close
close

The Democrats’ Alito Freakout is a false flag to take down SCOTUS

First, it was Mrs. Alito’s daylong display of an upside-down American flag, which Democrats said prompted Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from the pending Supreme Court cases involving Jan. 6 suspects and Trump’s appeal of the presidential immunity. Less than a week later, Democrats pounced on the news that an Appeal to Heaven flag was hanging outside the Alitos’ beach house. It is clear that the conservative judiciary must now retreat from the high-profile cases, the corrupt media declared, following the lead of their Democratic friends.

On the contrary, there is no reason for Judge Alito to recant. And the one thing that is clear is how insane the efforts to attack the Supreme Court justice have become.

As I explained last week, based on my years of research into federal codes of conduct, Mrs. Alito’s flying of an upside-down American flag did not raise any ethical concerns for Judge Alito. The Code of Conduct for Judges (like the codes of conduct applicable to federal judges and judicial employees) does not apply to spouses, and a judge’s only obligation is to distance himself or herself from the political activities of his or her spouse. Judge Alito did so when the story broke and made it clear he had nothing to do with the flag.

Whether Justice or Mrs. Alito flew the Appeal to Heaven flag is currently unknown — but also completely irrelevant.

Despite the concerted efforts of politicians and the press to portray the flag as a symbol of “Stop the Steal,” aka January 6, 2021, there was nothing inherently political about displaying the “Appeal to Heaven” flag. The only thing intrinsically conveyed by the display of the flag, also known as the Pine Tree Flag, is “a patriotic message of democratic resilience….” That flag dates back to Revolutionary times, with “(the) first six schooners commissioned by the Continental Congress to intercept British ships entering Boston in October 1775,” flying the flag ordered by George Washington’s secretary.

While some January 6 protesters – like some Black Lives Matter protesters who took over the streets of DC a few months earlier – displayed the Pine Tree Flag, there is simply no reasonable basis to suggest that displaying an Appeal to Heaven flag represents support for a specific message, let alone one that created a conflict related to the January 6 appeal and presidential immunity.

The key word here is reasonableas the wording of Canon 3B(2) of the Supreme Court Code of Conduct provides that “(a) the judge must disqualify himself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might be affected. reasonable be questioned, that is to say, when an unbiased and reasonable person aware of all the relevant circumstances would doubt whether the judge could discharge his or her duties fairly.”

No reasonable person would doubt Judge Alito’s ability to fairly discharge his duties in deciding the cases at hand because of the flying of the pine flag at his beach house. Given the historical origins of the flag and the patriotic purpose that a display of the Appeal to Heaven flag may imply, an argument from bias requires one to assume that the banner meant something different and something specifically related to the January 6 protesters or Trump. But the Supreme Court’s ethical rules, specifically Canon 3B(1), provide that a justice is ‘presumed to be impartial’. So there is no reason for refusal – at least not reasonable An.

Democrats recognize this, just as they know their unjust media blitz will not lead to Alito’s denial. Unlike politicians who capitulate when confronted with false narratives to avoid a firestorm of bad press, that strategy fails when it targets the Supreme Court’s lifetime appointments—and that’s exactly why our founders protected it. laid down in Article III of the Constitution.

The contrived attacks on Judge Alito serve only one purpose: to delegitimize the Supreme Court and its forthcoming opinions. Apparently, for Democrats, questioning the integrity of our government is no longer a threat to democracy — but flying a Revolutionary War flag is.


Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst who serves as senior legal correspondent for The Federalist. Margot’s work has been published in The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business and Newsmax. Cleveland is an attorney and a graduate of Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize, the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time member of the University faculty and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. Cleveland is also an advisor to the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland, where you can read more about her greatest achievements: her dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in a personal capacity.

Back To Top