Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On May 22 2024 09:36 Fleetfeet wrote: My thoughts are as follows:
First, I'm glad the officer did not fire until fired upon. I do not think a police officer's life should be valued more highly than any random civilian's, so without context like "He shot and killed 4 people 30s before footage started" I would not agree with the officer's choice, had they shot the person in the back. As it is, I do agree with their choice to return fire, given that the person had ample opportunity to surrender. I do wish their messaging and directive was clearer ("Drop the gun or you will be shot", not 'Let me see your hands' and 'You're gonna get tazed).
Second, I'm disappointed that no non-lethal methods were deployed.
Third, and contradictory to the first two, this does seem like an impossible situation. If they deploy nonlethal options and fail, miss, or succeed, the person they're attempting to pacify still has an AR15 and will have an opportunity to return fire for anything short of clean tazer contact. The fact that both sides have lethal weapons means there's no clean conclusion unless one side surrenders.
I feel like Kwark is right in suggesting police officers 'volunteer' themselves into these situations, but in this case it's extremely hard to make that judgement without more information. If the kid was just smoking pot and the police pursued and escalated to the point of exchanging gunfire, they obviously should have 'surrendered' and not pursued.
According to the video description he was recently release from juvenile hall and had his ankle bracelet cut off the day before. They got a call about possible gang members with guns. They chased a car he was in and it struck another vehicle by the time he was caught. Even if he was just smoking pot isn’t it safe to conclude that by the time he caught up with them he had already committed several crimes more serious the smoking pot?
Also just to be clear, you want the cops to shout “drop the gun or you will be shot” but you don’t think they should be allowed to shoot? So you want police to lie?
To the first paragraph - certainly you'd agree that none of those amount to a death sentence. Neither would 'firing on a police officer' but that's certainly justifiably close.
To the second - it certainly isn't lying. If he doesn't drop the gun he will be shot, as evidenced by him not dropping the gun amd being shot. The police officers also both drew on him earlier in the video, and I presume are trained to not draw unless prepared to fire. If he had not dropped the gun and just turned around, he assuredly would have been shot.
He was running away. I presume this is because he did not want to fight. If he did not want to fight, I presume he did not want to die. If he did not want to die, a message of "Get rid of the gun or you might die" allows police to de-escalate and prevent death if they comply.
Death threats are not deescalatory. It’s about as big an escalation as you can do. I’m not sure you’re really understanding the word if you’re unclear on that. Any time you raise the stakes you are escalating. Any time you lower the stakes you are deescalating. Threats of death are. Onsideted to raise the stakes.
On May 22 2024 09:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Easy answer is: If the perp has started to run, then don't chase them. Let them get away and follow at a safe distance. I'm sure they could have easily found that person with cams and other methods. Chasing someone with a weapon puts yourself in needless danger. After the Chicago incident, they forbid cops from chasing people on foot. For this exact reason. Could it endanger other lives? Possibly.
This is what I consider one of those progressive ideas that’s short-sighted. There’s a guy with an AR-15 on the run from the police in your neighborhood. Too dangerous for the police to deal with so might as well let him go. Hopefully the residents keep their door locked as he looks for someone to carjack for an escape vehicle or a house to hide in.
Even if they use cameras and track him down later, then what? They are right back where they started and have to subdue someone with an AR-15.
Also what message are you sending to the criminals? Better to run from the police cause they won’t chase after you. Even better, make sure you have a gun because then it will be really too dangerous for them to chase after you. Do you think this might backfire in some way?
I think his point was that with non immediate threats you can pick the time and place of your intervention. A classic example here is also a common one, someone fleeing in a car with their child in it. Sure, you can intentionally force them to crash. And sure, you can riddle the car with bullets. But you can also wait. It’s only a high speed pursuit because of the pursuers, tracking them with a helicopter or traffic cams or cell towers is going to be way safer.
My feeling is that police in the US are trained to expect and demand instant compliance and to escalate when that compliance is not immediately received. There are some situations that require a hail of gunfire to end them immediately, but many more that do not.
Even in your case of the person with the AR-15 they may be less dangerous with it at home than they were in a public place. Nearby people could be cleared, the house could be besieged etc. Most people don’t want to die and will surrender themselves facing no better options. The time constraints that force lethal force may be, to an extent, self imposed.
It’s a pretty big “if” when you speak of catching up with them later and besieging the house they are in. ZeroCool says they’ve basically made this the policy in Chicago. What percent of people fleeing police in an urban environment like Chicago where they often live in multi-family buildings do you think they catch up with later? Sure if you follow him and see which building and which apartment he runs into you can besiege it later but that requires pursuing him in the first place. It’s just magical thinking to think police can just catch up with someone disappearing into the night later on.
The other big “if” is assuming the dwelling they try to hide in is unoccupied because otherwise you now have a hostage situation and you involve innocent civilians that needn’t be involved. It’s not hard to find examples of this happening either. Here’s one from a month ago
Tl;dr guy shoots cop then runs away, breaking into several occupied homes to hide from the police. At one point the guy ambushes the police a 2nd time and they exchange gunfire with the homeowner literally between the two sides. Now I’m not saying these situations are the same, as he already shot a cop before fleeing. The point is it’s not unheard of for people with guns fleeing police to break into someone’s house to hideaway. I’m not sure why this is a safer option for the general public than handling the threat straight away although I will agree it is a safer option for the bad guys with guns.
On May 22 2024 09:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Easy answer is: If the perp has started to run, then don't chase them. Let them get away and follow at a safe distance. I'm sure they could have easily found that person with cams and other methods. Chasing someone with a weapon puts yourself in needless danger. After the Chicago incident, they forbid cops from chasing people on foot. For this exact reason. Could it endanger other lives? Possibly.
This is what I consider one of those progressive ideas that’s short-sighted. There’s a guy with an AR-15 on the run from the police in your neighborhood. Too dangerous for the police to deal with so might as well let him go. Hopefully the residents keep their door locked as he looks for someone to carjack for an escape vehicle or a house to hide in.
Even if they use cameras and track him down later, then what? They are right back where they started and have to subdue someone with an AR-15.
Also what message are you sending to the criminals? Better to run from the police cause they won’t chase after you. Even better, make sure you have a gun because then it will be really too dangerous for them to chase after you. Do you think this might backfire in some way?
I think his point was that with non immediate threats you can pick the time and place of your intervention. A classic example here is also a common one, someone fleeing in a car with their child in it. Sure, you can intentionally force them to crash. And sure, you can riddle the car with bullets. But you can also wait. It’s only a high speed pursuit because of the pursuers, tracking them with a helicopter or traffic cams or cell towers is going to be way safer.
My feeling is that police in the US are trained to expect and demand instant compliance and to escalate when that compliance is not immediately received. There are some situations that require a hail of gunfire to end them immediately, but many more that do not.
Even in your case of the person with the AR-15 they may be less dangerous with it at home than they were in a public place. Nearby people could be cleared, the house could be besieged etc. Most people don’t want to die and will surrender themselves facing no better options. The time constraints that force lethal force may be, to an extent, self imposed.
It’s a pretty big “if” when you speak of catching up with them later and besieging the house they are in. ZeroCool says they’ve basically made this the policy in Chicago. What percent of people fleeing police in an urban environment like Chicago where they often live in multi-family buildings do you think they catch up with later? Sure if you follow him and see which building and which apartment he runs into you can besiege it later but that requires pursuing him in the first place. It’s just magical thinking to think police can just catch up with someone disappearing into the night later on.
The other big “if” is assuming the dwelling they try to hide in is unoccupied because otherwise you now have a hostage situation and you involve innocent civilians that needn’t be involved. It’s not hard to find examples of this happening either. Here’s one from a month ago
Tl;dr guy shoots cop then runs away, breaking into several occupied homes to hide from the police. At one point the guy ambushes the police a 2nd time and they exchange gunfire with the homeowner literally between the two sides. Now I’m not saying these situations are the same, as he already shot a cop before fleeing. The point is it’s not unheard of for people with guns fleeing police to break into someone’s house to hideaway. I’m not sure why this is a safer option for the general public than handling the threat straight away although I will agree it is a safer option for the bad guys with guns.
I think you're missing the point.
You appear to be arguing that sometimes dealing with the threat is better and that it really depends on the specific scenario. That's a counterargument to "it is always better to delay" but that wasn't the argument made.
The argument made was that situations are nuanced and that situation specific judgment on the use of force is better than a blanket escalatory demand for absolute compliance at gunpoint.
Always using force is bad. Never using force is bad. Using force when appropriate is good.
On May 22 2024 09:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Easy answer is: If the perp has started to run, then don't chase them. Let them get away and follow at a safe distance. I'm sure they could have easily found that person with cams and other methods. Chasing someone with a weapon puts yourself in needless danger. After the Chicago incident, they forbid cops from chasing people on foot. For this exact reason. Could it endanger other lives? Possibly.
This is what I consider one of those progressive ideas that’s short-sighted. There’s a guy with an AR-15 on the run from the police in your neighborhood. Too dangerous for the police to deal with so might as well let him go. Hopefully the residents keep their door locked as he looks for someone to carjack for an escape vehicle or a house to hide in.
Even if they use cameras and track him down later, then what? They are right back where they started and have to subdue someone with an AR-15.
Also what message are you sending to the criminals? Better to run from the police cause they won’t chase after you. Even better, make sure you have a gun because then it will be really too dangerous for them to chase after you. Do you think this might backfire in some way?
I think his point was that with non immediate threats you can pick the time and place of your intervention. A classic example here is also a common one, someone fleeing in a car with their child in it. Sure, you can intentionally force them to crash. And sure, you can riddle the car with bullets. But you can also wait. It’s only a high speed pursuit because of the pursuers, tracking them with a helicopter or traffic cams or cell towers is going to be way safer.
My feeling is that police in the US are trained to expect and demand instant compliance and to escalate when that compliance is not immediately received. There are some situations that require a hail of gunfire to end them immediately, but many more that do not.
Even in your case of the person with the AR-15 they may be less dangerous with it at home than they were in a public place. Nearby people could be cleared, the house could be besieged etc. Most people don’t want to die and will surrender themselves facing no better options. The time constraints that force lethal force may be, to an extent, self imposed.
It’s a pretty big “if” when you speak of catching up with them later and besieging the house they are in. ZeroCool says they’ve basically made this the policy in Chicago. What percent of people fleeing police in an urban environment like Chicago where they often live in multi-family buildings do you think they catch up with later? Sure if you follow him and see which building and which apartment he runs into you can besiege it later but that requires pursuing him in the first place. It’s just magical thinking to think police can just catch up with someone disappearing into the night later on.
The other big “if” is assuming the dwelling they try to hide in is unoccupied because otherwise you now have a hostage situation and you involve innocent civilians that needn’t be involved. It’s not hard to find examples of this happening either. Here’s one from a month ago
Tl;dr guy shoots cop then runs away, breaking into several occupied homes to hide from the police. At one point the guy ambushes the police a 2nd time and they exchange gunfire with the homeowner literally between the two sides. Now I’m not saying these situations are the same, as he already shot a cop before fleeing. The point is it’s not unheard of for people with guns fleeing police to break into someone’s house to hideaway. I’m not sure why this is a safer option for the general public than handling the threat straight away although I will agree it is a safer option for the bad guys with guns.
I think you're missing the point.
You appear to be arguing that sometimes dealing with the threat is better and that it really depends on the specific scenario. That's a counterargument to "it is always better to delay" but that wasn't the argument made.
The argument made was that situations are nuanced and that situation specific judgment on the use of force is better than a blanket escalatory demand for absolute compliance at gunpoint.
Always using force is bad. Never using force is bad. Using force when appropriate is good.
Nobody is making any kind of “never” or “always” arguments. I’m not sure where that’s coming from. The consensus here seems to be that they should have not pursued AR-15 guy. I absolutely disagree for the reasons I stated.
On May 22 2024 11:50 KwarK wrote: Death threats are not deescalatory. It’s about as big an escalation as you can do. I’m not sure you’re really understanding the word if you’re unclear on that. Any time you raise the stakes you are escalating. Any time you lower the stakes you are deescalating. Threats of death are. Onsideted to raise the stakes.
The stakes are already at "I am pointing a gun at this person and prepared to fire" so the stakes are already pretty high. Is your assessment that verbally threatening to shoot someone with a gun is worse than physically threatening to do so?
The de-escalation, as worded, comes AFTER the person in question is no longer armed. The situation is pretty much as escalated as it can be at that point already, and can only be de-escalated if someone removes their guns from the situation. It wouldn't be verbally threatening or adding a threat, it'd be communicating a threat that is already present.
The newest lie from Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene is that Joe Biden tried to assassinate Donald Trump, when Mar-a-Lago was raided by the FBI to retrieve the confidential documents that Donald Trump had stolen, even though the FBI raid was purposely scheduled for a day and time when Donald Trump wouldn't even be there. This bothers me for three reasons:
1. Just about every time that Trump accuses Democrats of lying or trying to commit crimes, we discover that those are actually just projections of lies and crimes that Trump has committed... so this could end up being another projection of Trump wanting to kill Biden or other Democratic leaders;
2. If Trump supporters actually believe that Biden tried to kill Trump, then I wouldn't be surprised if some of them feel that reciprocation would be justified: trying to assassinate Biden or other Democratic leaders;
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I didn't say that the justices "expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it"; I said that they're considering the case, because they are. I have no idea why they're considering the case, but they are. And to dismiss Alito's January 6th insurrection sympathizing after hearing about both his flags, and Thomas's connection to it through his wife, is alarming.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
The fact that it's gotten to this point is what's asinine. I've also been taught that what a justice says outside of a ruling doesn't mean shit.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I think technically it’s Mrs Thomas who is full QAnon lunatic conspiracy theorist stolen election Clinton pizza. Justice Thomas just agrees with her.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I didn't say that the justices "expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it"; I said that they're considering the case, because they are. I have no idea why they're considering the case, but they are. And to dismiss Alito's January 6th insurrection sympathizing after hearing about both his flags, and Thomas's connection to it through his wife, is alarming.
Trump's lawyer abandoned his maximalist position during argument as well, I listened to it. They were considering the extent of presidential power and immunity, of which this was an obvious hypothetical. but it's one that everyone knows is wrong, so it's being used to tease out the logic of the arguments. It's not "being considered."
The Alito home flew flags that have been a part of American flag flying for literally centuries, so no, the NYT hit piece was really, really stupid. Nevermind that Alito's explanation was perfectly reasonable. This is akin to morons trying to say the "OK" sign was a sign of white supremacy. So no, I would advise people be less gullible think for a few seconds. The moment someone you don't like does something that is normal doesn't mean everyone else A) knows why that person is doing it, B) agrees with the new, fringe meaning. Tempest in a teapot so that partisan dems can say that they are just "asking questions" while none of them cared that RBG made explicit anti-trump comments and still sat in on Trump cases.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I think technically it’s Mrs Thomas who is full QAnon lunatic conspiracy theorist stolen election Clinton pizza. Justice Thomas just agrees with her.
Again, haven't seen a shred of evidence for this. People just make stuff up because they don't want to like Thomas already.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I didn't say that the justices "expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it"; I said that they're considering the case, because they are. I have no idea why they're considering the case, but they are. And to dismiss Alito's January 6th insurrection sympathizing after hearing about both his flags, and Thomas's connection to it through his wife, is alarming.
Trump's lawyer abandoned his maximalist position during argument as well, I listened to it. They were considering the extent of presidential power and immunity, of which this was an obvious hypothetical. but it's one that everyone knows is wrong, so it's being used to tease out the logic of the arguments. It's not "being considered."
The Alito home flew flags that have been a part of American flag flying for literally centuries, so no, the NYT hit piece was really, really stupid. Nevermind that Alito's explanation was perfectly reasonable. This is akin to morons trying to say the "OK" sign was a sign of white supremacy. So no, I would advise people be less gullible think for a few seconds. The moment someone you don't like does something that is normal doesn't mean everyone else A) knows why that person is doing it, B) agrees with the new, fringe meaning. Tempest in a teapot so that partisan dems can say that they are just "asking questions" while none of them cared that RBG made explicit anti-trump comments and still sat in on Trump cases.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I think technically it’s Mrs Thomas who is full QAnon lunatic conspiracy theorist stolen election Clinton pizza. Justice Thomas just agrees with her.
Again, haven't seen a shred of evidence for this. People just make stuff up because they don't want to like Thomas already.
"it's one that everyone knows is wrong" Obviously not, considering Trump currently thinks it's right, surely some of his supporters do too, and the lawyer even supported the position - only adding the caveat that preemptive impeachment would also need to be considered.
I get that these SCJs are simping for your side, but this is a serious threat to democracy. You shouldn't be so flippant. The lie that the Alitos flipped their flag due to a neighbor dispute is ridiculous. Their additional displaying of the Appeal to Heaven flag is dangerous, especially when we know that for years it hasn't been a reference to the Continental Army or New England, but rather Christian nationalism, Trump's big "stop the steal" lie, far-right extremism, and the January 6th insurrection. Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th cases where he's ruling over situations that are related to his wife is unethical and unprofessional. I know that SCJs all have their own personal biases and personal views on things, but these are at a completely different level.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I didn't say that the justices "expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it"; I said that they're considering the case, because they are. I have no idea why they're considering the case, but they are. And to dismiss Alito's January 6th insurrection sympathizing after hearing about both his flags, and Thomas's connection to it through his wife, is alarming.
Trump's lawyer abandoned his maximalist position during argument as well, I listened to it. They were considering the extent of presidential power and immunity, of which this was an obvious hypothetical. but it's one that everyone knows is wrong, so it's being used to tease out the logic of the arguments. It's not "being considered."
The Alito home flew flags that have been a part of American flag flying for literally centuries, so no, the NYT hit piece was really, really stupid. Nevermind that Alito's explanation was perfectly reasonable. This is akin to morons trying to say the "OK" sign was a sign of white supremacy. So no, I would advise people be less gullible think for a few seconds. The moment someone you don't like does something that is normal doesn't mean everyone else A) knows why that person is doing it, B) agrees with the new, fringe meaning. Tempest in a teapot so that partisan dems can say that they are just "asking questions" while none of them cared that RBG made explicit anti-trump comments and still sat in on Trump cases.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I think technically it’s Mrs Thomas who is full QAnon lunatic conspiracy theorist stolen election Clinton pizza. Justice Thomas just agrees with her.
Again, haven't seen a shred of evidence for this. People just make stuff up because they don't want to like Thomas already.
The ‘OK’ symbol thing wasn’t entirely without merit to be fair, although perhaps some outlets framed it incorrectly.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I didn't say that the justices "expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it"; I said that they're considering the case, because they are. I have no idea why they're considering the case, but they are. And to dismiss Alito's January 6th insurrection sympathizing after hearing about both his flags, and Thomas's connection to it through his wife, is alarming.
Trump's lawyer abandoned his maximalist position during argument as well, I listened to it. They were considering the extent of presidential power and immunity, of which this was an obvious hypothetical. but it's one that everyone knows is wrong, so it's being used to tease out the logic of the arguments. It's not "being considered."
The Alito home flew flags that have been a part of American flag flying for literally centuries, so no, the NYT hit piece was really, really stupid. Nevermind that Alito's explanation was perfectly reasonable. This is akin to morons trying to say the "OK" sign was a sign of white supremacy. So no, I would advise people be less gullible think for a few seconds. The moment someone you don't like does something that is normal doesn't mean everyone else A) knows why that person is doing it, B) agrees with the new, fringe meaning. Tempest in a teapot so that partisan dems can say that they are just "asking questions" while none of them cared that RBG made explicit anti-trump comments and still sat in on Trump cases.
On May 25 2024 08:52 KwarK wrote:
On May 25 2024 08:39 Introvert wrote:
On May 25 2024 07:02 Gahlo wrote:
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I think technically it’s Mrs Thomas who is full QAnon lunatic conspiracy theorist stolen election Clinton pizza. Justice Thomas just agrees with her.
Again, haven't seen a shred of evidence for this. People just make stuff up because they don't want to like Thomas already.
"it's one that everyone knows is wrong" Obviously not, considering Trump currently thinks it's right, surely some of his supporters do too, and the lawyer even supported the position - only adding the caveat that preemptive impeachment would also need to be considered.
I get that these SCJs are simping for your side, but this is a serious threat to democracy. You shouldn't be so flippant. The lie that the Alitos flipped their flag due to a neighbor dispute is ridiculous. Their additional displaying of the Appeal to Heaven flag is dangerous, especially when we know that for years it hasn't been a reference to the Continental Army or New England, but rather Christian nationalism, Trump's big "stop the steal" lie, far-right extremism, and the January 6th insurrection. Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th cases where he's ruling over situations that are related to his wife is unethical and unprofessional. I know that SCJs all have their own personal biases and personal views on things, but these are at a completely different level.
You call that a lie because you *want* it to be a lie, no has disputed that characterization and it is prima facie reasonable, considering how often flying a flag upside has been done.
I wish I had your confidence while reading only things I wanted to agree with, that's not what thr Appeal to heaven flag means, though maybe some people on the fringes used it, which is a common thing and not something you can use to inpune everyone else. That's my whole point. Apparently it was so common that we have to assume last year that San Francisco city hall is a fan of Christian nationalism and that the type of people who edit Wikipedia articles didn't notice it. Apparently no one else did.
Sorry for all the tweets but this really does display how dumb and easily check able all this is.
Re:Thomas, again I recall no such dismay when RGB was commenting on Trump before the election, multiple times, sns never recused. At best a few people had a muted "she shouldn't have done that" so I'm thinking this is all crocodile tears.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I didn't say that the justices "expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it"; I said that they're considering the case, because they are. I have no idea why they're considering the case, but they are. And to dismiss Alito's January 6th insurrection sympathizing after hearing about both his flags, and Thomas's connection to it through his wife, is alarming.
Trump's lawyer abandoned his maximalist position during argument as well, I listened to it. They were considering the extent of presidential power and immunity, of which this was an obvious hypothetical. but it's one that everyone knows is wrong, so it's being used to tease out the logic of the arguments. It's not "being considered."
The Alito home flew flags that have been a part of American flag flying for literally centuries, so no, the NYT hit piece was really, really stupid. Nevermind that Alito's explanation was perfectly reasonable. This is akin to morons trying to say the "OK" sign was a sign of white supremacy. So no, I would advise people be less gullible think for a few seconds. The moment someone you don't like does something that is normal doesn't mean everyone else A) knows why that person is doing it, B) agrees with the new, fringe meaning. Tempest in a teapot so that partisan dems can say that they are just "asking questions" while none of them cared that RBG made explicit anti-trump comments and still sat in on Trump cases.
On May 25 2024 08:52 KwarK wrote:
On May 25 2024 08:39 Introvert wrote:
On May 25 2024 07:02 Gahlo wrote:
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I think technically it’s Mrs Thomas who is full QAnon lunatic conspiracy theorist stolen election Clinton pizza. Justice Thomas just agrees with her.
Again, haven't seen a shred of evidence for this. People just make stuff up because they don't want to like Thomas already.
"it's one that everyone knows is wrong" Obviously not, considering Trump currently thinks it's right, surely some of his supporters do too, and the lawyer even supported the position - only adding the caveat that preemptive impeachment would also need to be considered.
I get that these SCJs are simping for your side, but this is a serious threat to democracy. You shouldn't be so flippant. The lie that the Alitos flipped their flag due to a neighbor dispute is ridiculous. Their additional displaying of the Appeal to Heaven flag is dangerous, especially when we know that for years it hasn't been a reference to the Continental Army or New England, but rather Christian nationalism, Trump's big "stop the steal" lie, far-right extremism, and the January 6th insurrection. Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th cases where he's ruling over situations that are related to his wife is unethical and unprofessional. I know that SCJs all have their own personal biases and personal views on things, but these are at a completely different level.
You call that a lie because you *want* it to be a lie, no has disputed that characterization and it is prima facie reasonable, considering how often flying a flag upside has been done.
I wish I had your confidence while reading only things I wanted to agree with, that's not what thr Appeal to heaven flag means, though maybe some people on the fringes used it, which is a common thing and not something you can use to inpune everyone else. That's my whole point. Apparently it was so common that we have to assume last year that San Francisco city hall is a fan of Christian nationalism and that the type of people who edit Wikipedia articles didn't notice it. Apparently no one else did.
Sorry for all the tweets but this really does display how dumb and easily check able all this is.
Re:Thomas, again I recall no such dismay when RGB was commenting on Trump before the election, multiple times, sns never recused. At best a few people had a muted "she shouldn't have done that" so I'm thinking this is all crocodile tears.
I don't think the San Francisco city hall is deciding federal law. I also honestly don't remember which Trump-related cases RBG assessed, and what biased things she said/did while assessing them. Could you please elaborate?
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I didn't say that the justices "expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it"; I said that they're considering the case, because they are. I have no idea why they're considering the case, but they are. And to dismiss Alito's January 6th insurrection sympathizing after hearing about both his flags, and Thomas's connection to it through his wife, is alarming.
Trump's lawyer abandoned his maximalist position during argument as well, I listened to it. They were considering the extent of presidential power and immunity, of which this was an obvious hypothetical. but it's one that everyone knows is wrong, so it's being used to tease out the logic of the arguments. It's not "being considered."
The Alito home flew flags that have been a part of American flag flying for literally centuries, so no, the NYT hit piece was really, really stupid. Nevermind that Alito's explanation was perfectly reasonable. This is akin to morons trying to say the "OK" sign was a sign of white supremacy. So no, I would advise people be less gullible think for a few seconds. The moment someone you don't like does something that is normal doesn't mean everyone else A) knows why that person is doing it, B) agrees with the new, fringe meaning. Tempest in a teapot so that partisan dems can say that they are just "asking questions" while none of them cared that RBG made explicit anti-trump comments and still sat in on Trump cases.
On May 25 2024 08:52 KwarK wrote:
On May 25 2024 08:39 Introvert wrote:
On May 25 2024 07:02 Gahlo wrote:
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I think technically it’s Mrs Thomas who is full QAnon lunatic conspiracy theorist stolen election Clinton pizza. Justice Thomas just agrees with her.
Again, haven't seen a shred of evidence for this. People just make stuff up because they don't want to like Thomas already.
"it's one that everyone knows is wrong" Obviously not, considering Trump currently thinks it's right, surely some of his supporters do too, and the lawyer even supported the position - only adding the caveat that preemptive impeachment would also need to be considered.
I get that these SCJs are simping for your side, but this is a serious threat to democracy. You shouldn't be so flippant. The lie that the Alitos flipped their flag due to a neighbor dispute is ridiculous. Their additional displaying of the Appeal to Heaven flag is dangerous, especially when we know that for years it hasn't been a reference to the Continental Army or New England, but rather Christian nationalism, Trump's big "stop the steal" lie, far-right extremism, and the January 6th insurrection. Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th cases where he's ruling over situations that are related to his wife is unethical and unprofessional. I know that SCJs all have their own personal biases and personal views on things, but these are at a completely different level.
You call that a lie because you *want* it to be a lie, no has disputed that characterization and it is prima facie reasonable, considering how often flying a flag upside has been done.
I wish I had your confidence while reading only things I wanted to agree with, that's not what thr Appeal to heaven flag means, though maybe some people on the fringes used it, which is a common thing and not something you can use to inpune everyone else. That's my whole point. Apparently it was so common that we have to assume last year that San Francisco city hall is a fan of Christian nationalism and that the type of people who edit Wikipedia articles didn't notice it. Apparently no one else did.
Sorry for all the tweets but this really does display how dumb and easily check able all this is.
Re:Thomas, again I recall no such dismay when RGB was commenting on Trump before the election, multiple times, sns never recused. At best a few people had a muted "she shouldn't have done that" so I'm thinking this is all crocodile tears.
I don't think the San Francisco city hall is deciding federal law. I also honestly don't remember which Trump-related cases RBG assessed, and what biased things she said/did while assessing them. Could you please elaborate?
You know that's not the point I'm making. What I'm saying is that this flag is not a well-known symbol of J6 sympathizers, some reporter at the NYT just decided that it was and now in the space of a few days it has all of a sudden become common on the left that this anodyne flag that appears all over the place is now a right-wing dog whistle. And since that little detail has come out more people noticed it flying more places that aren't exactly MAGA country, like the MN state capitol. Just another example that no matter how "respectable" and "trustworthy" a publication, they all deserve the same scrutiny and often scorn. At about the time I made the post this morning the WP said that they too looked into the upside down flag flying at the Alito's way back when it happened...
The wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a Washington Post reporter in January 2021 that an upside-down American flag recently flown on their flagpole was “an international signal of distress” and indicated that it had been raised in response to a neighborhood dispute.
Martha-Ann Alito made the comments when the reporter went to the couple’s Fairfax County, Va., home to follow up on a tip about the flag, which was no longer flying when he arrived.
The incident documented by reporter Robert Barnes, who covered the Supreme Court for The Post for 17 years and retired last year, offers fresh details about the raising of the flag and the first account of comments about it by the justice’s wife.
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.
The upside-down flag has long been a sign of distress for the military and protest by various political factions. In the fraught weeks before and after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, it had also been adopted by supporters of the “Stop the Steal” movement, which embraced Donald Trump’s false claims that Joe Biden stole the election from him. Some of the rioters who participated in the attack had carried upside-down American flags with them.
----
The Post subsequently reported on May 17 that residents said the flag was raised following a heated confrontation between Martha-Ann Alito and a neighbor over political yard signs, one of which carried a profane anti-Trump message and another that carried a message along the lines of “you are complicit.” One resident, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their privacy in a sensitive situation, said the flag flew for between two and five days.
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.”
But the fact you don't even remember it is part of the problem. Selective memory and selective outrage. All these senators calling for Alito to recuse himself are hacks and hypocrites.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I didn't say that the justices "expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it"; I said that they're considering the case, because they are. I have no idea why they're considering the case, but they are. And to dismiss Alito's January 6th insurrection sympathizing after hearing about both his flags, and Thomas's connection to it through his wife, is alarming.
Trump's lawyer abandoned his maximalist position during argument as well, I listened to it. They were considering the extent of presidential power and immunity, of which this was an obvious hypothetical. but it's one that everyone knows is wrong, so it's being used to tease out the logic of the arguments. It's not "being considered."
The Alito home flew flags that have been a part of American flag flying for literally centuries, so no, the NYT hit piece was really, really stupid. Nevermind that Alito's explanation was perfectly reasonable. This is akin to morons trying to say the "OK" sign was a sign of white supremacy. So no, I would advise people be less gullible think for a few seconds. The moment someone you don't like does something that is normal doesn't mean everyone else A) knows why that person is doing it, B) agrees with the new, fringe meaning. Tempest in a teapot so that partisan dems can say that they are just "asking questions" while none of them cared that RBG made explicit anti-trump comments and still sat in on Trump cases.
On May 25 2024 08:52 KwarK wrote:
On May 25 2024 08:39 Introvert wrote:
On May 25 2024 07:02 Gahlo wrote:
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I think technically it’s Mrs Thomas who is full QAnon lunatic conspiracy theorist stolen election Clinton pizza. Justice Thomas just agrees with her.
Again, haven't seen a shred of evidence for this. People just make stuff up because they don't want to like Thomas already.
"it's one that everyone knows is wrong" Obviously not, considering Trump currently thinks it's right, surely some of his supporters do too, and the lawyer even supported the position - only adding the caveat that preemptive impeachment would also need to be considered.
I get that these SCJs are simping for your side, but this is a serious threat to democracy. You shouldn't be so flippant. The lie that the Alitos flipped their flag due to a neighbor dispute is ridiculous. Their additional displaying of the Appeal to Heaven flag is dangerous, especially when we know that for years it hasn't been a reference to the Continental Army or New England, but rather Christian nationalism, Trump's big "stop the steal" lie, far-right extremism, and the January 6th insurrection. Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th cases where he's ruling over situations that are related to his wife is unethical and unprofessional. I know that SCJs all have their own personal biases and personal views on things, but these are at a completely different level.
You call that a lie because you *want* it to be a lie, no has disputed that characterization and it is prima facie reasonable, considering how often flying a flag upside has been done.
I wish I had your confidence while reading only things I wanted to agree with, that's not what thr Appeal to heaven flag means, though maybe some people on the fringes used it, which is a common thing and not something you can use to inpune everyone else. That's my whole point. Apparently it was so common that we have to assume last year that San Francisco city hall is a fan of Christian nationalism and that the type of people who edit Wikipedia articles didn't notice it. Apparently no one else did.
Sorry for all the tweets but this really does display how dumb and easily check able all this is.
Re:Thomas, again I recall no such dismay when RGB was commenting on Trump before the election, multiple times, sns never recused. At best a few people had a muted "she shouldn't have done that" so I'm thinking this is all crocodile tears.
I don't think the San Francisco city hall is deciding federal law
This is an incoherent counter argument to his post. His argument was that if San Francisco is flying the flag then clearly there are other reasons to fly the flag that have nothing to do with white supremacy or Christian nationalism. Arbitrarily bringing up Alito’s job duties don’t even begin to address his point.
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I didn't say that the justices "expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it"; I said that they're considering the case, because they are. I have no idea why they're considering the case, but they are. And to dismiss Alito's January 6th insurrection sympathizing after hearing about both his flags, and Thomas's connection to it through his wife, is alarming.
Trump's lawyer abandoned his maximalist position during argument as well, I listened to it. They were considering the extent of presidential power and immunity, of which this was an obvious hypothetical. but it's one that everyone knows is wrong, so it's being used to tease out the logic of the arguments. It's not "being considered."
The Alito home flew flags that have been a part of American flag flying for literally centuries, so no, the NYT hit piece was really, really stupid. Nevermind that Alito's explanation was perfectly reasonable. This is akin to morons trying to say the "OK" sign was a sign of white supremacy. So no, I would advise people be less gullible think for a few seconds. The moment someone you don't like does something that is normal doesn't mean everyone else A) knows why that person is doing it, B) agrees with the new, fringe meaning. Tempest in a teapot so that partisan dems can say that they are just "asking questions" while none of them cared that RBG made explicit anti-trump comments and still sat in on Trump cases.
On May 25 2024 08:52 KwarK wrote:
On May 25 2024 08:39 Introvert wrote:
On May 25 2024 07:02 Gahlo wrote:
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority.
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much.
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough.
I think technically it’s Mrs Thomas who is full QAnon lunatic conspiracy theorist stolen election Clinton pizza. Justice Thomas just agrees with her.
Again, haven't seen a shred of evidence for this. People just make stuff up because they don't want to like Thomas already.
"it's one that everyone knows is wrong" Obviously not, considering Trump currently thinks it's right, surely some of his supporters do too, and the lawyer even supported the position - only adding the caveat that preemptive impeachment would also need to be considered.
I get that these SCJs are simping for your side, but this is a serious threat to democracy. You shouldn't be so flippant. The lie that the Alitos flipped their flag due to a neighbor dispute is ridiculous. Their additional displaying of the Appeal to Heaven flag is dangerous, especially when we know that for years it hasn't been a reference to the Continental Army or New England, but rather Christian nationalism, Trump's big "stop the steal" lie, far-right extremism, and the January 6th insurrection. Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th cases where he's ruling over situations that are related to his wife is unethical and unprofessional. I know that SCJs all have their own personal biases and personal views on things, but these are at a completely different level.
You call that a lie because you *want* it to be a lie, no has disputed that characterization and it is prima facie reasonable, considering how often flying a flag upside has been done.
I wish I had your confidence while reading only things I wanted to agree with, that's not what thr Appeal to heaven flag means, though maybe some people on the fringes used it, which is a common thing and not something you can use to inpune everyone else. That's my whole point. Apparently it was so common that we have to assume last year that San Francisco city hall is a fan of Christian nationalism and that the type of people who edit Wikipedia articles didn't notice it. Apparently no one else did.
Sorry for all the tweets but this really does display how dumb and easily check able all this is.
Re:Thomas, again I recall no such dismay when RGB was commenting on Trump before the election, multiple times, sns never recused. At best a few people had a muted "she shouldn't have done that" so I'm thinking this is all crocodile tears.
I don't think the San Francisco city hall is deciding federal law. I also honestly don't remember which Trump-related cases RBG assessed, and what biased things she said/did while assessing them. Could you please elaborate?
You know that's not the point I'm making. What I'm saying is that this flag is not a well-known symbol of J6 sympathizers, some reporter at the NYT just decided that it was and now in the space of a few days it has all of a sudden become common on the left that this anodyne flag that appears all over the place is now a right-wing dog whistle. And since that little detail has come out more people noticed it flying more places that aren't exactly MAGA country, like the MN state capitol. Just another example that no matter how "respectable" and "trustworthy" a publication, they all deserve the same scrutiny and often scorn. At about the time I made the post this morning the WP said that they too looked into the upside down flag flying at the Alito's way back when it happened...
The wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a Washington Post reporter in January 2021 that an upside-down American flag recently flown on their flagpole was “an international signal of distress” and indicated that it had been raised in response to a neighborhood dispute.
Martha-Ann Alito made the comments when the reporter went to the couple’s Fairfax County, Va., home to follow up on a tip about the flag, which was no longer flying when he arrived.
The incident documented by reporter Robert Barnes, who covered the Supreme Court for The Post for 17 years and retired last year, offers fresh details about the raising of the flag and the first account of comments about it by the justice’s wife.
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.
The upside-down flag has long been a sign of distress for the military and protest by various political factions. In the fraught weeks before and after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, it had also been adopted by supporters of the “Stop the Steal” movement, which embraced Donald Trump’s false claims that Joe Biden stole the election from him. Some of the rioters who participated in the attack had carried upside-down American flags with them.
----
The Post subsequently reported on May 17 that residents said the flag was raised following a heated confrontation between Martha-Ann Alito and a neighbor over political yard signs, one of which carried a profane anti-Trump message and another that carried a message along the lines of “you are complicit.” One resident, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their privacy in a sensitive situation, said the flag flew for between two and five days.
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.”
But the fact you don't even remember it is part of the problem. Selective memory and selective outrage. All these senators calling for Alito to recuse himself are hacks and hypocrites.
In regards to Alito: Just because you didn't know about the Appeal to Heaven flag doesn't mean it wasn't used by insurrectionists during the January 6th attack. Just because a symbol might not be universally recognized doesn't give it a pass.
In regards to RBG: I do remember RBG saying those things, which she apologized for (unlike Alito, who lied and made excuses about both flags). I didn't realize those were your examples of RBG saying/doing something similar to what Alito and Thomas are doing. If you believe that RBG making factual statements* about Trump is the same thing as another Supreme Court Justice sympathizing with an insurrection orchestrated by Trump while at the same time considering whether or not Trump should be able to do illegal things when he's president, we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't think those two are analogous.
*RBG said: "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that." I don't think calling out Trump on his inconsistency, ego, or tax returns is the same thing as supporting an insurrection and possibly allowing Trump to have near-perfect immunity for some of his past criminal indictments and potentially more future criminal indictments if he becomes president again. (She also said, "I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president" and that her late husband would have said it was "time for us to move to New Zealand", which is probably the part she apologized for, as that's her opinion. Probably unbecoming for a SCJ, sure, but definitely not a worthy rival to Alito and Thomas.)
EPT
