Sorry, my friends, for flooding the zone- but it’s Alito-Time again.
Samuel Alito: America’s Worst Writer
How we treat other people is a measure of our progress as a society. We all know that.
It’s not really complicated.
Samuel Alito is a pretty bad writer. But I now believe he is the worst.
I’m just going to go ahead and say it.
Samuel Alito is the worst writer in America.
He takes the title from former champions like Ed Meese and William Bennett.
These are the leftover bigots of the era of Ronald Reagan, prurient purveyors of platitudes.
For these pontiffs, everything is wrong wrong wrong right from the start.
Anywho.
Here’s the good news. What follows is one of the most beautiful expressions of human concern and fairness I’ve ever heard. At least so far today.
The article states that “one potential juror said that while homosexuality is a sin, “you still have to love those people” and “you don’t have a right to judge them. Therefore, I think I could be a fair juror.”
Feel free to read that magnificent magnanimous statement again, if you wish. I agree, it’s so good.
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
Good.
See, Samuel Alito? It’s called not being a bigot!
It’s not easy, but it can be done.
Alito’s dissent, not worth considering. Unfortunately we have to .
Alto starts the same as before, in the hideous Dobbs Decision (which stripped human rights from the entire population) with the idea that rulings with which Alito disagrees are “patently false and dangerous.”
The word “patently” means “clearly, without doubt.”
The previous case- Roe- was also “egregious” right from the start. (Even if Judge Alito saw no real problem with it during the confirmation hearing for his nomination to the Court.)
In other words I’m right/ you’re wrong/ we’re done here.
So in the language of his opening thesis, the judge has conflated subjectivity with objectivity. Two different operations.
The judge feels the danger! He senses a wrong! He’s worried, perhaps a little scared. Spooked. He wants to defend someone from something.
It’s the old Slippery Slope again, with the vertigo. I wish I’d worn better shoes to Court today, he’s thinking.
Perhaps it’s a slight hangover.
He demonstrates an altruistic impulse, in an upside-down kind of backwards way. He’s in a mist, lost in a kind of a yucky gray fog of concern, that someone might be excluded from a jury just because they hold weird, inhumane beliefs with violent overtones.
He may benefit from a session of comedian/writer Dana Gould’s “You Say This/I Feel That” therapy. Bring a box of tissues. Clarence will mediate.
Ok.
After the opening slam, we get the ridiculous dunk, that “society is not heeding the admonition” of the Court.
Well, that’s very frustrating for you, Samuel Alito. Bad Society! Devil worshippers, from whom religious believers must “hide” their beliefs!
And yet the dominant culture is what Alito is concerned about, and I tell you that, from here on the ground, Judge, the dominant culture is not hiding the beliefs. (See the prurient purveyors of platitudes, above.)
“In this case, the court below reasoned that a person who still holds traditional religious views on questions of sexual morality is presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who is a lesbian. That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015), namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homo- sexual conduct will be “labeled as bigots and treated as such” by the government. Id., at 741 (dissenting opinion). The opinion of the Court in that case made it clear that the decision should not be used in that way, but I am afraid that this admonition is not being heeded by our society.”
-Alito
It’s hard to be ignored, to not be listened to, is it not? -to have one’s admonitions be unheeded.
It’s like the old spiritual the justices sing around the Walmart lot of an evening outside the trailer:
“Will our admonitions
be unheeded
by and by Lord
by and by
there’s a finer
ad-mo-nition
in the sky Lord
in the sky”
Tissue, judge?
Beneath the concern is the impatience. The rage. It is taking far too long to establish the just society for the Few. How long, Lord?
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article285747461.html
***
https://youtu.be/Psa2ir_j9m4?si=nWFYOqMTuJ4JjXbN
***
The value of your vote to the fate of the country just skyrocketed.
Votes matter. We have enough information to change everything in November.
We can do what the Supreme Court refuses to do. We don’t need them.
Hear ye.
Supreme Court just did a “Comey” before the election.
Maybe he does have non-existent absolute Presidential immunity.
By “non-existent” I mean criminal immunity that isn’t in the Constitution of the United States anywhere textually, or in the nation’s political history, or of any long-standing tradition, or anywhere in the minds of the framers or the intent as demonstrated in the ratification process of the constitution nor from any legal precedent whatsoever.
Those were the lofty guidelines the Court set forth last time.
But maybe. Maybe. Maybe there’s something there: perhaps a touch of monarchy the framers overlooked. Perhaps they were missing old King George the Third, recently deposed. Maybe a few conflicts of interest, dark money, foreign interference, extortion are in the constitutional scheme after all.
His own lawyers did not believe there was any such thing as absolute Presidential immunity when they freaked out in the days before Jan 6 2020 in the White House meetings when it was obvious to them that they were about to embark on criminality, considering seizing voting machines and declaring martial law and intimidating poll workers and interrupting the mails and threatening state election officials and otherwise abusing the power of the presidency.
(This is around the time Ginny Thomas texted Mark Meadows, “Do not concede,” she wrote. “It takes time for the army who is gathering for his back.”)
He didn’t have it then, absolute immunity, at the Oval meetings with the conspirators. Not one person believed he had absolute immunity in Dec 2020, when it all went down. And those were his friends. The fellow crimesters. The White House counsel. Even the promoters of the scheme to overturn the certified election knew the ice was thin thin thin, legally.
No, what the conspirators- including members of Congress- asked him for was pardons, including accepting an imputation of guilt for criminal acts.
They hoped he would prevail, remain in power and grant everyone a pardon and punish the liberals and throw THEM in prison. The people he robbed and maligned and targeted for violence every time he spoke.
And of course we all saw his legal counsel defend him at the J6 Impeachment, claiming he had zero immunity and should be held accountable in court for his crimes! No such thing as immunity back then.
But this is the Supreme Court. Maybe they just forgot to grant George Washington absolute criminal immunity and why have two other branches of power anyway?
We are going to go back to the polls in November and we will be heard and understood. Loud and clear.
jameskoehnsf's Blog 