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.
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.
Any other CK3 players eyebrows up in this thread?
Looks like I’m gonna have to start pumping out kids to secure those alliances.
HOI4 here wondering when the French heavy armor starts rolling…
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…
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 🙂
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.
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.
Sure but it’s the idea that counts.
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.
But my sealand title wiped my savings!
Run for president before the law catches up, its a sure to work.
Are you a US official, or just a dirty anti-American monarchist?
I just like spending money on obvious scams!
That’s fair
Seriously, they are just, literally, mentally ill people. It’s not more complex than that - look at his face. They have chemical imbalances that could be quickly and effectively addressed with commonly available medication (as millions of Americans take willingly each day). They’ve just made a religion out of refusing that treatment and living in their delusions. reagan emptied the mental hospitals and shut them down, the patients ran right into the gop’s tent and haven’t left since.
Antisocial personality disorders are notoriously hard to treat, and medications aren’t the first line of treatment
You’re focusing on semantics, replace "medicated work “treated by a professional” here if it helps you get the larger point?
I didn’t say APDs directly, while that would be low hanging fruit here, I wouldn’t be surprised if Alito and some of these people turned out to be borderline paranoid schizophrenics - They are taking “oaths” from “magical royal orders” and flying upside down flags with trees on them to signal pending widespread violence to their imagined allies, where Christians will literally eviscerate their perceived enemies with swords. All the while they are stock piling wrappings and terrified of a looming foreign threat that they are convinced will eat their house pets. All along the way, they all furiously reference (while rarely reading) an old book, written in a dead language, about magical talking bushes and men who can control the sea water with their minds and come back from the dead after having walked on water and spontaneously generated fish and wine.
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?
I’d certainly never accuse Reagan and a Bush of being Christo-fascist neocrusaders who innately hold anti-republican and anti-democratic ideals.
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 would find it uncompelling if this wasn’t one of 9 people we trust to actually enforce the Constitution, and it was just their religion. No he knew this was unconstitutional and sought it out anyways.
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.
The key point here is that it is grounds for impeachment by.
Or even just starting the proceedings. Their counter argument would have to be so detached from reality and would undermine the decades they’ve been forcing originalism down our throats.
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.
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.
The specific group that knighted him, the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George, is explicitly along Crusader lines.
https://realcasadiborbone.it/en/constantinian-order/
The Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George is an ancient and internationally recognised Order of Knighthood which, from its remotest origins, has resolved to work for the glorification of the Cross, the propagation of the Faith, and the defence of the Holy Roman Church, to which it is strictly bound through special merits acquired in the East, and for which manifold evidences of gratitude and benevolence have been expressed by successive Supreme Pontiffs of the Roman Catholic Church.
Alito knows.
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.
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.
This is not an honorary title. This is membership in the order, with duties and benefits. They gave him the highest rank you can get without noble blood. This is exactly what the Constitution bans.
Did you read what I wrote?
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.
I think it means titles of nobility from a state, no?
" . . . from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
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.
No, a citizen can accept a title. But they cannot hold a title and an office. However Prince Harry would have to give up his title to become an American citizen.
Also the OG document bans exactly what Alito did.
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?
Rules for thee and not for meeeee, wheeeee
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Yeah it’s kinda wild. Almost like thats a protected right or something. It’d be a shame if someone wanted to take it away.
