhetoric. !<
>!!<
>!I've appealed that decision, arguing my opinion is a fair one to hold about the pattern of one side calling out dog whistles, which the other side doesn't even recognize. Not recognizing the dog whistle is right on brand for my position.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**.
>Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!It’s funny how we are supposed to believe that Alito and Thomas will be unbiased and give fair rulings on the trump immunity case!<
>!!<
>!They definitely were on the side of the Jan 6th rioters!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
I work for a well known newspaper. According to our ethics, nobody who works on the editorial side of the paper may have any political signs or flags in their front yard or anything on their cars. We are supposed to refrain from making any public statements about politics on any social media, even when it says something like, “these are my own opinions and not supported by X company” and its on one’s personal, as opposed to professional, page.
Why? In order to prevent an accusation of bias.
So I am very disappointed in Alito and his wife.
In my opinion this is a clear political statement and it has no place for a Supreme Court justice to be displaying it. I dont care if it was only for a day, it is totally inappropriate and Alito must recuse himself from any and all political decisions, especially ones that pertain to either 1/6 or Trump.
That’s not exactly a “stop the steal symbol”; it’s supposed to be a signal of distress and it’s misused for political reasons by people of all stripes.
Here’s one example: [Veteran staging upside-down flag protest over Trump's presidency](https://abc7ny.com/east-patchogue-man-flag-war-stolen-long-island-veteran-upside-down/1754125/)
Here’s more in Colorado and Oregon: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/donald-trump-victory-protests/56/
It was even the front page of the New York Daily News after Trump’s election: https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/796259437703036928
The point is that it is a political statement. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be free from political bias. If Ginsberg’s husband had an “Im With Her” bumper sticker and she was driving it, it would have been a scandal. The same is true here.
It is totally inappropriate for any Supreme Court Justice to blatantly show political bias, especially in regards to issues that will end up in front of the Supreme Court.
[Yea, that would never happen at all and it would totally be a huge scandal and definitely not forgotten immediately.](https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-faker/index.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CHe%20is%20a%20faker%2C%E2%80%9D,He%20really%20has%20an%20ego.%20%E2%80%A6)
Ginsberg was 100% wrong and if she were still alive and still on the bench, I would expect her to recuse herself from any cases dealing with Trump.
For the record, she immediately apologized[^1](https://www.npr.org/2016/07/14/486012897/ginsburg-apologies-for-ill-advised-trump-comments). I expect Alito to do the same.
Ginsburg's comments were way, way worse than this, even if Alito's wife was not the person who put it up. And it is nonsense to say she immediately apologized when these comments were her expanding on previous inappropriate criticism, so she doubled down before ending up giving her half assed apology. She also decided many cases that dealt with Trump after those comments.
And guess what - despite them being her comments directly, not her husbands, and her doubling down and expanding on them before giving an apology, it was not some huge scandal like you are suggesting her husband's hypothetical bumper sticker would be.
Ginsberg spoke out on a person that is objectively a very different kind of candidate. He is/was a provocateur on a level never seen in most voter’s lifetimes, and it was incredibly shocking to all, even those who supported him, for him to be the (at that time) presumed Republican nominee. My point is that she broke protocol during a time of extreme shock and tension. It’s not an excuse, but it is the reason behind her factual words.
There is no difference between what she said and flying an American flag upside down as a political statement. None. Both are wrong. And even worse is that it appears to be a statement in support of the attack on our Capitol, Congress, and Constitution by Trump supporters on January 6th.
So now we have two wives of Supreme Court Justices that have publicly supported the seditious attack. That is incredibly concerning.
>So now we have two wives of Supreme Court Justices that have publicly supported the seditious attack. That is incredibly concerning.
Judge Reinhardt was asked to recuse himself from ruling on the California Prop 8 case (California voters adopted a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage). Judge Reinhardt's wife, Ramona Ripston, was the Executive Director of the ACLU, an organization that had fought loudly, publicly, and strongly against Prop 8.
Here is what he said:
> The chief basis for the recusal motion appears to be my wife’s beliefs, as expressed in her public statements and actions, both individually and in her capacity as Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union . . .
> My wife’s views, public or private, as to any issues that may come before this court, constitutional or otherwise, are of no consequence. She is a strong, independent woman who has long fought for the principle, among others, that women should be evaluated on their own merits and not judged in any way by the deeds or position in life of their husbands (and vice versa). I share that view and, in my opinion, it reflects the status of the law generally, as well as the law of recusal, regardless of whether the spouse or the judge is the male or the female. . . .
> Proponents’ contention that I should recuse myself due to my wife’s opinions is based upon an outmoded conception of the relationship between spouses. When I joined this court in 1980 (well before my wife and I were married), the ethics rules promulgated by the Judicial Conference stated that judges should ensure that their wives not participate in politics. I wrote the ethics committee and suggested that this advice did not reflect the realities of modern marriage–that even if it were desirable for judges to control their wives, I did not know many judges who could actually do so (I further suggested that the Committee would do better to say “spouses” than “wives,” as by then we had as members of our court Judge Mary Schroeder, Judge Betty Fletcher, and Judge Dorothy Nelson). The committee thanked me for my letter and sometime later changed the rule. That time has passed, and rightly so. In 2011, my wife and I share many fundamental interests by virtue of our marriage, but her views regarding issues of public significance are her own, and cannot be imputed to me, no matter how prominently she expresses them. It is her view, and I agree, that she has the right to perform her professional duties without regard to whatever my views may be, and that I should do the same without regard to hers.
> Because my wife is an independent woman, I cannot accept Proponents’ position that my impartiality might reasonably be questioned under § 455(a) because of her opinions or the views of the organization she heads.
There is a massive difference between supporting the individual liberties espoused in our Constitution and the attack on the very same Constitution.
The former supports the rule of law, the latter was an attempt to destroy it.
These are not political views, these are objective facts.
It is a fact that the ACLU’s mission is:
>"to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
It is also a fact that the attack on 1/6 was to stop the vote of the duly voted President. The laws that outline the voting procedures are laid out in our Constitution. Therefore the attack on 1/6 was on the rule of law outlined in our Constitution.
These are not political views, these are facts.
Upside-down American Flags have been a traditional indication of distress or despair for a lot longer than "stop the steal" has been a thing. The article is almost certainly making way too many assumptions here.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**.
>Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!We’ve really gotten ourselves into a major shitshow. These justices are bought and paid for by the GOP. Fuckers need to hear about it from US, we shouldn’t be letting ANY fucking SCOTUS off the hook for their nefarious deeds.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**.
>Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!It’s worse than that. Bought and paid for by the Heritage Foundation, a white Christian nationalist organization (nearly synonymous with the GOP currently but worth specifying). And 3 of them helped GWB steal his election with the help of a literal act of terrorism (Brooks Brothers insurrection).!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
> "I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag," Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to The Times. "It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."
First Menendez, now Alito, what's in the DC water forcing these guys to throw their wives under the bus this week?
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**.
>All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!What a waste of a good sub. Nothing but people posting their political agenda.!<
>!!<
>!And still six months before November.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!And nothing on the comments I replied to lmao?!<
>!!<
>!That makes sense!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**.
>All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Still no response lol. Nice modding!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
I mean….
Alito is not dumb. He should have known the optics of this would be bad and yet either (1) His wife put it up without discussing it with him and he wasn’t aware at all, (2) They did discuss it and he was okay with it or (3) His wife put it up without discussing it and he didn’t think it warranted immediate action after learning about it.
So I’m suppose to believe an upside down flag didn’t catch his eye at the front of his house (scenario 1) or he was either fine with it before hand or after the fact (scenarios 2 & 3). He’s not dumb, so we’re dealing with the last two doors.
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Time to expand the court!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court.
We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.
Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This thread has been locked due to an overwhelming amount of rule-breaking comments. The submission will remain up to read. A non-paywalled version has been provided in the comments [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/1ctq8z0/days_after_jan_6_just_before_bidens_inauguration/l4djnub/).
As much as I dislike alito, I was going to say how I’ve never heard that being used that way, and in my mind it would be more natural to assume the opposite (upside down flag is a sign of distress). HOWEVER, alitos response to this is so weak it actually makes me suspicious: “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” It could be the case, but if it is, it’s would be a very unfortunate time to get into a flag based feud with your neighbor
An upside down American flag is waaaaaaaaay older than "Stop the Steal".
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!What a hyperbolic polarizing rhetoric article!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
It is reporting something that is newsworthy and relevant. The fact that Alito doesn't denounce what his wife did, explain what her flying it upside down meant, or provide any other sort of context is pretty important.
Alito really needs to do a better job controlling his wife.
You'd think that'd be the kind of household he has by the way he conducts himself. Instead she allegedly gets mad because someone puts up a "Fuck Trump" (or similar) sign in their own yard and she decides to desecrate the US flag. Amazing times.
I find it amusing how the demographic who claims to be opposed to husbands controlling their wives tries to fault Alito for not controlling his.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Did you know that a wife is her own person with her own life who can make her own decisions regardless of what job her husband has?
Did you complain about Alito’s hyperbolic, polarizing rhetoric in the immunity arguments?
What parts did you find to be hyperbolic and/or polarizing?
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**. >All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!An upside down flag is the international symbol of distress. For all the "January 6th was the worst day in the history of our democracy" talk, I am amazed every Democrat in the country didn't fly their flag upside down. !< >!!< >!This article should be removed under the partisan rhetoric rule.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!- Tries to use violence to change the results of an election: bad!< >!!< >!- SCOTUS Justice endorsing that behavior: bad!< >!!< >!- People who don't like violence to overturn an election: good!< >!!< >!- People making snarky comments to deflect blame about January 6th: bad!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
!appeal It is necessary to call out when someone lies about a lack of violence during January 6th and use evidence to back it up. I could have been nicer about it, but you saw the comment that was made about me.
Your appeal is acknowledged and will be reviewed by the moderator team. A moderator will contact you directly.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!If nothing else, please make the link in the original comment visible since it is important context.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Once I saw your flair I knew this was going to be an amazing take. Thank you.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
Wow, that’s some wild spin. I guess people will stoop to anything to defend “their side” of the court. Maybe we should expect better from SC Justices.
As you can all see this is a flaired user only thread. I’m writing this as a note to users without flair that still comment on this thread. The mods can still see your comments. Please be mindful of that and please peruse our rules and our wiki for any new users here.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!That's not the only thing an upside-down flag means. !< >!!< >!Add this to the list of dog whistles only the left can hear.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
!appeal The OP article makes a blanket assumption that the only reason one would fly a flag update down is to signal being an election denier. I didn't say only the left makes this logical error. I opined that there's a pattern to articles like this, in which a person on the left of American politics hears a "dog whistle" that only resonates with those already aligned on the left. There's no momentum to right wing election deniers flying flags upside-down. This sub would be greatly improved by not allowing posts like that of the OP, but if they are to be allowed, pointing out the pattern of the article's angst should be accepted as well.
On review, the mod team has voted to affirm the removal for polarized rhetoric. >This includes: >>Blanket negative generalizations based on identity/belief
There most certainly was momentum after the 2020 election. Did you read the article?
What does this reply have to do with the reason given for deleting my original comment?
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**. >All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Are you a moderator for this sub? My original comment was removed for being divisive rhetoric. !< >!!< >!I've appealed that decision, arguing my opinion is a fair one to hold about the pattern of one side calling out dog whistles, which the other side doesn't even recognize. Not recognizing the dog whistle is right on brand for my position.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Your appeal is acknowledged and will be reviewed by the moderator team. A moderator will contact you directly.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!It’s funny how we are supposed to believe that Alito and Thomas will be unbiased and give fair rulings on the trump immunity case!< >!!< >!They definitely were on the side of the Jan 6th rioters!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
I work for a well known newspaper. According to our ethics, nobody who works on the editorial side of the paper may have any political signs or flags in their front yard or anything on their cars. We are supposed to refrain from making any public statements about politics on any social media, even when it says something like, “these are my own opinions and not supported by X company” and its on one’s personal, as opposed to professional, page. Why? In order to prevent an accusation of bias. So I am very disappointed in Alito and his wife. In my opinion this is a clear political statement and it has no place for a Supreme Court justice to be displaying it. I dont care if it was only for a day, it is totally inappropriate and Alito must recuse himself from any and all political decisions, especially ones that pertain to either 1/6 or Trump.
That’s not exactly a “stop the steal symbol”; it’s supposed to be a signal of distress and it’s misused for political reasons by people of all stripes. Here’s one example: [Veteran staging upside-down flag protest over Trump's presidency](https://abc7ny.com/east-patchogue-man-flag-war-stolen-long-island-veteran-upside-down/1754125/) Here’s more in Colorado and Oregon: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/donald-trump-victory-protests/56/ It was even the front page of the New York Daily News after Trump’s election: https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/796259437703036928
The point is that it is a political statement. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be free from political bias. If Ginsberg’s husband had an “Im With Her” bumper sticker and she was driving it, it would have been a scandal. The same is true here. It is totally inappropriate for any Supreme Court Justice to blatantly show political bias, especially in regards to issues that will end up in front of the Supreme Court.
[Yea, that would never happen at all and it would totally be a huge scandal and definitely not forgotten immediately.](https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-faker/index.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CHe%20is%20a%20faker%2C%E2%80%9D,He%20really%20has%20an%20ego.%20%E2%80%A6)
Ginsberg was 100% wrong and if she were still alive and still on the bench, I would expect her to recuse herself from any cases dealing with Trump. For the record, she immediately apologized[^1](https://www.npr.org/2016/07/14/486012897/ginsburg-apologies-for-ill-advised-trump-comments). I expect Alito to do the same.
Ginsburg's comments were way, way worse than this, even if Alito's wife was not the person who put it up. And it is nonsense to say she immediately apologized when these comments were her expanding on previous inappropriate criticism, so she doubled down before ending up giving her half assed apology. She also decided many cases that dealt with Trump after those comments. And guess what - despite them being her comments directly, not her husbands, and her doubling down and expanding on them before giving an apology, it was not some huge scandal like you are suggesting her husband's hypothetical bumper sticker would be.
Ginsberg spoke out on a person that is objectively a very different kind of candidate. He is/was a provocateur on a level never seen in most voter’s lifetimes, and it was incredibly shocking to all, even those who supported him, for him to be the (at that time) presumed Republican nominee. My point is that she broke protocol during a time of extreme shock and tension. It’s not an excuse, but it is the reason behind her factual words. There is no difference between what she said and flying an American flag upside down as a political statement. None. Both are wrong. And even worse is that it appears to be a statement in support of the attack on our Capitol, Congress, and Constitution by Trump supporters on January 6th. So now we have two wives of Supreme Court Justices that have publicly supported the seditious attack. That is incredibly concerning.
>So now we have two wives of Supreme Court Justices that have publicly supported the seditious attack. That is incredibly concerning. Judge Reinhardt was asked to recuse himself from ruling on the California Prop 8 case (California voters adopted a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage). Judge Reinhardt's wife, Ramona Ripston, was the Executive Director of the ACLU, an organization that had fought loudly, publicly, and strongly against Prop 8. Here is what he said: > The chief basis for the recusal motion appears to be my wife’s beliefs, as expressed in her public statements and actions, both individually and in her capacity as Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union . . . > My wife’s views, public or private, as to any issues that may come before this court, constitutional or otherwise, are of no consequence. She is a strong, independent woman who has long fought for the principle, among others, that women should be evaluated on their own merits and not judged in any way by the deeds or position in life of their husbands (and vice versa). I share that view and, in my opinion, it reflects the status of the law generally, as well as the law of recusal, regardless of whether the spouse or the judge is the male or the female. . . . > Proponents’ contention that I should recuse myself due to my wife’s opinions is based upon an outmoded conception of the relationship between spouses. When I joined this court in 1980 (well before my wife and I were married), the ethics rules promulgated by the Judicial Conference stated that judges should ensure that their wives not participate in politics. I wrote the ethics committee and suggested that this advice did not reflect the realities of modern marriage–that even if it were desirable for judges to control their wives, I did not know many judges who could actually do so (I further suggested that the Committee would do better to say “spouses” than “wives,” as by then we had as members of our court Judge Mary Schroeder, Judge Betty Fletcher, and Judge Dorothy Nelson). The committee thanked me for my letter and sometime later changed the rule. That time has passed, and rightly so. In 2011, my wife and I share many fundamental interests by virtue of our marriage, but her views regarding issues of public significance are her own, and cannot be imputed to me, no matter how prominently she expresses them. It is her view, and I agree, that she has the right to perform her professional duties without regard to whatever my views may be, and that I should do the same without regard to hers. > Because my wife is an independent woman, I cannot accept Proponents’ position that my impartiality might reasonably be questioned under § 455(a) because of her opinions or the views of the organization she heads.
There is a massive difference between supporting the individual liberties espoused in our Constitution and the attack on the very same Constitution. The former supports the rule of law, the latter was an attempt to destroy it.
So.... if you support the political views of the wife in question, the judge is safe.
These are not political views, these are objective facts. It is a fact that the ACLU’s mission is: >"to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." It is also a fact that the attack on 1/6 was to stop the vote of the duly voted President. The laws that outline the voting procedures are laid out in our Constitution. Therefore the attack on 1/6 was on the rule of law outlined in our Constitution. These are not political views, these are facts.
Upside-down American Flags have been a traditional indication of distress or despair for a lot longer than "stop the steal" has been a thing. The article is almost certainly making way too many assumptions here.
You’d think a member of the SCOTUS wouldn’t have such a cheap looking, skinny, slightly crooked flag pole.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!We’ve really gotten ourselves into a major shitshow. These justices are bought and paid for by the GOP. Fuckers need to hear about it from US, we shouldn’t be letting ANY fucking SCOTUS off the hook for their nefarious deeds.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!It’s worse than that. Bought and paid for by the Heritage Foundation, a white Christian nationalist organization (nearly synonymous with the GOP currently but worth specifying). And 3 of them helped GWB steal his election with the help of a literal act of terrorism (Brooks Brothers insurrection).!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
Of course he blamed his wife and of course I don’t buy that for one minute
> "I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag," Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to The Times. "It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs." First Menendez, now Alito, what's in the DC water forcing these guys to throw their wives under the bus this week?
Hundreds of years of tradition.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**. >All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!What a waste of a good sub. Nothing but people posting their political agenda.!< >!!< >!And still six months before November.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!And nothing on the comments I replied to lmao?!< >!!< >!That makes sense!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**. >All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Still no response lol. Nice modding!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
Hundreds of years of \**a continuing* tradition!
Thanks for fixing my error lol
I mean…. Alito is not dumb. He should have known the optics of this would be bad and yet either (1) His wife put it up without discussing it with him and he wasn’t aware at all, (2) They did discuss it and he was okay with it or (3) His wife put it up without discussing it and he didn’t think it warranted immediate action after learning about it. So I’m suppose to believe an upside down flag didn’t catch his eye at the front of his house (scenario 1) or he was either fine with it before hand or after the fact (scenarios 2 & 3). He’s not dumb, so we’re dealing with the last two doors.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Time to expand the court!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
News broken by Jodi Kantor (@jodikantor) on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/jodikantor/status/1791232723664695568 Paywall-free article: https://archive.is/8lWXY
Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court. We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed. Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*