Discrimination LGBTQ Issues Supreme Court

Pete Buttigieg Burns Down Martha-Ann Alito For Being A Bigot

Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg put conservatives on notice today that there’s a world of difference between a flag that celebrates the LGBTQ community and the ones referenced by Martha-Ann Alito, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in support of the January 6 Capitol insurrection.

Speaking with CNN’s John Berman, Buttigieg said, “I’m often reminded that the most important thing in my life, which is my marriage, and my family and the two beautiful children that my husband Chasten and I are raising that that marriage only exists by the grace of the single vote on the United States Supreme Court that expanded our rights and freedoms back in 2015 and made it possible for somebody like me to get married.”

“And, you know,  Supreme Court justices have an unbelievable amount of power and, and by the nature in the structure, the Supreme Court, there’s no supervision over that power,” Buttigieg added. “They are entrusted with it literally for as long as they live. And part of that trust is we expect them to enter into those enormously consequential decisions that shape our everyday lives with a sense of fairness.”

“I also hope that most Americans can understand the difference between a flag that symbolizes you know, love and acceptance and signals to people who have sometimes feared for their safety that they’re going to be okay. And insurrectionists symbology, I’ll just leave it at that,” he noted.

In secretly recorded audio, Mrs. Alito groused, “I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag, because I have to look across the lagoon at the pride flag for the next month. And he’s like, ‘Oh, please don’t put up a flag.’ I said, ‘I won’t do it. Because I’m deferring to you but when you are free of this nonsense, I’m putting it up and I’m gonna send them a message every day.'”

She also said she wanted to fly several flags that would antagonize the LGBTQ community.

“I’ll be changing the flags. They’ll be all kinds. I made a flag in my head. This is how I satisfy myself. I made a flag. It’s white and has yellow and orange flames around it. And in the middle is the word ‘vergogna.’ ‘Vergogna’ in Italian means shame — vergogna. V-E-R-G-O-G-N-A. Vergogna.”

As if trying to explain her bigotry, Mrs. Alito claimed her German heritage meant she didn’t take any shit from anyone.

“I’m German. I’m from Germany. My heritage is German. You come after me, I’m gonna give it back to you. And there will be a way — it doesn’t have to be now — but there will be a way they will know. Don’t worry about it. God — you read the Bible. Psalm 27 is my psalm. Mine. Psalm 27, the Lord is my God and my rock. Of whom shall I be afraid? Nobody.”

German, huh? Hmm. Weren’t the Nazis German, too? Does Mrs. Altio sympathize with what they did?

Here’s the video of Buttigieg’s interview with CNN:

Impeachment Supreme Court

Former Prosecutor Says Samuel Alito May Have Already Committed ‘An Impeachable Offense’


Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito may have already opened himself up to the possibility of being impeached and removed from the court if he lied in a letter he sent to members of Congress, according to a former federal prosecutor.

Discussing the matter of Alito flying an American flag upside down at his home, Harry Litman noted that the justice needs to recuse himself from hearing any case which involves indicted former president Donald Trump or January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.

Asked by a CNN host what can be done about a member of the court who has a conflict of interest yet refuses to step aside on cases in which they have an obvious personal interest, Litman explained, “There are really few.”

Litman added that Alito “has written to the congress, saying nobody could reasonably question my impartiality that the flag was flying.”

“Think about it for a moment. And say you were involved in a gay rights case. You were on the other side and you pass a judge’s house and the gay pride flag is flying. In my mind, you can think reasonably that person won’t be impartial.”

“There is the discrepancy and I really think it is essential to get to the bottom of it,” Litman continued.

That’s when the specter of impeachment came up, with Litman saying, “If it’s the case, I am not saying it’s the case, but if it is that Justice Alito sent a letter to the Congress and didn’t tell the truth in it. That is exceptionally grave. I think that would be an impeachable offense.”

Unfortunately, even if articles of impeachment were filed against Alito, there’s no way Senate Republicans would ever vote to convict him, even if the evidence against him was overwhelming.

So instead of having an independent Supreme Court, we currently have six conservative members who think the law applies to everyone but them, Donald Trump, and any other Republican whose legal filings come before them. That does not bode well for the future of the American republic.

Congress Donald Trump Supreme Court

Jamie Raskin Slams ‘Partisan’ Right-Wing SCOTUS Justices And Recommends A New Workplace For Them

Like millions of Americans who listened to oral arguments in the Supreme Court yesterday on the issue of presidential immunity, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said he was stunned that most of the right-wing justices seemed to believe that a president may have total immunity from criminal acts and therefore can act like a dictator and face no consequences.

Appearing on MSNBC’s “The Reid Out,” Raskin was asked by host Joy Reid about how blatantly partisan the six conservative justices sounded as they questioned attorneys for Special Counsel Jack Smith and former president Donald Trump, HuffPost reports.

“Well, they’re politicians who are not even subject to popular election unlike me,” Raskin replied. “They should move the Supreme Court over to the RNC headquarters because they’re acting like a bunch of partisan operatives.”

Focusing on a question from Justice Samuel Alito suggesting that democracy itself could be endangered if a president isn’t allowed to do anything he wants, no matter whether it’s legal or illegal, Raskin noted, “I mean, for all of American history, we’ve said presidents are subject to criminal prosecution if they commit crimes.”

“Now they say, ‘Well, if you’re really mean to Donald Trump and you hold him accountable the way every other American citizen is accountable, then he’ll really overthrow the government, he’ll really bring out the big guns and we can’t afford that.’ And that’s a kind of masochistic, capitulationism to Donald Trump’s authoritarianism.”

The Founding Fathers rebelled against England and King George III in large part because they were disgusted by the idea that one man could be above the law and rule by fiat and whim. It’s why they declared their independence and formed the United States of America.

Now, however, it appears that some on the Supreme Court are ready to give that same dictatorial power to a American head of state. Jefferson, Madison, and Washington must be spinning in their graves.

Capitol Insurrection Donald Trump GOP Supreme Court

Ted Cruz And Jim Jordan Could Be Toast If SCOTUS Rules Trump Is An Insurrectionist

As failed one-term former president Donald Trump waits to see what happens with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. regarding whether or not he can legally be removed from the ballot in the upcoming election, there are two other key Republicans who are also wondering what could happen to them if the Supreme Court winds up taking the case and rules that Trump is indeed an insurrectionist.

Those two members of the GOP are Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) and Sen. Ted Cruz (TX), according to an illuminating article from MSNBC opinion writer and editor Hayes Brown.

Brown notes that over 200 members of Congress signed on to an amicus brief that supports Trump.

While the GOP lawmakers’ amicus brief is better drafted than most of Trump’s filings, it can’t be ignored that there’s a deeply self-serving element to their arguments. That’s especially true for those members who, under the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, could also credibly be described as having ‘engaged in insurrection’ — and thus theoretically be disqualified from holding office.

The deepest fears of federal elected officials such as Cruz and Jordan can be found in one specific section of the brief, which pulls the curtain back on what everyone who played a role in January 6 fears most, Brown adds.

The self-interested lawmakers give up the game with this line from the brief: ‘Although not directly relevant to President Trump, the Colorado Supreme Court would give itself the power to judge the qualifications of those who would be elected to the House or Senate.’ That would be especially troubling for Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs of Arizona. The three of them were knee-deep in plotting to overturn the election, and, in a more just world, they would have faced expulsion for violating Section 3. It’s their inclusion as signatories on the amicus brief that makes this filing particularly odious.

Cruz was one of the prime figures who urged others in the GOP to join the brief.

The members who directly aided Trump’s efforts are especially interested in this case, but the effort to file the brief was led in the House by Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., and in the Senate by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Cruz’s participation is worth a side-eye given that he led the charge among Senate Republicans in challenging electoral votes in states where Trump called President-elect Joe Biden’s victory fraudulent. He also pitched a 10-day electoral commission to investigate the nonexistent fraud and potentially give state legislatures time to change their electoral slates as Trump would prefer. He never endorsed Trump’s wildest conspiracy theories, but he was caught on audio hoping Biden’s win would be reversed.

So if the Supreme Court decides that Trump can be removed from ballots, Cruz, Jordan, and others who took part in the plot to overturn the 2020 election could soon find they’ve been excluded from running or serving in any federal post, too. And that would be devastating to the GOP, which is quickly becoming known as the party of insurrection.

Crime Donald Trump Elections Supreme Court

Trump Attorney Appears To Threaten Supreme Court Justices On Appeal Of 2024 Ballot Case

Alina Habba is an attorney for failed one-term, twice-impeached former president Donald Trump, and remarks she made Thursday during an appearance on Fox have many suggesting that she was trying to threaten Supreme Court justices who will eventually have to decide whether or not the ex-president can be kept off primary ballots in states this year.

Speaking with Fox host Sean Hannity, according to HuffPost, Habba said, “I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court. I have faith in them.”

She added:

“You know people like (Supreme Court Justice Brett) Kavanaugh ― who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place ― he’ll step up. Those people will step up. Not because they’re pro-Trump but because they’re pro-law. Because they’re pro-fairness, and the law on this is very clear.”

Habba’s comments raised eyebrows on Twitter/X, with some noting that she was either suggesting a quid pro quo or using threats to get her way with the high court.