Biden unveils radical plan to overhaul Supreme Court — but one major question throws a wrench in his narrative

[Lukaris]

Hey look - poisoning the well.

Hey look, we have to maintain a monopoly of spin to keep a non issue as a major issue as valuable propaganda for reform to a supreme kangaroo court.

 

[Lukaris]

Well, if they had also flown the US flag upside down as Alito also did then I'd be suspicious. But Alito said his wife flew it because of an argument with a neighbour, not because of any connection to revolutionary patriotism. Now why that would need to be done because of a dispute wasn't at all clear. But what was clear was that he flew the same flag at a beach house he also owns he owns.

'The flag was confirmed to have flown over Alito’s beach house in July and September 2023'. Alito Ethics Defense Blown Up by Second Insurrectionist Flag

Hey, maybe the neighbour at the one property also bought an adjoining house at the second property. And maybe Alito wasn't aware that it's now being used By Jan 6 supporters. And maybe we can blame his wife for it. And perhaps he can't tell up from down when hoisting his nation's flag. And maybe if you try really hard then you can excuse all this. But then I have an offer on a nice bridge in which you might be interested.

The “Appeal to Heaven” pine tree flag was seen by millions of people on the 2008 HBO: John Adams ( played by Paul Giamatti) miniseries. All of a sudden it’s a symbol of “extremism” and must be for propaganda reasons.

x.com

x.com

 

[Bradskii]

The “Appeal to Heaven” pine tree flag was seen by millions of people on the 2008 HBO: John Adams ( played by Paul Giamatti) miniseries. All of a sudden it’s a symbol of “extremism” and must be for propaganda reasons.

Alito didn't claim it was for any patriotic position he held. It was because of a dispute with a neighbour. So was he having two disputes with two different neighbours at two different properties?

That bridge is still for sale. Do you want I should send you some pictures?

 

[Servus]

Wow, this Chuck Grassley guy is 90 years old.

He's been an Iowa senator since 1981.

 

[Offline4Better.]

He's been an Iowa senator since 1981.

Whew, that is way too long. Nearly 2x my lifetime.

 

[JSRG]

Well, if they had also flown the US flag upside down as Alito also did then I'd be suspicious. But Alito said his wife flew it because of an argument with a neighbour, not because of any connection to revolutionary patriotism. Now why that would need to be done because of a dispute wasn't at all clear. But what was clear was that he flew the same flag at a beach house he also owns he owns.

'The flag was confirmed to have flown over Alito’s beach house in July and September 2023'. Alito Ethics Defense Blown Up by Second Insurrectionist Flag

Except Alito didn't fly "the same flag" at another house. It was a different flag being flown there. Your own article says this. It claims "Now, the New York Times reports that Alito flew another flag associated with Trump’s insurrection, the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which was carried by insurrectionists on January 6." The first flag (the one his wife flew during the dispute with the neighbor) was an upside-down flag, whereas this other flag was the Appeal to Heaven or Pine Tree Flag.

Now, the article tries to still find this as some kind of evidence on the grounds that it claims it was "associated with Trump's insurrection", which I think is still weak. Both of these flags had long histories prior to any connection to January 6 and even their January 6 connection is rather tenuous (it feels like they only suddenly became symbols of the event when it was an occasion to attack Alito with). The San Francisco City Hall flew the PIne Tree Flag for decades in a group of flags, even for years after January 6 (if this was such a strong symbol of January 6, do you think the government of San Francisco--which is entirely Democrats--would keep it up?), only taking it down in 2024 because of all the attacks on Alito. Heck, Black Lives Matter of all things used the Pine Tree Flag (admittedly, several months prior to January 6).

 

[Servus]

Whew, that is way too long. Nearly 2x my lifetime.

You just made me feel really old

 

[Offline4Better.]

You just made me feel really old

Haha, yeah. I am 24, so a young man here (with an old soul). Anyways, right now I have to leave this thread, and begin focusing all of my energy fighting the horrible stuff that happened at Olympics in my Olympics thread.

 

[Bradskii]

Except Alito didn't fly "the same flag" at another house. It was a different flag being flown there. Your own article says this. It claims "Now, the New York Times reports that Alito flew another flag associated with Trump’s insurrection, the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which was carried by insurrectionists on January 6." The first flag (the one his wife flew during the dispute with the neighbor) was an upside-down flag, whereas this other flag was the Appeal to Heaven or Pine Tree Flag.

He flew the Pine Tree flag at both properties. You should look into this a little further yourself. I'm not prepared to spend any more time telling you what you should already know if you want to argue for Alito.

 

[JSRG]

He flew the Pine Tree flag at both properties. You should look into this a little further yourself. I'm not prepared to spend any more time telling you what you should already know if you want to argue for Alito.

I have looked again at multiple articles about it, but have not found any, even those criticizing him, saying the Pine Tree Flag in both locations. They all say the upside-down flag was at one location and the Pine Tree Flag was at another. It is certainly possible that there was at some point the Pine Tree Flag at the location where the upside-down flag was flown (his wife apparently is big into flags and thus could have flown it), but if so I can't find articles saying it.

However, even if what you were trying to say was that the Pine Tree Flag was flown at both locations, that isn't what you said, or at least how someone would interpret your message. Here's what you said, with some bolding added by me:

Well, if they had also flown the US flag upside down as Alito also did then I'd be suspicious. But Alito said his wife flew it because of an argument with a neighbour, not because of any connection to revolutionary patriotism. Now why that would need to be done because of a dispute wasn't at all clear. But what was clear was that he flew the same flag at a beach house he also owns he owns.

You mention the upside down flag, and that Alito said his wife flew it (the upside-down flag) because of an argument with a neighbor. Good so far; this is accurate. Then you, without referring to any other flag in the meantime, say "he flew the same flag" at the beach house. Given no indication you are talking about a different flag, the natural interpretation is you are referring to the same flag you just did, and that you were saying that he flew the upside-down flag at both locations, which is not the case and is not what your article said.

You then went on to say (in a part of the post I didn't quote because it wasn't important at the time, but becomes relevant now):

Hey, maybe the neighbour at the one property also bought an adjoining house at the second property. And maybe Alito wasn't aware that it's now being used By Jan 6 supporters. And maybe we can blame his wife for it. And perhaps he can't tell up from down when hoisting his nation's flag. And maybe if you try really hard then you can excuse all this. But then I have an offer on a nice bridge in which you might be interested.

This only reinforces the interpretation I took of your post! The upside-down flag was flown because of the dispute. But your sarcastic claim wondering about whether they had a dispute with the neighbors at the other location only makes sense if they flew the upside-down flag at the other location, because that was the flag that was flown due to the dispute. Even if the Pine Tree Flag was at both locations, then your argument doesn't matter because the Pine Tree Flag had nothing to do with any neighbor dispute to begin with as far as I am aware.

Maybe you just phrased thing poorly. That by itself is fine (everyone phrases things poorly sometimes) but don't get upset with me for misunderstanding your point when I think just about anyone would logically assume based on your wording that you were asserting the upside-down flag was flown at both locations, unless there was some important context I was missing.

 

[Bradskii]

I have looked again at multiple articles about it...

Then you should have come to the same conclusion as I did. It's instructive that you didn't.

 

[JSRG]

Then you should have come to the same conclusion as I did. It's instructive that you didn't.

How? As I just said, none of them said that the Pine Tree Flag was flown in both locations, which seems to be your claim now (before it looked like you were saying that the upside-down flag was in both). So I'm supposed to come to the conclusion that the Pine Tree Flag was in both locations despite the fact I didn't find anyone saying it was?

But even if the Pine Tree Flag was in both locations, it doesn't matter for the purposes of my original reply. Your post's argument rested on the idea that the upside-down flag was in both locations, because that was the one put up specifically due to the argument. So if you weren't saying the upside-down flag was in both locations, but were rather saying that the Pine Tree Flag was in both locations, then you expressed yourself very poorly, but more importantly it means your sarcastic statement about how the neighbors were uppity in the other location doesn't make any sense.

At this point, I'm having trouble even figuring out what your point is. Because what seemed to be your original claim (the upside-down flag was flown in both locations) would have backed up your argument, but it has the problem that it's not true. What seems to be your claim now (the Pine Tree Flag was flown in both locations, which again I can't find evidence for but I could see being true) has the problem that it doesn't back up your argument. And now you're apparently telling me that by reading articles that don't say the Pine Tree Flag was at both houses, I should have come to the same conclusion as you that the Pine Tree Flag was at both houses? It would be very helpful if you were to better explain what you're trying to say (and offer some evidence on the "Pine Tree Flag at both locations" thing, because I've been unable to find it--admittedly, it's a tricky thing to search for, but looking up articles on Alito and flags doesn't seem to turn it up, though I could be using the wrong keywords)

 

[Bradskii]

How? As I just said, none of them said that the Pine Tree Flag was flown in both locations...

My apologies. The Pine tree flag wasn't flown at both properties. I was wrong to suggest that it was. You can make your own decision about it being flown at his beach side property and the fact that the American flag was flown upside down. At the very best it was a dumb thing to do considering his position.

 

[JSRG]

My apologies. The Pine tree flag wasn't flown at both properties. I was wrong to suggest that it was. You can make your own decision about it being flown at his beach side property and the fact that the American flag was flown upside down. At the very best it was a dumb thing to do considering his position.

Okay, now things make more sense. Thank you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Okay, now things make more sense. Thank you.

Following events from across the pond, it seems that the flag-flying became a bigger issue because Alito's explanation (excuse?) appeared disingenuous, and - last I heard - locals said the flag had been flying before the argument with the neighbour, which would make his explanation false...

 

[KCfromNC]

Hey look, we have to maintain a monopoly of spin to keep a non issue as a major issue as valuable propaganda for reform to a supreme kangaroo court.

Making more false personal attacks in response to a post pointing out false personal attacks isn't really helping your case.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They already clearly are. That Clarence fellow has been shown accepting ‘gifts’ for decades.

They all did. You only heard about Thomas because the left hates him.

And no...they aren't as susceptible to lobbyists. There's no guarantee a lobbyist would even have his case heard by the SCOTUS....you'd need to bribe all of them.

With term limits they would be able to receive ‘gifts’ for a limited period of time.

And since they wouldn't want to have to work after that time....they'd essentially be selling rulings.

Term limits are a fundamentally dumb idea all around. They don't give the people any leverage and maximize the motivation to accept bribes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Term limits don't even address the problem people want to address.

If a legislator or president were excellent, constantly making great decisions, get legislation passed that improved lives and institutions... .I'd argue that no one would want term limits nor care about the great wealth they might accumulate.

We would continue to vote the same people in....election after election. They aren't exceptional though...in fact, they stink.

They don't pass good laws, nor improve the state of living nor institutions.

That's the problem. Term limits simply remove one bad legislator and replace them with another. You would have to understand why they aren't doing what they definitely should do to understand what the problem is...and then how to fix it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The only way to fix that "shenanigan" would be to take the power to confirm from the Senate, as that is body that "misbehaved" in that case.

I fail to see the problem with the Court to begin with.

Anyone care to explain it?

 

[Richard T]

He was and is too old.

It's not just a matter of whether a person can still get out of bed and remain erect for the day.

It's also a matter of how long ago his perspective became fixed....and virtually everyone's perspective becomes fixed at some point in their lives. The percentage of people who can mentally pivot to a new perspective at age 70 is very small. Some of us realize we can't mentally pivot (which is at least something), but most of us old folk simply don't see a need ever to pivot even when a changed situation is staring us in the face.

I'm continually flabbergasted, for instance, by the high percentage of fellow Boomers who refuse to acknowledge that the economic situation for their own children and grandchildren is different (read: worse) than it was for us at their ages, and that doing the same things we did won't work for them. And this is even true among Boomers who are still supporting their own children and grandchildren. I ask them incredulously, "Why do you think your Millennial child is still living with you?" I may be too old to change my perspective, but at least I realize there needs to be a new perspective.

Most old people don't change their perspective, a fact of life, and that's as true for Congresscritters as it is for the elderly population overall. They may still run adequately in their same old ruts...but they can't climb out of their ruts when it's time to take a different road.

Here is a nice paper on political attitudes over different ages. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Lackey, Sara Spring 2015.pdf
Typically, it is still taught that the biggest factor influencing political socialization (includes ideology) is the family but media, church, education and peers also have influence. The core is set before college age, and though there is drifting towards liberal as a young adult, if the family is conservative it is likely that the person will circle back as they are older. Still, older people can be wise. Notice in the paper that their trust in government goes down with age for many. I have not studied this much but seniors after retirement have far different needs than adults who are working.