Rolling Stone is reporting that Sam Alito has said the quiet part out loud.
Justice Samuel Alito spoke candidly about the ideological battle between the left and the right — discussing the difficulty of living “peacefully” with ideological opponents in the face of “fundamental” differences that “can’t be compromised.” He endorsed what his interlocutor described as a necessary fight to “return our country to a place of godliness.” And Alito offered a blunt assessment of how America’s polarization will ultimately be resolved: “One side or the other is going to win.”
Alito made these remarks in conversation at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner on June 3, a function that is known to right-wing activists as an opportunity to buttonhole Supreme Court justices. His comments were recorded by Lauren Windsor, a liberal documentary filmmaker. Windsor attended the dinner as a dues-paying member of the society under her real name, along with a colleague. She asked questions of the justice as though she were a religious conservative.
It should be noted that Lauren Windsor did ask some leading questions, but Alito didn’t hesitate to take the bait. What’s sad is that the “Christians” who want Christianity nationalized (I don’t think Jesus would approve) imagine they are under threat from liberals. But speaking as a liberal I am happy to let them be as rightie-religious as they wannabe. I have absolutely no desire to interfere with their religious beliefs and practices in any way. They just can’t force their beliefs and practices on anyone else. In insisting they and they alone can set policy for the U.S., they have made themselves a threat to the freedom of everyone else. If they want a war they’re going to get one, but they started it. And it’s entirely unnecessary. And anyone who thinks like Alito absolutely should not be on the Supreme Court.
In other news: Trump is scheduled to have his probation interview today, and apparently he’s going through with it. He’s not in New York City, though. He’s being interviewed remotely from Mar-a-Lago. This means he gets to skip the blood test part, I take it. Otherwise I don’t care. I’m fine with him being someplace other than New York. Sorry about that, Florida.
Sure: A properly defined deity might be a good mission, but the monotheists are failing to define a working deity that understands the creation we are dealing with …and the rules he/she may have created. Now all they are good at is making rubble, death, distress, chaos, and the like.
As a wise man said to me recently at least the Pagan Greek gods did the fighting, sparing innocent civilians. The way any adorable deity needs to act. Not the Alito one.
"Hello, I am God. I can do everything and I know everything. I am testing you all the time to see what you will do, although I already know in advance what you will do. Also, although I created you and I know what you will do, I will still punish you for what you will do. Although it is all my plan."
I heard the actual tape this afternoon. The source also played a clip of the same person springing the same line of questioning to Roberts, who passed. I'm not saying with flying colors but Roberts understood that the USSC is there to arbitrate the law, not promote Catholic doctrine. In baiting Alito, the person did play the "C" card and Alito came up like a fish
Will it change anything? No, but it confirms the religious bias some court members are taking into deliberations. I was convinced before, now I have a transcript that confirms it. Most US citizens are lacking in the basic appreciation of Civics, that I got plenty of in (no joke) Catholic school.
Regarding Trump's interview today. We don't know who said what. If I was Trump's lawyer (don't laugh) I'd have tried to take the questions for Trump. If I was the Probation Officer (equally unlikely) I'd demand the lawyer let Trump answer all the questions, intervening only to advise when necessary, and in earshot of the PO. Because the lawyer usually isn't there.
There's a full month between the interview today and sentencing. Suppose the lawyer convinced Trump to assume responsibility and accept his guilt. That would be so the PO can check those boxes on a form. Great! (I've been through federal probation, which seems to work the same as NY state.) The interview is only the beginning. The PO can (and does) confirm that what they got from the convicted felon is the same as in reality. In my case there was a LOT of stuff that the judge got either from Probation or from her own staff. The judge knew stuff from my Navy records going back to the '70s, stuff the prosecutor never brought up (and probably would have.) And the Probation Officer could get dinged on this if he/she does a sloppy job – so it will get extra attention.
Which leads to an opinion – everything Trump says in public about the trial, conviction, judge, jury, prosecutor, and everything else will be compared to what Trump testified to (I suspect under oath) to the Probation officer. This is a consistent source of problems for Trump's legal team. If they CAN get Trump to be good for a moment, it only lasts for a moment. Trump reverts to brag and bluster totally removed from discression and truth as soon as Trump sees a camera. So if Trump aced his interview today (unlikely), the lifeline of that virtuous testimony becomes a hangman's noose if Trump goes off script at a rally (as he did in NV when the teleprompter went out) and improv Trump goes after everybody and contradicts what he said this morning. It will all be there in black and white for the judge to consider on the 11th of July.
Yesterday, Hannity suggested that Trump should back out of the debate this month and "reschedule" after he's nominated. Obviously the reschedule is nonsense you can file with Trump releasing his tax returns along with the comprehensive health care plan he's promised for like… forever.
But the question was raised, did Hannity suggest this at the bidding of Trump because he's getting cold feet?
I wouldn't think Trump is the one getting the cold feet.
There are a lot of video clips out there demonstrating Trump's Derangement Dementia, like his latest 'would you rather die by shark or shock' bit. It's seems obvious that Trumps handlers have been stymied about how anybody could possibly manage such a headstrong derangement dementia for all those independent voters to see, and not just his cult fanbase.
Ronald at least trusted Nancy to help him manage his own issues. With Trump basically trusting no one, it's doubtful there'd be the helpful nice men discretely helping him to the little white van after it got ugly. More like they'd be having an international news fiasco on their hands.