Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Republicans in disarray!

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

Polls are now a reliable indicator of what corporate Republicans want us to think.

I would try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Just because you believe it, that does not make it true.

Conservatism: there are people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

The revolution will be supervised.

A norm that restrains only one side really is not a norm – it is a trap.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

Weird. Rome has an American Pope and America has a Russian President.

I really should read my own blog.

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

When I was faster i was always behind.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Museums are not America’s attic for its racist shit.

The gop is a fucking disgrace.

Republicans: The threats are dire, but my tickets are non-refundable!

“Until such time as the world ends, we will act as though it intends to spin on.”

Every decision we make has lots of baggage with it, known or unknown.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

“The defense has a certain level of trust in defendant that the government does not.”

You are here: Home / Politics / Activist Judges! / Repub Venality Open Thread: Friday Alito Dump

Repub Venality Open Thread: Friday Alito Dump

by | 88 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

Josh Kovensky, for TPM:

… Rivkin regularly writes for the Journal’s opinion section, and is an attorney at law firm Baker Hostetler. It’s there that he has a key item of business before the Court: he’s part of a team representing the plaintiffs in Moore v. U.S., a case which asks the Court to upend the country’s tax system and potentially foreclose a wealth tax of the sort some Democrats have championed in recent years.

Rivkin and his co-author, editorial features editor James Taranto, disclosed in the column that Rivkin had a case before the Court. They wrote that Alito sat with them for more than four hours of interviews across two sessions, with the first taking place in April.

The column itself lavishes more than 2,400 words on Alito, praising him for a “candor that is refreshing and can be startling.” Alito used the interview to assail an effort by Senate Democrats to pass a judicial ethics bill, which would impose a code of conduct on all justices on the Court.

“Congress did not create the Supreme Court,” Alito told the interviewers. “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” he added. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”…

Steven Rosenthal, a tax attorney and expert at Urban-Brookings, has described the Moore case as potentially destructive to the tax code, and expressed shock to TPM in a phone call that Alito did the interview.

“He’s either tone deaf, or simply doesn’t give a damn about ethics and the appearance of conflict,” Rosenthal told TPM.

Rivkin’s involvement in the Moore case goes back to when it was first filed at the District Court level in 2019.

In September 2021, he and another attorney representing the plaintiffs wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal presenting the case as a way for the Supreme Court to head off any potential future wealth tax of the kind that was under consideration by Democratic legislators at the time.

“If [the plaintiffs] prevail,” they wrote, “that would confirm that the Supreme Court’s precedents … remain good law, clearly barring any kind of federal property tax, including a wealth tax — unless Congress apportions it, which there is no obvious way to do.”

The plaintiffs lost at both the district court and appellate levels, and asked the Supreme Court to hear the case in March 2023…

Alito told Rivkin that he holds himself to higher ethical and disclosure standards than are mandated by law…

‘Just Us’ Alito: Try and stop me before I kill again. Bwa-ha-ha!

Reader Interactions

88Comments

  2. 2.

    HinTN

    Just to be clear, *without* legislation enacted by Congress, #SCOTUS would have one Justice; no budget; no building; no staff; no library; and no cases to resolve other than interstate disputes—the proceedings and dispositions of which the lone Justice would have to self-fund.

    As a skilled mechanical technician, sitting at a control station and faced with a very odd set of circumstances once remarked, “Well fuck me running!”

  5. 5.

    bbleh

    Sooo, Article III Section 2:

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    ???

    Perhaps more Learned Commentators can alleviate my confusion.

  6. 6.

    Yarrow

    The reactionary justices wouldn’t be doing this PR push if they weren’t worried Congress was going to do something. They really don’t want that to happen.

  11. 11.

    Elizabelle

    I wish we could dump Alito.  He is a horrible person.  Him and his crying ass wife.

    I hope they can’t go out to dinner for fear someone throws soup or bread their way.  A$$hats.

  12. 12.

    japa21

    Undoubtedly, if Congress did pass such laws, there would be a lawsuit to try to overturn it.  But it seems to me, the only people with standing would be current SC Justices, and if, say Alito, did sue, then as party to the suit, he would be unable to hear the case.  So obviously, the law would stand.  And the law, hopefully would state, that any Justice who failed to follow the ethics guidelines would face automatic expulsion from the bench.

     

    Of course, I realize that Alito would not recuse himself under such circumstances.

  14. 14.

    Tony Jay

    Alito – “The Constitution gives Congress no power over the Supreme Court.”

    Everyone – “But it says right here in the Constitution…”

    Alito – “Perhaps you didn’t hear me.”

    Everyone – “It is pretty loud in here. (Smacks Alito upside the head with a hefty copy of the actual Constitution) That better? Yeah, that’s better.”

    Basically something like this, but all official.

  15. 15.

    Ryan

    You hold yourself above checks and balances and above the Constitution.  You should be impeached for that.

  17. 17.

    Viva BrisVegas

    @Tony Jay:

    Scalia’s reading of the Second Amendment showed that a conservative Supreme Court Judge is only obliged to read those parts of the US Constitution which happen to agree with their personal preferences.

  18. 18.

    Redshift

    Alito told Rivkin that he holds himself to higher ethical and disclosure standards than are mandated by law…

    And since he just told us that he believes no standards are mandated by law, higher than zero isn’t saying much.

  20. 20.

    les

    @HinTN: Ya know, I think I like this. Go back to sacred Original Intent. Repeal every law passed re the Supremes; 1 judge left, no budget, limited jurisdiction. I think a cage match to pick the single justice; 9 justices enter, 1 judge leaves. Bet: comes down to Kendall-Jackson v KrazyKatholicKlan judge, long shot is Clarence for sheer meanness.

  22. 22.

    Josie

    If I were Alito, I would be a bit more careful about pissing off a bunch of senators. I suspect they have long memories and maybe won’t always be bound by the voting rules that are hamstringing them now. Demographics will win in the end, and both houses of congress will be able to yank his chain. I hope I live to see it.

  25. 25.

    gene108

    @japa21:

    1. Standing has been very broadly defined by conservatives to include hypothetical situations which may or may not happen in the future. They can expand the definition as it suits them.

    2. There’s no law that requires a SCOTUS Justice to recuse themselves for any reason whatsoever. If the Justice was a plaintiff in a case, there is no way to prevent them from ruling on the case.

    3. The Sinister 6 care not a whit about tradition, ethics, and anything that might put a crimp in their billionaire adjacent lifestyle.

  27. 27.

    Mr. Bemused Senior

    … they know they are lying, you know they are lying, & they want to show you that they can get away with it.

    According to Perun the Russian word for this is “vranyo” ( враньё ).

  28. 28.

    EarthWindFire

    He’s either tone deaf, or simply doesn’t give a damn about ethics and the appearance of conflict,” Rosenthal told TPM.

    I’ll take there is no conflict because I said so and shut up that’s why said Alito for $200, Alex.

  30. 30.

    Baud

    @BR:

    What’s especially weird about that Nazi signaling is the incorrect use of the hyphens. It’s like a code within a code.

  32. 32.

    Redshift

    @Viva BrisVegas: See also originalism, textualism, the major questions doctrine, the Bruen standard. With the way they cherry-pick their precedents, all of those are the thin thinnest of fig leaves over “we get whatever we want, suck it!”

  33. 33.

    smith

    It seems to me that the Supreme Court by itself has no enforcement mechanism. I recall that after Brown v Board of Education a number of states tried various means to defy it, and it was the executive branch that acted in response. So not only does SCOTUS rely on the legislative branch for funding, without the executive branch its opinions are just so much bloviating. So far, the norms have more or less held for each branch’s responsibilities in this regard, but I could easily see that breaking down, in this era of smashing establishing norms to bits (with no little help from the SCOTUS).  In fact, Alabama right now is openly defying the court on a redistricting issue. Who is going to make them comply?

  34. 34.

    Baud

    @BR:

    @Baud:

    Some intrepid sleuth should find out if the 88 days allegation is accurate. The tweet says “after 88 days,” which doesn’t necessarily mean exactly 88 days.

  36. 36.

    columbusqueen

    I keep hoping Alito has a massive heart attack while dressed in lingerie (including garter belt & stockings), while a call girl is riding him cowgirl style with spurs & a crop

  38. 38.

    Tony Jay

    @Ryan:

    @Viva BrisVegas:

    Given how deeply unpopular and politically incendiary the Sinisters have made this Court, it might be an idea for Democratic lawmakers with access to microphones to cut right through the bullshit and in so doing tighten a rubberband around their collective (and theoretical) nutsacks.

    The second most powerful Republican appointed Justice on the Supreme Court, they can say, isn’t just mired in the appearance of corruption, he’s also so scared of being held accountable that he’s lying about the very clear Constitutional authority Congress has over the Court’s structure and role.

    Bang that drum, pick that fight. What are they going to do about it? Whine to the Media? Invent weird and whacky extra-Constitutional rules to declare Congress illegal? The Supremes have been given a lot of leeway for a long time because the idea of a sacred priesthood with the authority to defend your country from bad laws was damned attractive when they were making things better, but the Right saw that threat and spent decades turning that concept on its head.

    So, it follows – pick up Constitution + kinetic argument = a reassessment of who gets to fuck who with what. Alito can pick his teeth up off the floor, or not, that’s his own ever so supreme privilege. Nothing in the Constitution about that.

  46. 46.

    NotMax

    Craving some good news?

    NASA is about to voyage into the streaming-verse. The federal space agency is announcing a new “NASA Plus” streaming service that will bring the on-demand non-sci-fi space content you crave to TVs and mobile devices everywhere. And best of all, NASA says it will be “ad-free, no cost, and family-friendly” Source

  52. 52.

    RaflW

    I approve of this, from Jeff Blattner (former Chief Counsel to Sen. Ted Kennedy, Dep. Asst US Attorney General, SCOTUS Law Clerk):
    “It seems like the obvious play is to attach the Supreme Court ethics bill just reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Appropriations Bill for the Court. That way, GOP opponents have to either offer an amendment to strip it out or filibuster the Court’s funding.”

  53. 53.

    Tony Jay

    @Jackie:

    The cheeky fucker.

    Alito – “If we’re viewed as illegitimate, then disregard of our decisions becomes more acceptable and more popular. So you can have a revival of the massive resistance that occurred in the South after Brown.”

    So, obey our openly bullshit rulings, kiss our bleached rings, or the people who like the fact that we’re systematically dismantling the gains of the Civil Rights era might start stringing your side up again, and we’ll blame you for it.

    Someone drop a bridge on this troll, he’s terribly obvious and rather wearing.

  56. 56.

    noncarborundum

    @BeautifulPlumage: I spell “capers” as “quépeurze” on shopping lists because that’s how the restaurateur at the beginning of the Body Snatchers remake pronounced it.

  57. 57.

    RaflW

    Oh, and I sprained my eyes reading this “If [the plaintiffs] prevail,” [Rivkin] wrote, “that would confirm that the Supreme Court’s precedents … remain good law.”

    There’s not a single Supreme Court precedent that remains good law after the Radical Six took a buzz saw to Roe and decades of decisions that flowed from it. Fuck these people who pretend that precedent holds for their precious ponies, but not for ‘the libs’ decisions.

    The Court is an omnishambles, and no amount of WSJ fluffing will turn that back. Even Alabama is thumbing it’s nose at Roberts et al!

  58. 58.

    Baud

    @Tony Jay:

    Given that that massive resistance is what has led the GOP to appoint arch conservatives to the court, it seems like a good idea for us to follow.

  59. 59.

    karen marie

    @RaflW:  Given it doesn’t appear that it’s serving any useful purpose except to some of its members’ sponsors, I say #DefundSCOTUS.

  63. 63.

    cain

    @Nukular Biskits: You’d think the guy would know something about Congress’s power at least where it involves his salary and where he lives.

    Defunding his ass would serve him right. He’d probably scream like an angry 2 year old.

  65. 65.

    Ksmiami

    @RaflW: they will continue to lose authority and respect and the SC will render itself irrelevant. That is the path they are on.

  66. 66.

    Jackie

    @Ksmiami: Alabama is thumbing their nose at them – refusing to create a second congressional district that favors black voters. I’m really curious how that will play out.

  69. 69.

    Ksmiami

    @Jackie: once institutions lose respect and authority, they are on borrowed time. No amount of fluffing in the WSJ can repair the SC and the reason Alito is doing PR is fear on some level that they’ve lost the plot. Fuckers- a Democratic trifecta needs to limit their jurisdiction to ensure the institution itself remains viable.

  70. 70.

    Jeffro

    @Yarrow:The reactionary justices wouldn’t be doing this PR push if they weren’t worried Congress was going to do something. They really don’t want that to happen.

    Yup.

    They’ve invested a ton of money and time in capturing this court…they sure don’t want Dems to do what they can easily do to rein them in.

  71. 71.

    JWR

    Alito: “I know this is a controversial view”

    The only reason it’s controversial is because it’s not true, you  slapdick.

  72. 72.

    tobie

    @Tony Jay: I just realized that the conservative Supreme Court justices are all would-be Catholic priests. They want the devotion, if not servitude, of the lay public without having to take a vow of poverty.

  74. 74.

    geg6

    @tobie:

    To be fair, many Catholic clergy, especially those in the hierarchy but not exclusively, live pretty high on the hog and are as venal as any SCOTUS justice.  Absolute power = abuse and corruption.

  75. 75.

    tobie

    @geg6: You’re right, and on the heels of Sinead O’Connor’s death I should be more sensitive to the abuses of the Church. Never trust black-robed figures????

    @Elizabelle: Maybe it’s just me but none of the 6 conservative justices strike me as interested in the flesh. Material goods are another matter. They’re greedy buggers who think they deserve every luxury.

  77. 77.

    Keith P.

    McCarthy told Swalwell, “If you ever say something like that to me again, I’m gonna kick the shit out of you.” There was some back-and-forth between the two, the witnesses said, leading up to McCarthy telling the Democrat, “Call me a pussy again and I’ll kick your ass.”
    To this, Swalwell offered a wonderfully mature response: “You. Are. A. Pussy.”

  78. 78.

    Geminid

    Looks like I’ll be voting for a new Representative next year. Laura Rozen cites reports that  Virginia 7th CD Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger has told Democrats that she will not run for reelection, but will instead concentrate on a run for Governor in 2025. I think Spanberger will win that race; she’s a hardworking woman and a good retail politician. Should be a good fundraiser.

    We ought to be able to hold the 7th as well. It could be an interesting primary. I think 2/3s of district residents live in the I-95 corridor between Prince William County and Fredericksburg. I’m on the rural, western edge.

  79. 79.

    Matt McIrvin

    @Geminid: Hmm. Spanberger is a bit too centrist for my taste, but she needed that in that district (my sister lives there) and maybe you still need it for Governor of Virginia.

  80. 80.

    RaflW

    It had not occurred to me to defund the Supreme Court (probably just partially, as a ‘shots fired’ sort of warning) until this thread about that petulant nob’s WSJ op-ed. Congrats, Sam Alito. You’ve opened a new front in the battle over this corrupt Roberts Court.

  81. 81.

    Geminid

    @Matt McIrvin: I think the characterization of Spanberger as “centrist” is not warranted.  She’s been tagged with that label ever since she spoke up against “progressive” messaging after the 2020 election. I thought she was right about the particular messaging she spoke to.

    The problem with Spanberger is that she is a moderate, and some “progressives” think that the party’s moderates should be seen and not heard.

  82. 82.

    Kelly

    “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”…

    reminds me of Nixon’s claim that “If the President does it it’s legal”

    The underlying point is if reactionary conservatives do it’s legal

  83. 83.

    TS

    The disdain with which trump & cohorts treated the media does not seem to have stopped them from siding with the GOP every chance they get. One day SCOTUS will override that freedom of the press they like to rant about & then it will be all too late.

  84. 84.

    RaflW

    Nice detail here:

    Steve Vladeck
    Justice Alito doesn’t hold one of the six seats that Congress created in the Judiciary Act of 1789. His seat was created on March 3, 1837—when Congress created the Eighth and Ninth Circuits.
    Lucky for him that Congress had the power to regulate the Court’s size.

  85. 85.

    Bruce K in ATH-GR

    I just had a maddening thought:

    The most corrupt member of this Supreme Court, and the most corrupt member ever to serve on the Supreme Court, are the same person. And I can’t figure out who it is.

  87. 87.

    MinuteMan

    If SCOTUS loses the  respect of the people, then the executive and legislative branches will be able to do with them as they will.  For example, relocate the offices of the court to Deadhorse, Alaska, etc., or simply start ignoring them when convenient.  That is more likely to happen to a liberal court when the other two branches are held by Magats, but in Magat eyes, “liberal” is anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

  88. 88.

    RaflW

    @MinuteMan: Not a lot of IF to that. From Pew on July 21st:

    “Fewer than half of Americans (44%) now express a favorable opinion of the court… The court’s favorable rating has declined 26 percentage points since 2020. The current survey marks the first time in our polling dating to 1987 that the public’s views of the Supreme Court are significantly more negative than positive.”

    Negative does not yet = illegitimate, but it’s coming. Alabama has basically said even about this hard-right court that it views their voting rights decision as laughable. Huh.

Comments are closed.