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.
For a bit of context: the house of Bourbon - Two sicilies has no land for 150 years. They used to rule the south of Italy but after the Italian “unification” (or conquest) they got kicked out and have no real power.
While this may still be a conflict of interest since I am pretty sure they are still filthy rich and they may have economic interests in the US. But there is no foreign power interference here since there is no foreign power 🙂
Oh look a corrupt Republican appointment to the scotus. If only we had some method of preventing Republican presidents from making nominations to the supreme court…
Recently, it emerged that Alito accepted a knighthood from a European order, despite the Constitution’s ban on foreign titles for U.S. officials.
Oh no, my sealand and Scottish titles!
Don’t worry, just get rich enough to not have the law apply.
Are you a US official, or just a dirty anti-American monarchist?
Should be an automatic disqualification for holding any US judiciary position. The UK is a failed state which is desperately trying to resolve its woes by usurping American global influence. Cunts
Both Reagan and Bush Sr. got knighted.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Those were honorary knighthoods that generally mean nothing. OPs article claims that Alito pledged “an oath to the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George.” That is an entirely different thing if true. As the saying goes, a man cannot serve two masters. If he has pledged an oath to this order and the Constitution of the United States of America, which takes precedence in his mind?
The “cannot serve two masters” argument was used as a reason not to elect the first Catholic US President, JFK. I find it to be pretty uncompelling.
The important thing is that the US not recognize any titles.
I’d certainly never accuse Reagan and a Bush of being Christo-fascist neocrusaders who innately hold anti-republican and anti-democratic ideals.
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.
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. All together, taking the title against the prohibition of the constitution acknowledges what his real intentions are. By claiming to know the framers exact intentions, something that is clearly unknowable, he can inject his own interests as he pleases.
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.
If you choose to look, Ted Kennedy received an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth 2 whilst a sitting senator. And no one batted an eye. In fact he was widely praised for being knighted when it happened.
There are lots of meaningless honorary titles floating about if you care to actually look. And yes those types of titles, like “knighthood”, are meaningless these days and have been for a number of centuries.
Did you read what I wrote?
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.
So, he’s either a dumb azz or he is lying?
He’s lying. He’s a traitorous piece of shit who should be executed thusly.
I hear Tar and Feathering traitors was all the rage back in the founding father days.
I would prefer lynching, hang him by his ligaments.
Rules for thee and not for meeeee, wheeeee
Maybe it’s time to ratify that “Titles of Nobility” constitutional amendment?
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.
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.
The fact that the war of 1812 didn’t spur overwhelming support for this amendment is kinda funny, tbh
The Australian woman who married into the Danish royal family had to renounce her Australian citizenship, so that would be fair enough.
She’s too hot to disown.
Dude. Come on. Really?
can he be kicked out for it though?
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.
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.
With a 50% vote in the house and a 66% vote in the senate
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.
No, it’s because the process of removing a supreme court justice is the exact same impeachment process that applies to presidents
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!
Why did Joe Biden do nothing to rebalance the Supreme Court in all his 4 years of being President?
Probably because (just like almost everything else) he isn’t a dictator that can unilaterally reshape a whole branch of government. Congress sets the number, not the President. If you want to actually see reforms go out and vote in more Representatives and Senators.
Because the Democratic Party puts a lot of value on norms and mores. Blowing up the Supreme Court (and then having to deal with whatever reaction that the GOP has when they get power again, which I’m sure would be totally rational and proportionate), is just too much of a massive change in the status quo for Biden.
I think there are pros and cons to these ideas for expanding the court, etc. But I think it is important for people to realize that it’s not just as simple as flipping a switch or something. The implications and consequences would be massive, and impossible to predict completely.
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.
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.
Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed on April 7, 2022.
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.
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.
He could, after all, do anything right? The SCOTUS ruled this summer that Presidents have ‘absolute immunity’, so why not?
I am so sick of seeing this argument. SCOTUS didn’t give him any more actual powers, they shielded him from prosecution. He can’t just unilaterally declare he’s dissolving a whole branch of government, because he never had that power in the first place. What do you expect him to do to actually back that up? March the army in?
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.
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.
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 :)
You have no idea how hard it is to suppress the downvote reflex here.
Pretty neat they could challenge the basis of government in a public forum without fear of retaliation tho.
This title, from the House of Bourbon–Two Sicilies
Didn’t that family go extinct some time after the Italian unification?
I feel like I’ve just started listening after zoning out while someone is trying to explain a new TTRPG.
Not quite but they did sober up and stopped seeing double.
The $upreme Court is a complete joke and they did it to themselves
And we did it to ourselves.
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.
It does ban public officials from receiving titles of nobility, so yes, it applies to Alito. There is an old amendment to strip the citizenship from any American who receives one, but it hasn’t been ratified by the states. Has an odd history to it.
