this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
850 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4170 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 119 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (8 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So, he’s either a dumb azz or he is lying?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 days ago (1 children)

He's lying. He's a traitorous piece of shit who should be executed thusly.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I hear Tar and Feathering traitors was all the rage back in the founding father days.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 117 points 3 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 58 points 3 days ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago

The Australian woman who married into the Danish royal family had to renounce her Australian citizenship, so that would be fair enough.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 days 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...

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Don't worry, just get rich enough to not have the law apply.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

But my sealand title wiped my savings!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago

Run for president before the law catches up, its a sure to work.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Are you a US official, or just a dirty anti-American monarchist?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I just like spending money on obvious scams!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 3 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.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 3 days ago (13 children)

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!

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

Holy shit, Alexander Hamilton called it "Royal Prostitution". Sam Alito is a fuckin' Hooker, y'all.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 days ago (2 children)

can he be kicked out for it though?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

With a 50% vote in the house and a 66% vote in the senate

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

without Consent of the Congress. theres his out.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago

Rules for thee and not for meeeee, wheeeee

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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 🙂

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

Sure but it's the idea that counts.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

I’ll wait for his interpretation of the wording to know whether or not it’s unconstitutional

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Any other CK3 players eyebrows up in this thread?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (4 children)

HOI4 here wondering when the French heavy armor starts rolling...

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RVGamer06 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

This title, from the House of Bourbon–Two Sicilies

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

[–] greenshirtdenimjeans 23 points 3 days ago

Not quite but they did sober up and stopped seeing double.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›