Samuel Alito Goes Full Political Commentator In Federalist Society Speech

[DBA]

What I want is a non-political SCOTUS.

There has never been such a thing

Maybe so, but what I want is a non-radical SCOTUS. What we have now is a rabidly RADICAL SCOTUS. Alito is just further proof of that fact.

That is not what you want. You want a radical left court.

 

[DBA]

Most Americans are okay with gay marriage.

Actually, this is not true. The entire reason it was taken to the Supreme Court was because they couldn't win enough votes in the states, even in California.

 

[bendog]

The conservative justice criticized science-backed COVID-19 restrictions and condemned the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito gave alarmingly political remarks on Thursday, criticizing many states’ science-based COVID-19 restrictions and condemning the high court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

The justice, whose job is to not appear partisan, delivered the keynote speech at this year’s Federalist Society convention. The Federalist Society is the conservative legal organization that has chosen and helped confirm all three of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominees ― Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett ― and nearly all of his 53 appeals court judges.

In his speech, Alito ripped governors for issuing “sweeping restrictions” in response to COVID-19, which is surging in nearly every state in the union.

“We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020,” Alito said, mentioning the lack of live events, in-person religious services and court trials.

The justice said that the pandemic “has highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck.”

Alito’s politicization of scientific fact is alarming as the United States enters a dark winter of soaring coronavirus cases and hospitalizations ― and comes after Coney Barrett said during her Senate confirmation hearing that the climate crisis, another scientific fact, was “a very contentious matter of public debate” and “politically controversial.”

In addition to his anti-science tirade, Alito condemned the landmark same-sex marriage decision Obergefell v. Hodges, saying it has led to censorship of people who believe is “a union of one man and one woman.” He suggested it meant that freedom of speech is “falling out of favor in some circles.”

More at the link below...

Samuel Alito Goes Full Political Commentator In Federalist Society Speech

The conservative justice criticized science-backed COVID-19 restrictions and condemned the Supreme Court's 2015 decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

www.huffpost.com

I find this bizarre for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice! What do you think?

We shudda confirmed Harriet Miers even she couldn't tell habeas corpus from a knitting pattern

 

[sealybobo]

Most Americans are okay with gay marriage.

Actually, this is not true. The entire reason it was taken to the Supreme Court was because they couldn't win enough votes in the states, even in California.

Today most people understand they aren't hurting you and they deserve the same rights as hetero couples.

And the court didn't lean left when it was decided. A couple of conservative Supreme's voted that gay marriage should be allowed. Small win for us liberals. BFD. They give us some things on social issues but always side with corporations over workers and real people.

 

[sealybobo]

What I want is a non-political SCOTUS.

There has never been such a thing

Maybe so, but what I want is a non-radical SCOTUS. What we have now is a rabidly RADICAL SCOTUS. Alito is just further proof of that fact.

That is not what you want. You want a radical left court.

Pro abortion, doesn't ALWAYS side with corporations, pro gay, pro healthcare for all, pro science.

This is why Republicans should never be in charge. They should not be allowed to appoint people from this Federalist society.

Is there a Liberal Society group we know about secretly pulling Democrats strings like we have with the Federalist Society?

 

[DBA]

Most Americans are okay with gay marriage.

Actually, this is not true. The entire reason it was taken to the Supreme Court was because they couldn't win enough votes in the states, even in California.

Today most people understand they aren't hurting you and they deserve the same rights as hetero couples.

And the court didn't lean left when it was decided. A couple of conservative Supreme's voted that gay marriage should be allowed. Small win for us liberals. BFD. They give us some things on social issues but always side with corporations over workers and real people.

The point is the majority of people in the country do not agree with gay marriage. If we voted on it, I can assure you it would not pass. It didn't even pass in CA.

The point about the conservative supreme court justices is valid. They are not ideologues. When is the last time one or two liberal judges broke from the pack and voted with the Republicans?

 

[DBA]

What I want is a non-political SCOTUS.

There has never been such a thing

Maybe so, but what I want is a non-radical SCOTUS. What we have now is a rabidly RADICAL SCOTUS. Alito is just further proof of that fact.

That is not what you want. You want a radical left court.

Pro abortion, doesn't ALWAYS side with corporations, pro gay, pro healthcare for all, pro science.

This is why Republicans should never be in charge. They should not be allowed to appoint people from this Federalist society.

Is there a Liberal Society group we know about secretly pulling Democrats strings like we have with the Federalist Society?

Liberals are ideologues. The judges are no different. They would wipe their butts with the Constitution if it meant upholding their ideology. Indoctrination is a very strong thing.

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't get you in one thread you want open borders but in the next OP you want closed borders..


So confusing

What I want is a non-political SCOTUS.

So you must of hated Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

What you hate is people that don't have the same political ideology as you. It is easy to see through your fake outrage.

 

[Papageorgio]

The conservative justice criticized science-backed COVID-19 restrictions and condemned the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito gave alarmingly political remarks on Thursday, criticizing many states’ science-based COVID-19 restrictions and condemning the high court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

The justice, whose job is to not appear partisan, delivered the keynote speech at this year’s Federalist Society convention. The Federalist Society is the conservative legal organization that has chosen and helped confirm all three of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominees ― Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett ― and nearly all of his 53 appeals court judges.

In his speech, Alito ripped governors for issuing “sweeping restrictions” in response to COVID-19, which is surging in nearly every state in the union.

“We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020,” Alito said, mentioning the lack of live events, in-person religious services and court trials.

The justice said that the pandemic “has highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck.”

Alito’s politicization of scientific fact is alarming as the United States enters a dark winter of soaring coronavirus cases and hospitalizations ― and comes after Coney Barrett said during her Senate confirmation hearing that the climate crisis, another scientific fact, was “a very contentious matter of public debate” and “politically controversial.”

In addition to his anti-science tirade, Alito condemned the landmark same-sex marriage decision Obergefell v. Hodges, saying it has led to censorship of people who believe is “a union of one man and one woman.” He suggested it meant that freedom of speech is “falling out of favor in some circles.”

More at the link below...

Samuel Alito Goes Full Political Commentator In Federalist Society Speech

The conservative justice criticized science-backed COVID-19 restrictions and condemned the Supreme Court's 2015 decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

www.huffpost.com

I find this bizarre for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice! What do you think?

It's not bizarre for a rightwing ideologue hostile to facts, science, and the truth.

Like life begins at conception? Scientific fact. Like there are only two sexes male and female and not 30 plus, or that having surgery doesn't change the sex you were born? You mean those facts?

The truth is you only want to believe the science you want to believe and nothing that challenges your ideas.
Again, you are transparent.

 

[Lakhota]

ALITO UNBOUND: PARTISAN SCREED IN FRONT OF FEDERALIST SOCIETY

Alito is a radical partisan. He even looks radical.

 

[bendog]

Most Americans are okay with gay marriage.

Actually, this is not true. The entire reason it was taken to the Supreme Court was because they couldn't win enough votes in the states, even in California.

Today most people understand they aren't hurting you and they deserve the same rights as hetero couples.

And the court didn't lean left when it was decided. A couple of conservative Supreme's voted that gay marriage should be allowed. Small win for us liberals. BFD. They give us some things on social issues but always side with corporations over workers and real people.

Well the Court did two things in two separate opinions. First is said the equal protection clause forbid the govt from denying a same sex union recognized by a state from denying econ benefits to same sex partners that hetero partners got. I don't see how that's even objectionable even if you don't like same sex couples. It's discrimination. People can dislike Muslims or even mixed race marriage, but …. nobody's forcing anybody to do anything.

There is a real concern that the Barrett Court will now say gays can't adopt or at least the BigJesus private child welfare orgaziation can do a state govt duty like adoption but not let gays adopt just cause they're gays. But that's a future concern.

The second thing the Court did was say States had to let people enter into same sex unions in every state. THAT's more controversial. Marriage had not been federally regulated. Even Divorce was finally recognized in all states because …. there were so damn may divorced people. It was chaos. LOL

 

[BS Filter]

He's right. The USSC had no business with queer marriage. Marriage laws are a state issue.

I don't get you in one thread you want open borders but in the next OP you want closed borders..


So confusing

What I want is a non-political SCOTUS.

Yet liberals want to pack the courts. Do you expect us to believe they would only nominate moderates?

Well, Sparky, sometimes you just have to fight fire with fire. BTW, Trump and Mitch have been the ones packing the courts.

Your post reveals you're just another ignorant propaganda parrot. There were three vacancies and they were filled. That's not packing the court. Idiot.

 

[DrLove]

I think this is behavior unbecoming of a Supreme Court Justice.
RBG apologized after she was critical of Donald.
Will Sam be a man and do the same?

 

[bendog]

I think this is behavior unbecoming of a Supreme Court Justice.
RBG apologized after she was critical of Donald.
Will Sam be a man and do the same?

No, he will not be.

Alito finds religious freedom is infringed (frustrated) when a private, religiously identified private adoption agency is told that it has to treat gay married couples seeking to adopt equally with hetero married couples. Nobody really cares what Xians do or don't except that regulating adoptions is state power … it's the gummit. What happens when a Xian (or Muslim) congregation gets govt grant to do job training? Can they only job train fellow travelers?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I don't get you in one thread you want open borders but in the next OP you want closed borders..


So confusing

What I want is a non-political SCOTUS.

But you want to pack the court.

 

[BS Filter]

I think this is behavior unbecoming of a Supreme Court Justice.
RBG apologized after she was critical of Donald.
Will Sam be a man and do the same?

Alito is referring to a Constitutional right. Not the same thing.

 

[Zorro!]

View attachment 415609

ALITO UNBOUND: PARTISAN SCREED IN FRONT OF FEDERALIST SOCIETY

Alito is a radical partisan. He even looks radical.

Fake News. He is a Constitutionalist. The Left pretends our divisions are racial, when they are actually class. Middle/Working Class, Religious, Rural vs Wealthy, Urban, Secular Elitists.

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Religious Freedom, Free Speech Are Under Assault in the COVID Constitutional Stress-Test, Alito Warns.

Freedom of Speech = Freedom of Thought

Alito: 'You Can't Say That Marriage Is a Union Between One Man and One Woman' in America Today.

“The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty,” Alito said. “we have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive, and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020.”

TRUE

Alito mentioned many “live events that would otherwise be protected by the right to freedom of speech” that state and local governments have prohibited, including the fact that churches were closed on Easter Sunday by government fiat.

“The COVID crisis has highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck,” the justice argued.

Alito highlighted “the dominance of lawmaking by executive fiat rather than legislation.” He rightly traced this idea back to “the vision of early twentieth-century progressives and the New Dealers of the 1930s.”

Yet the Supreme Court has a duty to step in “whenever fundamental rights are restricted.”

 

[Zorro!]

Along those lines, Alito warned that religious freedom has grown increasingly out of favor.

“In certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.” He briefly mentioned the Supreme Court case Employment Division v. Smith and Congress’s passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The House of Representatives unanimously passed the bill, while the Senate passed it, 97-3. President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

“Today, that widespread support has vanished. When states have considered or gone ahead and adopted their own versions of RFRA, they have been threatened with punishing economic boycotts,” Alito said.

He also briefly covered recent Supreme Court cases illustrating the threat to religious freedom.

Alito mentioned the Little Sisters of the Poor, “women who have dedicated their lives to caring for the elderly poor, regardless of religion.” Some of their beneficiaries have testified that the Little Sisters “will keep you alive for ten years longer.”

“Despite this inspiring work, the Little Sisters have been under unrelenting attack for the better part of a decade. Why? Because they refuse to allow their health insurance plan to provide contraceptives to their employees. For that, they were targeted by the prior administration.”

The Obama administration threatened the Little Sisters with hefty fines “if they did not knuckle under and violate a tenet of their faith.” While the group of nuns won a Supreme Court case last spring, the case went back to the Court of Appeals. President Donald Trump created a religious freedom exemption in the contraception mandate, but Joe Biden has pledged to drop that exemption.

The State of Washington required pharmacies to carry abortifacients. The Christian pharmacy Ralph’s refused to carry that abortifacient pill, but it gladly referred women to nearby pharmacies that did carry it. The state decided that this work-around was not enough.

 

[Zorro!]

Alito also mentioned Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop who refused to hand decorate a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. He cited a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who said that freedom of religion had been used “to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination.”

“For many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom, it cannot be tolerated,” Alito warned.

He mentioned that not a single employee of the Little Sisters has asked for contraception, no woman lacks contraception because of Ralph’s, and no same-sex couple has failed to get a cake because of Jack Phillips.

“A great many Americans disagree with the religious beliefs of the Little Sisters, the owners of Ralph’s, and Jack Phillips. They have a perfect right to do so. That is not the question. The question we face is whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate people with unpopular religious beliefs,” the justice noted.

Alito cited Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet, who notoriously wrote, “The culture wars are over. They lost, we won.” Terrifyingly, the radical professor compared social conservatives to the defeated Axis powers in World War II.

“My own judgment is that taking a hard line (‘You lost, live with it’) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all,” he argued. “Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.)”

This hostility to traditional religion has bled into COVID-19 restrictions.

Alito referenced a Supreme Court decision on Nevada’s restrictions upholding the state’s double standard on casinos and houses of worship. The governor opened casinos — some of which are truly humongous — at 50 percent capacity while restricting religious services to 50 people or fewer. “If you want to worship and you’re the 51st person in line, sorry, you are out of luck. The size of the building doesn’t matter, nor does it matter if you wear a mask or stay 6 feet apart.”

“The state’s message is this: forget about worship and head for the slot machines or maybe a Cirque de Soleil show,” Alito said.

“Take a quick look at the Constitution. You will see the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment which protects religious liberty. You will not find a craps clause, or a blackjack clause, or a slot machine clause,” the justice quipped. “Nevada was unable to provide any plausible justification for treating casinos more favorably than houses of worship, but the Court nevertheless deferred to the governor’s judgment, which just so happened to favor the state’s biggest industry and the many voters it employs.”

 

[Zorro!]

The justice contrasted this blatant discrimination against religious freedom with a Maryland district judge’s decision to strike down an FDA rule providing that women who want medication abortions must go to a clinic in-person to access them. The judge struck down this rule in the name of protecting women from COVID-19, even though Gov. Larry Hogan (R-Md.) had allowed people to go to gyms, casinos, and hair and nail salons in a limited reopening at the time.

Alito also warned that “support for freedom of speech is also in danger and COVID rules have restricted speech in unprecedented ways.”

While coronavirus lockdowns have shut down attendance at speeches, conferences, lectures, rallies, and more, “even before the pandemic, there was growing hostility to the expression of unfavorable views.”

Alito quipped that there are “seventy times seven” things that Americans cannot say if they are students or professors at a college or university, or employees speaking for a corporation.

“You can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Until very recently, that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now, it’s considered bigotry,” he warned.

“That this would happen after our decision in Obergefell [the 2015 case striking down state laws on marriage] should not have come as a surprise. Yes, the opinion of the Court included words meant to calm the fears of those who cling to traditional views on marriage. But I could see, and so did the other justices in dissent, where the decision would lead,” Alito warned.

He quoted his own dissent in the case, “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes. But if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and being treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

“That is just what is coming to pass,” the justice lamented. Indeed, in one recent case, the Kroger Company fired two women in Little Rock, Ark., who refused to wear a rainbow-colored heart emblem on an apron because they did not want to endorse LGBT activism.

Religious freedom and free speech are indeed under assault in America today, and even if the coronavirus pandemic fades away tomorrow, these threats to fundamental rights will persist.

Timely warnings. I dare the Left-Wing Book Burners Speech and Thought Policers to try to cancel a Justice of The Supreme Court.
.