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.

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    53 minutes ago

    Holy shit, Alexander Hamilton called it “Royal Prostitution”. Sam Alito is a fuckin’ Hooker, y’all.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      49 minutes 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.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 hour 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
      1
      ·
      52 minutes 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.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Oh that’s fine, like if Trump had knighted him that’d be one thing, accepting Knighthood from Europe… totally different

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      51 minutes ago

      Doesn’t work either way.

      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.

  • collapse_already@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    5 hours 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
      ·
      2 hours 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?

  • darth_tiktaalik@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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…

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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!

  • diffusive@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 hours 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
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours 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.

      • NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours 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
          ·
          4 hours 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.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 hours 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?

    • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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?

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I’d certainly never accuse Reagan and a Bush of being Christo-fascist neocrusaders who innately hold anti-republican and anti-democratic ideals.

      • iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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.

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    115
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    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.

    • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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.

      • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        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.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      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.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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.

    • bluewing@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    16 hours 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.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      12 hours 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
      54
      ·
      19 hours 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.