Mrs. Alito Recordings

June 10, 2024 in Uncategorized | by Eric Kirk

Wild stuff!

She is of course hoping that her husband will help overturn NY Times v. Sullivan.

June 2024
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

30 comments

Comments feed for this article

June 10, 2024 at 8:42 pm

Henchman Of Justice

Civil Rights leader the Rev. James Lawson Jr. dies at age 95, family says

June 11, 2024 at 6:10 am

John

The left has no shame.

Smearing Justices wives is OK as long as they are married to a conservative Justice ?

June 11, 2024 at 6:29 am

Eric Kirk

Smearing her? These are her own words. And she has made herself a public issue. She can’t blame anybody but herself.

June 11, 2024 at 6:33 am

Mitch

The Alitos are hard at work creating a theocracy, and that awful woman recorded them? Crucify her!

June 11, 2024 at 6:34 am

Just Trollin

It’s a symptom of Parkinsons. And he has the nuclear codes….

June 11, 2024 at 6:44 am

humboldturtle

Oh, YEAH. Wow, Man! Be worried, MAGAts. Trump is foaming at the mouth and Alito just goes on and on. Heavens.

https://www.salon.com/2024/06/11/trumps-shark-tale-we-have-to-come-up-with-a-new-word-for-unhinged/

June 11, 2024 at 6:45 am

humboldturtle

John, the left has no shame because the left has little to be ashamed about. Have a drink, it might help.

June 11, 2024 at 7:04 am

Just Trollin

turdle…..maybe the new word should be “bidenesque”….

June 11, 2024 at 7:25 am

humboldturtle

Bidenesque. Great word.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bidenesque

June 11, 2024 at 8:09 am

John

I knew my comments would be wasted on someone like you Turtle.

June 11, 2024 at 8:26 am

Mitch

Supreme Court Justice Hussein Muhammed Caught on Tape

Flag of Jihad. Public domain from Wikimedia Commons.

News item: Alito caught on tape. Roberts caught on tape. Alito’s wife caught on tape.

In a potentially concerning development regarding the United States Supreme Court, Justice Hussein Muhammed and his wife were both secretly recorded by a guest at a $500 per head party hosted by the Supreme Court Historical Society.

In an attempt at getting to the truth of Supreme Court Justices’ feelings, and violating rules of integrity designed to ensure the status quo is never challenged by proper journalistic outlets, Laura Saxe-Coburg secretly recorded conversations with Muhammed, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Muhammed’s wife, Ayesha.

Prompted by Saxe-Coburg, Muhammed agreed that the Supreme Court should implement Sharia law in America, in order to better align the country with Allah’s word. In a separate conversation, Ayesha Muhammed indicated discomfort with the flying of the LGBT flag, adding that it led her to want to fly the Flag of Jihad from her house every day.

Chief Justice Roberts answered differently, saying that the job of the supreme court was to try cases, and that the politics of the country should be handled by politicians.

Muhammed has been criticized for his prior decisions overturning such long term precedents as Roe v. Wade, but has never publicly indicated support for Sharia law.

The New York Times rapidly interviewed the usual ethicists, who reported that Saxe-Coburg was a disgrace to the journalism profession.

Reginald Smythe-Burns, of the Harvard Ethical Analysis Group, Ltd., pointed out that if Supreme Court Justices’ views were recorded without that knowledge, that could lead to public dismay at the Jihadist beliefs they normally hide. “This is lower than low,” said Smythe-Burns, “truly an infuriatingly ungodly act. It can only be called anti-Allah.”

Another ethicist, contacted for verification, agreed. Regency Burns-Smythe, of the Yale Ethical Analysis Group, LLC., noted that “no punishment is too severe for an enemy of Allah.” Burns-Smythe added, “this so-called journalist thought they were getting at the truth, but the truth is not in what someone says but in the Quran.”

At a press conference held earlier this morning, Justice Muhammed urged that Saxe-Coburg not be punished without trial, saying “it is only fair that this person first come before our tribunal, so we may implement justice as Allah has instructed us.”

Muhammed confirmed that he would never argue for Sharia law when non-Muslims were listening, indicating that he was aware his views might frighten non-Muslim Americans. “You don’t want them to mobilize until we’ve secured the country,” he added.

In another recent development related to the Supreme Court, it has been revealed that Clarence Thomas, in addition to having vacations paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow, has had a $500,000 sabbatical in Bali Bali fully paid for by actor Tom Cruise. The sabbatical was considered a Scientology study session.

June 11, 2024 at 9:58 am

Mark Konkler

I think John is assuming that the recording is fake ? Or someone is impersonating her ? Not sure what to make of his statement.

June 11, 2024 at 10:38 am

John

Very ease to understand Mark. The beliefs or actions of spouses or family members of elected politicians should be hands off.

Judge the elected politicians by their actions.

June 11, 2024 at 11:06 am

Mitch

Just another private citizen. Nothing to see.

https://theintercept.com/2023/06/26/samuel-alito-oil-gas-supreme-court-environment/

June 11, 2024 at 12:52 pm

Eric Kirk

John – are you applying that to Hunter Biden?

Because I do see that as a failure of Joe Biden – not the gun conviction – that was HB’s stupidity. But the the appearance of impropriety with regard to access in Ukraine. I don’t think VP Biden gave them anything, but he should have told his son “No, I’m not even having a conversation with them.” But in the meantime, it’s HB’s actions that are at the forefront, not Biden’s conversation.

June 11, 2024 at 1:26 pm

Henchman Of Justice

so the gold bar thieving wife’s actions of Bob Menendez is it…

should be hands off, writes John…

“…actions of spouses or family members of elected politicians should be hands off.” ~ John

Reads like peanut butter man went nutso…🤷‍♂️

guessing john is aok to be a hands on politician…like Biden… but not like Biden…lol

June 11, 2024 at 3:56 pm

Mark Konkler

John she clearly indicated that her husband is greatly influenced by her opinion and intends to fully use it to his discretion

June 11, 2024 at 4:01 pm

Mark Konkler

To add to that John, his position is of one for life if he chooses. Certainly every politician uses family influence to help form opinions in one way or another, but when one is in a position where they can essentially act like a king and set forth future direction of a country that’s a whole different issue.

June 12, 2024 at 2:58 am

Jon Yalcinkaya

In your Islamophobic attempt at satire Mitch, thank you for acknowledging what the big three here would otherwise not, that which Republicans say all the time is what you all silently agree with or at the very least enable; we are a country based on Judeo-Christian values (aka Western values).

If only those we disagree with were Muslim rather than (reigiously) Jewish or Christian, at least then they wouldn’t code as our dominate culture which remains largely white & Judeo-Christian and THEN the powerful elite, whether it’s fascist-supporting religious conservatives or its woke media intellectual ethical perfunctorislists, could finally agree, or would be compelled, to enforce secularization.

June 12, 2024 at 3:12 am

Jon Yalcinkaya

And I will say out of my own personal wokeness, that if you substituted an Orthodox Jewish religious values instead of Islamic, it would have the same effect of awakening the Trump supporters. The Judeo in Judeo-Christian values are our closest allies, but you know, we Christians are still in charge in America.

There is a great quote by a conservative I learned from the Know Your Enemy podcast chaps about how Jewish conservatives are of course welcome, but they just can’t entertain leading the choir. I wish I could remember it.

But that anology wouldn’t work because Judaism actually is, in general, a pretty damn awesome, reflective religion and wouldn’t have the flags & recent global penchant for indiscriminate violence towards infidels by too many criminals in Islam’s name.

June 12, 2024 at 3:30 am

Jon Yalcinkaya

Eric brings in NYT v Sullivan which serves to protect the press by adding a higher standard to defamation of public officials, presumably the implication is for personal interests, the Alitos want to re-interpret the Constitution to sue their neighbors? I don’t know I just had to review wiki to remind myself what NYT v Sullivan was.

But yes I agree with the ethical perfunctorialists at the NYT, this FEELS gross. I know that there are bigger issues at stake and I too am a secularist in governing and I have, for my entire life, been voting for Democratic presidents even when I didn’t care for them to get liberal Justices on SCOTUS, I still want to protect & defer to individuals in their homes and allow them to be free to express their opinions, and be themselves privately when they expect privacy. Even if I disagree with them.

What do you say we will elections by being better than those that would nominate Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, or Roberts.

June 12, 2024 at 3:35 am

Anonymous

Jon misses point by a country mile, then has an invigorating argument with the tangle of wild tangents and misextrapolations gibbering away inside his skull.

June 12, 2024 at 3:42 am

Just Trollin

Not hard to believe that democrats would be on board with assuming a fake identity, asking leading questions, then selling to the highest bidder. Evil …..

June 12, 2024 at 4:41 am

Henchman Of Justice

Evil is the monarchy Sureme Court structure… life terms…

FUCK THESE USA!

June 12, 2024 at 4:41 am

Just Trollin

But the bigger question is…..where does joy reid get Donald Trump wigs ?

June 13, 2024 at 4:40 am

Jon Yalcinkaya

Mitch, is this wrong? If so, what EXACTLY did Alito say that was wrong? Don’t we win by being better, ethically AND morally but not abiding their morals but our own? What if those saying we are satan are the ones that demonstrably keep behaving badly IF we consider EVERYONE’S rights & dreams for our future? We just have to win at the ballot box and allowing them to proudly fly their freak flags only helps us, imo. Lying, infiltrating, acting as imposters and acting as if it is journalism does not.

What Exactly Did Justice Alito Say That Was Wrong?

Marc O. DeGirolami

Justice Samuel Alito has been widely criticized this week for remarks he made to a self-described documentary filmmaker who on two occasions engaged him at social events, secretly taped him under false pretenses and released the recordings. What did he say that was wrong?

Nothing. None of his remarks was improper for a judge to make. Furthermore, he did not even say anything especially controversial — or at least nothing that would be controversial in a less polarized moment.

For those who have not heard the recording, here is what happened: Justice Alito assented to the filmmaker’s remark that the country is deeply polarized, and he said that given the depth of our disagreements over various issues and the inability to compromise on them, “one side or the other is going to win.” He stated that nevertheless “there can be a way of working, living together peacefully.”

He said that “American citizens in general need to work on this” — that is, polarization. But he said that solving polarization is not something that the Supreme Court can do, because “we have a very defined role, and we need to do what we’re supposed to do.” He added: “That is way above us.”

In perhaps the most discussed exchange, he assented to the filmmaker’s statement that it is important to win “the moral argument” and “return our country to a place of godliness.”

To start with the question of judicial ethics: Where was the justice’s error? He did not mention any pending case or litigation. He did not name any person or party. He did not discuss any specific political or moral matter. Most of the exchange consists of the filmmaker’s own goading remarks, followed by the justice’s vague and anodyne affirmations and replies. About what you might expect when cornered at a boring cocktail party.

Setting aside judicial ethics, I can think of two possible objections to what Justice Alito said: that he should not hold these views; or that he should not express them in public.

As to whether he should hold these views, I would suggest that they are not so extreme as to merit denunciation. On the contrary, they are reasonable, even commonplace.

Start with his remarks about polarization. Many people across the cultural divide contend that our political fractures involve intractably profound disagreements on which compromise is not possible. That does not mean that in all our disputes we are incapable of agreement (“there can be a way of working, living together peacefully”). But Justice Alito is hardly alone in the view that at least in the larger culture, many things are not amenable to compromise (“one side or the other is going to win”).

Likewise, many people in this country do believe in God and godliness. Many believe in the truth of our national motto, “In God We Trust.” They think religion contributes to a kinder and more moral society. And many of these people — including Justice Alito, to judge from his brief assent on the recording — also think that greater godliness might help the nation today. Americans who think God has something to teach us about decency and love and moral rectitude would be surprised to hear that treated as a shocking or extremist view.

Of course, those who do not believe in God may argue instead that godlessness or secularism is the surest path to becoming a better nation. Both are common, conventional and reasonable positions, however intense the disagreement between them.

As to whether Justice Alito should have expressed his views in public, one might claim that his assent to the filmmaker’s comments about a “return” to “godliness” was improper because it suggests that he would not treat secular parties fairly at the Supreme Court. But this argument assumes that a godly world has no room for peaceable tolerance for disagreement. And this is just what Justice Alito denied in suggesting that “living together peacefully” is a noble ambition toward which Americans should strive. Not only that: He was clear that the Supreme Court is not the place to resolve social and cultural fracture.

I recognize that most of this will not matter to many who are following this story. Those who dislike Justice Alito for other reasons will seize on what they can from this episode to condemn him. Indeed, this is presumably why the filmmaker went to such elaborate lengths to lie to him. Even so, nothing in Justice Alito’s comments merits the denunciation they are receiving, even if one disagrees with what he said. It is in the ginning up of the controversy that we see the real culture war.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/opinion/supreme-court-alito.html

June 13, 2024 at 5:01 am

Mitch

The author makes a fair point.

I view “godliness,” as I think many others do, as meaning no LGBT rights, no rights for women to control their bodies, and so on. I view it, coming from a supreme Court justice, as placing a particular theology, Alito ‘s, above democracy.

It is the difference between Alito ‘s responses and Roberts’ that I think is telling.

June 13, 2024 at 5:25 am

Mitch

There’s sleight of hand in the word “godliness.”

It sounds to some as if it is talking about kindness, love, and compassion, so no problem. But what others, like myself, think it actually refers to is an agenda of unchallengeable control. I think that is why there is outrage, and when the outrage appears, the Alitos can just assert that all they mean is kindness, love, and compassion.

Imagine for a moment if Alito had said (or agreed with a statement) that America needs to be kind, or America needs to be loving, or America needs to recognize that every individual has importance. There would be no criticism.

June 13, 2024 at 7:24 am

Jon Yalcinkaya

I mostly agree with you Mitch. I think they are lying either to themselves or to us and a lot (if not all) of it is about control. If nothing else, look at where we were and where we are now. What are they saying about that – you can figure it out by their silence if nothing else. I think the most important lie Alito made tho had nothing to do with this conversation, but the one he told under oath that he saw Roe as precedent.

June 13, 2024 at 7:26 am

Jon Yalcinkaya

They are playing the long game by choosing their words carefully and we should to by making sure we always remember they are not our enemy, but out opponent and we shouldn’t be taking unethical short cuts to try to “gotcha” them. Let them be human too, because we all are and lets hash it out in elections.

	bolithio on Hate crime in my old stomping…
	Mitch on Hate crime in my old stomping…
	Mitch on Hate crime in my old stomping…
	Just Trollin on It was never even delusio…
	humboldturtle on It was never even delusio…
	Jon Yalcinkaya on Hate crime in my old stomping…
	Mitch on Hate crime in my old stomping…
	Mitch on Hate crime in my old stomping…
	Mitch on Hate crime in my old stomping…
	Jon Yalcinkaya on We discuss Hunter Biden’…
	Jon Yalcinkaya on We discuss Hunter Biden’…
	Jon Yalcinkaya on We discuss Hunter Biden’…
	Just Trollin on We discuss Hunter Biden’…
	Jon Yalcinkaya on We discuss Hunter Biden’…
	Jon Yalcinkaya on We discuss Hunter Biden’…

Mrs. Alito Recordings

Recent Comments

Local Media

North Coast Blogs

Progressive Media

Sohum Blogs

Archives

Meta

Recent Posts

30 comments

Leave a comment

Mrs. Alito Recordings

Share this:

Related

Recent Comments

Local Media

North Coast Blogs

Progressive Media

Sohum Blogs

Archives

Meta

Recent Posts

30 comments

Leave a comment