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.

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

    This title, from the House of Bourbon–Two Sicilies

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

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days 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.

        • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          No, it’s because the process of removing a supreme court justice is the exact same impeachment process that applies to presidents

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days 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
        5
        ·
        2 days 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.

  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    2 days 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.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Boot his worthless MAGAT ass out of the Supreme Court and he can take his shitty Appeal to Heaven flag with him.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s one of the funnier parts of the article:

      Alito’s “An Appeal to Heaven” flag is a reference to John Locke’s argument in favor of a right to rise up against monarchists. Alito himself accepted a knighthood from an order managed by the House of Bourbon–Two Sicilies. The grand prefect of the order’s son is a pretender to the Imperial Throne of France.

      Guys, I’m starting to think Alito doesn’t even understand the history he haphazardly quotes.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      2 days 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
      58
      ·
      2 days 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.

    • seejur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Except the title is not from the UK? Can you at least read a bit more than the title before commenting?

      Heck, OP even put it in the effing summary. No need to click the article even.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    2 days 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
      19
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      2 days 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
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days 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.

        • floofloof@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days 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.

      • P00ptart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days 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.

      • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          He could always send up a nomination. There’s nothing illegal about that. If Congress accepts it then their law is moot by their own action.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        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.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days 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
          ·
          2 days 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
            2
            ·
            2 days 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.

        • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          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?

  • diffusive@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    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 🙂

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

      By the strict wording it’s a violation because they absolutely style themselves as princes to a throne in exile.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Do they need to be recognized by the US as a foreign prince for it to count?

        If not, could Will Smith “The Fresh Prince” grant a disqualifying title?

      • NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Interesting issue. Does their belief in their right to power control? There’s that crazy lady in Canada who calls herself the queen of Canada and issues edicts and whatever every now and then (somehow connected to qanon, I don’t remember the details). Could a US official accept a “title” bestowed by her, since she claims nobility and authority?

        My recollection on the emoluments issue was SCOTUS punted in the same way they did with respect to Trump’s ability to run for office after the insurrection - Congress must declare the violation, and the remedy is presumably impeachment. So the practical effect is zero, since Congress would never take this up, let alone impeach and remove. I’d love if Dems did though, it would be fun seeing Republicans defend their justice receiving nighthood from some weird ass secret society thing.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          That would be an issue for a court but it would be really hard to make the case that actual nobles bestowing actual titles in actual knight orders isn’t a violation.

          It would be an impeachment regardless because the remedy is to fire them and that’s how you fire a SCOTUS judge.

  • collapse_already@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 day ago

    If we are talking emoluments,I am less offended by Alito taking a title than Trump spending over $135M of taxpayer dollars on various trips to Trump hotels. Nothing ever came of that, so I bet we know what will happen here.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Trump spending over $135M of taxpayer dollars on various trips to Trump hotels

      He really took moves from United Russia playbook, didn’t he?

    • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days 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

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Lol what a shit flag. It looks like fucking clip art. Some of the most boomer-coded shit I have ever seen in my life.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      No, that’s actually extremely funny. Make them vote on whether or not he’s french nobility. I need more Looney Toons C-SPAN coverage.