Summary

Justice Samuel Alito, a self-described Originalist, has been criticized for allegedly disregarding the Constitution’s text when it conflicts with his personal views.

Recently, it emerged that Alito accepted a knighthood from a European order, despite the Constitution’s ban on foreign titles for U.S. officials.

This title, from the House of Bourbon–Two Sicilies, raises questions about Alito’s commitment to American democratic ideals, which the Framers aimed to protect from foreign influence.

Critics argue that Alito’s actions reflect hypocrisy in his supposed adherence to Originalism and constitutional principles.

  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    6 hours ago

    that’s fine, if he wants to be a knight he totally can. And it seems like he’s made his choice so let him be.

    Harris will be happy to appoint his replacement.

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    The key point here, not to get distracted, taking the title is trivial in the modern age. The title has little meaning to someone of today. The hitch is that Altito is a profound originalist. When he interprets the constitution he claims the text should be interpreted exactly as the founders explicited intented. Altogether taking the title against the prohibition of the condition acknowledges what his real intention. By claiming to know the framers exact intentions, something that is clearly unknowable, he can inject his on interests as he pleases.

    • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      41 minutes ago

      This seems like bad behavior to me, doing something explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. Given that the Constitution says a justice shall “hold their office during good Behavior”, he should be terminated from his position of power.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      No, it is not trivial, it is a fundamental rejection of (small r) republicanism in the pursuit of personal vainglory.

      It is also an aspect of Christofascism that you would, admittedly, need quite a lot of reading on development of the medieval concept of knighthood to pick up on even if modern elements are recognizable but the tl;Dr of it all is that knights as a separate and popular European political class are fundamentally linked to the “Crusader” archetype as an innately Christian warrior who does violence for the faith.

      Whether Alito is aware of that specifically or not, and I wouldn’t put much money on it as most people are rather surprised to find out even the earliest conceptualization of knight is actually more of a 10th century/Crusade thing than a Dark Age concept, I would certainly argue that that innately Christian aspect is at least subconsciously understood by Western society in general and I can say with certainty that 20th century fascist messaging was aware of it specifically and used it quite a lot.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 hours ago

      seems like the president has so much immunity for official actions that Alito accepting his knighthood should be an automatic empty slot on the court, Harris should appoint his replacement immediately so Alito can concentrate on his royal duties.

      And when she does, she should point out the law, and Alito’s dedication to originalist interpretation of said document.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 minute ago

        Alito has a chance here to prove originalisim is an actual, good faith interpretation of the Constitution, and not just rhetoric pulled out to get what you want. All he has to do is step down.

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        27 minutes ago

        66 is only because of the filibuster right? Bit they could get rid of that if they would get a majority in the Senate… I know, its copium.but today I’m taking copium.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Doesn’t matter here. The Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) bans public officials from receiving titles of nobility. Alito already falls under this. The writers of the Constitution thought this one was so important that it’s not even an amendment. It’s in the OG document.

    • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      9 hours ago

      This has the added benefit of stripping Meghan Markle of her citizenship as well.

      I really have no opinion of Meghan Markle but thought this was funny. It’s insane that it’d be easier to ratify an amendment from 1810 which would impact a good handful of people to target Alito, than implement robust Supreme Court ethics reforms.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Who the FUCK cares about the Constitution when it’s used to do ANYTHING besides Defend a Gunman who Murdered a CLASSROOM FULL OF CHILDREN! I’m Pro Life btw :)

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    10 hours ago

    W.T.F.

    The US needs to clean house, expand the SCOTUS to put these corrupt judges firmly in the minority so they’re ineffective for the rest of their miserable life-long-unelected-terms, if it can’t outright impeach them!

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Why did Joe Biden do nothing to rebalance the Supreme Court in all his 4 years of being President?

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Because he’s a typical Clintonite conservative Democrat. 9/10 times he’s on the side of defending the political institutions and, at most, patch them up here or there.

        He was never going to be a great reformer. Just like he remains a staunch Zionist in spite of 75 years of apartheid rule and other crimes against humanity, he remains firmly convinced that the American political system is fundamentally just and that changing it would be worse than the inequities that come from NOT doing so.

      • P00ptart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 hours ago

        He’s still got a couple months, but it shouldn’t be about packing the court. It should be about removing the corrupt ones. They need, NEED to have accountability.

        • floofloof@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          28 minutes ago

          Well that’s a start, but not enough in itself to fix the problem. He could have done more, and we wouldn’t be looking at a Supreme Court eager to support Trump’s re-election.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        No idea! I have wondered that myself. In fact why doesn’t he do it now, he’s the ultimate lame duck prez, there’d be no consequences for him so he absolutely should a few days after the election – if he truly could (I don’t know enough about the details about how he could so do).

        If your question is not just rhetorical, I totally agree, 100%.

        In fact I wish he’d declare he’s dissolving SCOTUS completely, plus a few levels of courts below and appointing non-partisan judges across the board to clean house and reset the decades of theocratic-proto-fascists that appear to have infiltrated the system at all levels. He could, after all, do anything right? The SCOTUS ruled this summer that Presidents have ‘absolute immunity’, so why not? It would be the ultimate F*ck You to their corruption and would be a historically beautiful way to bow out.

        EDIT: Oh look, I’m not the first to think of it

        • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I mean, he could, but wouldn’t he need Congress to confirm his appointments? They’d just do what they did while Obama was in office and block any motion for a vote, especially since the Democratic party doesn’t hold a filibuster-proof, 60-member Senate majority. Although, Obama had that and still blew it, the price of believing one can still engage in good faith negotiations with bad faith actors, I’m afraid.

          They’re already declaring their intentions to not negotiate with Harris in good faith, should she win the election, and to block all Presidential appointments. Hopefully she will go ahead and do it anyway. SCOTUS does get the final say in what does and does not constitute an “Official Act”, but they don’t have any enforcement mechanism. All they can do is send a strongly-worded letter, asking her to stop, but they can’t force her to stop.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            I mean, he could, but wouldn’t he need Congress to confirm his appointments?

            Just a simple majority in the Senate. And since he has absolute immunity, he can just order the executions of a sufficient number of Republican senators to ensure his appointments make it through confirmation.

  • RVGamer06@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    This title, from the House of Bourbon–Two Sicilies

    Didn’t that family go extinct some time after the Italian unification?

  • Arcka@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I don’t think the U.S. Constitution bans anyone from getting a title from some random French family, only from a “King, Prince, or foreign State”.

    Is this article intentionally misrepresenting? There’s plenty of scummy things he’s done without having to invent weird distractions.

    • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Knights of Malta are having a rebirth and have been active with his sort.

      (Edit: well, waddaya know: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/justice-alitos-royalist-cosplay.html

      Conservative lobbyist and court-packer Leonard Leo belongs to the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta, a Catholic lay order that dates to the Crusades. The Opus Dei organization, best known for its super-kinky corporal-mortification rules, sent a priest wearing a spiked garter under his cassock to convert a swath of Republicans in Washington — a project that has proved quite successful.)

      He does fly this flag at his home, though

      It’s not because of it’s original use.

      It’s because he’s a major player/member in the NAR (the new apostolic reformation) which is an accelerationist movement with the explicit intent to bring about Armageddon so Jesus can return.

      I shit you not.

      https://www.thebulwark.com/p/appeal-to-heaven-flag-nar-alito