Discuss.
Playpen 5.22.24
Published
GTP Refugees is a blog that covers Georgia football and other topics with a sarcastic and opinionated tone. The blog features posts about the Dawgs' rivals, the NCAA, NIL, and more. Continuing what The Senator started.
GTP Refugees 
Looks/sounds like someone exercised their 1st amendment rights to me.
If you can burn the flag, you can hang it upside down.
Judge/Mrs. Alito are no less entitled to than anyone else, the message be damned. Excluding threats of violence, of course.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Sure, he has that right, but it’s so disrespectful to the men and women that sacrificed to give him that right. JMO.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You have the right to do a lot of stupid shit. And stupid shit should be seen beneath people who are entrusted with great power over, and great responsibility to, all of us.
You’d think the folks who brought us “he wore a tan suit! Holifuk!!” there would be…something. But if you’re firmly on team asshole, the outrage machine is just not for you, ever. No matter what.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course there’s a time and place for proprietary propriety, but by the letter, it doesn’t matter. YMMV, of course.
LikeLike
There exists those unalienable rights “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”…all other presumed rights do not exist…
LikeLike
With the state of both parties I do t see how anybtclings to any ideas about any of these people being above much of anything. Fuck Those Motherfuckers. All of them.
LikeLiked by 3 people
No problem with him exercising his free speech but when a Justice clearly has a personal interest in the outcome of a case he’s hearing, then he must recuse himself from hearing that case.
LikeLiked by 9 people
What case are you referring to?
LikeLike
The January 6th, 2021 case.
LikeLike
Great. So help me out here. What does Alito’s flag have to do with the 1/6/21 case?
LikeLike
It suggests sympathy for the “stolen election” perspective. It is my understanding that the upside down flag was a symbol adopted by adherents of that viewpoint. If you think the election was in fact stolen, it would impact your view of the actions taken in response. If you see them as inspired by actual facts, then you might find the actions justified rather than a criminal conspiracy. (When appearance of impropriety or bias is the standard, this crosses at least that line.)
Or if you a sniveling coward you would hold that perspective close and find a sneaky way to help out a fellow traveller.
In this specific instance, my personal view is that recusal is an insufficient remedy and that he should resign. Had he come home, found that, explained it’s inappropriateness to any other of the occupants of the residence and released a public statement, I would feel differently.
This would be no different than if a federal judicial officer (or spouse) had been shown to have raised a confederate battle flag in protest of Brown v. BOE. You are certainly free to your perspective, but if you’re going to serve for life in a powerful UNELECTED position, your allegiance to country, and its institutions, should be pristine, especially after having taken your seat. (If an issue was known at the time of nomination and confirmation that would be a different matter.)
A review of standard judicial ethics rules would make this point obvious. The reason those rules don’t apply to the Supreme Court is not because it was felt they should be free to do whatever, it was because no one thought it would ever be necessary to police the types of people who would attain that position.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for the explanation. It’s entirely possible that while the movement may have adopted the USD flag as a symbol, traditionally it has been a signal of emergency. And it may have gone up that way by accident.
LikeLike
Except that we’ve gotten an explanation and that wasn’t it. The explanation was that the wife had gotten into a pissing match with a neighbor over yard-based political symbols/statements and responded with what you see in the photo.
LikeLike
Sounds to me like she wasn’t altogether savvy with the symbolism.
LikeLike
Somehow that seems worse. If you’re turning a flag upside down with no purpose other than anger, and no twinge of uncertainty or hesitation overcomes you, I question your loyalty. I’ll take a misguided patriot over one who has no patriotism whatsoever.
LikeLike
Duly noted.
LikeLike
Do your own research….
LikeLike
I have and its bleak:
https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/07/30/americans-who-mainly-get-their-news-on-social-media-are-less-engaged-less-knowledgeable/https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/media/fox-dominion-settlement/index.html
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/newsmaxs-cover-up-worked-smartmatic-says-media-ceo-deleted-evidence-key-to-ongoing-2020-election-defamation-suit/
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/14/we-found-the-one-group-of-americans-who-are-most-likely-to-spread-fake-news-526973
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/3/17180020/sinclair-broadcast-group-conservative-trump-david-smith-local-news-tv-affiliate
LikeLike
One week to acquittal…..as Johnny C said, “if the glove don’t fit, you must move to acquit”. Discuss.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And they said it would be unfair! Keep hope alive!!
LikeLike
I applaud the brevity of this week’s playpen post.
It’s definitely not a good look for Alito, and I think the calls for him to recuse himself from cases related to January 6th, “stop the steal”, etc., are justified. I also think it’s likely he and the other Justices should recuse themselves more often than they do, but we’ll probably never know for sure. I also think it’s funny how people complain about the Supreme Court being corrupted, but only when the rulings don’t go the way they want.
I’d also encourage everyone to listen to the full Supreme Court hearing on Trump’s immunity case, if you’ve got a few hours to spare. It’s fascinating stuff. I’m a complete layman when it comes to legal stuff, but my take is that Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson clearly weren’t buying the immunity arguments and Barrett seemed to be leaning that way too. Roberts was trying to parse out the distinction between official acts and unofficial acts that a President might engage in. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Alito are a little harder to read, but I could see them leaning towards some immunity for official acts. I think Thomas only asked one question from each side of the case, but he’s known to do that in almost all cases so that in itself isn’t telling.
I don’t think they’ll rule for blanket immunity but I could see them saying he has immunity for official acts (probably a 5-4 decision if it goes that way). Then it gets kicked back to the lower courts to separate the official from the unofficial acts before any trial could move forward. I could also see them ruling 5-4 (maybe even 7-2) for no immunity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I listened. It was apparent to me that several were merely trying to justify why they stopped the train. Bush v. Gore took a day…. A day. If they were so interested they could have taken it in December on an expedited track. Bush v. Gore took a day. A day.
The harlan crow shit is quite obviously corruption. Then there’s leonard leo.
While a concern, corruption isn’t my biggest when it comes to the courts. Its that ideological fealty has replaced political patronage for these spots. You no longer have any chance at independent minded people. They are people with a goal. A mission.
The intention was that those people would run for office.
LikeLiked by 3 people
*You no longer have any chance at independent minded people. They are people with a goal. A mission.*
This isn’t new, Derek. I’m not an attorney but attorney’s on both sides have said Roe v. Wade was bad law but the agenda driven supreme’s of the 70’s made it the law anyway.
LikeLike
That has to be the only case I could possibly be referring to, eh? Not this:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3884320-ideology-driven-federal-judges-should-not-be-allowed-to-rule-the-entire-nation/damp/?nxs-test=damp
Or this: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-5th-circuit-court-of-appeals-is-spearheading-a-judicial-power-grab/
LikeLike
Chapter and verse don’t prove your point and there numerous cases on both sides. I said activist courts are nothing new. I hope your point isn’t that only one side is “devious”. It’s not. Trump’s nominee’s were selected for their bend and bias. Shall I list the left’s? Naw, you know what who they are.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What I said:
“While a concern, corruption isn’t my biggest when it comes to the courts. Its that ideological fealty has replaced political patronage for these spots. You no longer have any chance at independent minded people. They are people with a goal. A mission.
The intention was that those people would run for office.”
My read is that you’ve agreed but in a disagreeable manner. You do you.
Not worried about the whataboutism here. I don’t think its a good trend for the country to have the focus be on ideology when it comes to federal court nominees.
Ideology of all types is bad. I am a pragmatist. I concern myself with what works. If it works I am for it. If it doesn’t work, then I am not. Ralph Nader and Milton Friedman are right sometimes and in some settings. Neither are right each and every time or on all things. Itty bitty minds find wisdom in some area or from some source and they believe they can extend the logic to apply and work in all areas of life. I think they call themselves libertarians.
Civilization is far too complex and fluid to marry yourself to an ideology and think you will be right a lot. I think the truth is quite the opposite and being flexible and knowledgeable is more wise than drawing a course that won’t change even if an iceberg appears in the way. That it wasn’t considered or there when you left doesn’t mean you’ll pass through it.
In short, most of the time Stalin is not your friend. But on occasion he may be quite useful. FDR and Churchill were willing to adapt to the needs of the time. So am I.
LikeLike
I’m not defending the Clarence Thomas / Harlan Crow stuff. There really is no defense of that in my opinion.
I was just trying to point out that some people (not you specifically) only seem to have a problem with the Court when they don’t like the ruling. It’s like having the mindset that “it’s only cheating when the other team does it.” The mental gymnastics are astonishing sometimes.
LikeLike
I don’t expect many folks to fully appreciate the complexity of the issues facing the justices and/or what the various perspectives on constitutional law derive from or mean for them. In that light, it isn’t that surprising that folks cheer results that appeal to them politically rather than the process of how the result was achieved. I mean if the court said: “Roe is reinstated because, well, its Wednesday” I’m sure some would be happy. That attitude goes both ways. When it comes to conduct and whether it should or shouldn’t be a concern, its should be the conduct that is judged not the ideology of the person who did it. Otherwise, you just don’t have any standards at all. I get that there will always be some hedging and some inconsistencies/hypocrisies, but well before you get to the fringes, there do need to be some lines. If you lose any concept of boundaries, that ain’t good.
LikeLike
Last I checked it’s still a free country, even for the wife of a Supreme Court Judge. This is yet another tempest in a tea pot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Its interesting to me that this comes down to an attack on someone’s “rights.” Alito has the right to wipe his ass with the flag, while wearing a FJB hat and post a video of it on only fans for a fee. I wouldn’t argue that he should be arrested for that. I would think some people with what one might refer to as common sense and basic citizenship skills, would be appalled.
Joe Biden has the right to call every CMH recipient ever “tools of capitalist pig dogs” in writing sent to each or to their surviving family members.
I would call for his resignation in such an event. I would not say he lacks the right to have said it.
This inability to unhitch logic and decency from an adherence to ideology and loyalty to one’s recognized teammates is staggering. Its cultish.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As a retired attorney I was expressing his and mostly his wife’s rights. I did not express my opinion on whether he should disqualify himself on any matter. You are too quick to assume things not in the remarks. However, he probably should disqualify himself as should have all the Democratic judges in all the Trump actions. What’s unfair for one is unfair for all. Have a nice day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If your view is that nothing a person does, that is legal, is disqualifying for high office I simply disagree. If a Supreme Court nominee or justice marries, or stays married, to a member of the Communist Party I would say that is disqualifying. Obviously, its quite legal to be a communist party member or to marry one.
You can call that a teapot tempest. I would not. A communist probably would feel differently than I on this issue.
Party affiliation alone is a pretty thin basis as you could make the exact opposite argument the other way. If ALL democrats are biased AGAINST then ALL republicans are biased FOR.
And all judges are one or the other. So how about complete and total immunity for all people who have ever voted in order that they be insulated from political bias, for or against?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Long time listener, first time caller. First, I appreciate what you guys are doing to carry on the GTP legacy. I still have a link to the Blutarsky site on my Google homepage that I just can’t seem to delete. Anyway, I’ve read many comments from many of you in the past, and appreciate the dialog. I’m conservative, but I read and watch commentary from both liberal and conservative media.
And I find it fascinating how infrequent (in my opinion) many people fail to ask “why” or fail to perform additional research before forming an opinion. I suppose it’s the way we are daily fed mounds of information with little time to process it and work a job (and keep a blog going).
I’m not a lawyer, I’m an analyst by day (bar owner at night). I tend to overthink the basis of these questions, but back in the late 80’s in college I was taught that you needed three PRIMARY sources in order to believe what you were reading/hearing. Case in point Derek’s 12:39pm comment: “It is my understanding that the upside down flag was a symbol adopted by adherents of that viewpoint.” Anyone interested in the background on this upside down flag meaning (or lack of) should read the below article (which links to a number of other sources):
The Alito Flag Story Was Even Weaker Than It Looked | National Review
Do I agree with what Mrs. Alito did? No, I do not. Does one fight with your neighbor define your character and that of your spouse? It shouldn’t in this case, any more than Biden should resign for telling a multitude of lies about his life experiences or what he said in his interview with Hur. Should Alito have recused himself? From what after reading the background and timing of the cases? Suggesting resignation – that’s definitely tribal (or adherence to ideology).
Again, glad y’all are here and thanks for taking my call. I’ll hang up and listen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t like that its taken over three years for us to be aware of it. Given the circumstances I would suggest transparency was called for long ago and a failure to be transparent undermines my faith in the story. I’m struggling to accept it on face value. In addition, given the gross lack of merit to the suggestion that the election was stolen I am very skeptical of those who adopt it and those who associate with people who adopt it.
I didn’t watch the events of January 6th as I was at work and I saw it coming a mile away anyway. The invitation. The description. The timing. The “it will be lit!” message. It was obvious what was happening was an attempt to forestall the certification.
We almost lost a nation that day. If I’m considered overwrought for that belief or tribal, I couldn’t give one fuck. I would simply ask what I have not heard one defender address:
What if VP Pence plays ball that day?
Its over. The whole ball game. Should I just wave that off in the name of bipartisan comity? There is nothing ok about interfering with a peaceful transfer of power. You can whine. You can call for investigations. You can ask that laws be changed. You don’t try to contrive a path to remain in power.
If the plan as designed was correct one, with fealty to law and the constitution, what would your measured, non-tribal, response have been had Al Gore named himself president on January 6th 2001?
I’ll hang up and listen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carry on the legacy that the Senator stopped?
LikeLiked by 1 person
First, Derek, kudos for a post that gets directly to the point. I’ll try to be equally as succinct. There is a powerful contingent in our country that feels the country is in “distress.” Their way of life is being threatened. An upside down flag is their “Stars and Bars”, their battle flag.
There are two elemental problems with the Supreme Court as I see it. First, the inability of our Senators to root out bad actors prior to confirmation. Second, the inability to remove a bad actor once uncovered. It’s no wonder SCOTUS is having so much trouble determining if the law should apply equally to all of us.
LikeLike
They are told to be in distress and they believe it and then act accordingly. The only protection we have between chaos and order is consent. If you give permission to people to act out in accordance with the fears have instilled within them, many will do it gladly. You give those same folks the color of law and they will destroy everything in their wake and in accord with the orders, express or implied.
LikeLike
So, Derek, you get to express your beliefs, but anybody who doesn’t believe your way doesn’t get to express theirs?!
LikeLike
I am a damn near free speech absolutist. Free speech does not mean free of consequences. Free of jail? Yep. Otherwise, if you are on video burning a draft card your FBI application may fall to the bottom. If you tell the world that you shot a puppy, you might find that people are less than impressed. If your stand up routine turns into a racist tirade, bookings may be hard to find. You can say what you want and not get arrested. You don’t get a pass. That people continue to struggle with this distinction is beyond me.
LikeLike
That sounds like the heart of the matter, right there, D!!
LikeLike
http://www.tacticalcivics.com is the true answer to our issues & reigning in the corruption in Washington. We need to get back to a constitutionally sound way of governing the country. Do some reading on the website. It’ll open your eyes.
LikeLike
I will end my part in this discussion with the wise words of that great Georgia philosopher Lewis Gizzard. “Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty but the pig loves it.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Last summer, two years after an upside-down American flag was flown outside the Virginia home of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., another provocative symbol was displayed at his vacation house in New Jersey, according to interviews and photographs.
This time, it was the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which, like the inverted U.S. flag, was carried by rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Also known as the Pine Tree flag, it dates back to the Revolutionary War, but largely fell into obscurity until recent years and is now a symbol of support for former President Donald J. Trump, for a religious strand of the “Stop the Steal” campaign and for a push to remake American government in Christian terms.
LikeLike
Since RR is gone. “Long before sparking quarrels in the U.S., the upside down flag custom began at sea. Maritime tradition for centuries held that ships could invert their national flag to signal danger or the need for rescue. Hanging flags upside down evolved as universal seafaring shorthand implying, “we’re in trouble, come save us!” This code was formalized in the 20th century. The United States Flag Code officially stated flying the American flag upside down on land conveys the nation is in distress – think SOS levels of emergency and urgency. These technical guidelines transformed an intuitive custom into law after the advent of air travel increased flying flags beyond naval contexts.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
4 U.S.C. § 8 – Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
(a)
The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
(b)
The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
(c)
The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
(d)
The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker’s desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
(e)
The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
(f)
The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
(g)
The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
(h)
The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
(i)
The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
(j)
No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
(k)
The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
LikeLike
😂 Derek you’re awesome! Remember two wolves/one sheep. I know the founders wanted powers to be separate etc. etc. But the two wolves one sheep analogy is undefeated. There is no such thing as anyone in any place of significant political power (yes that includes the supremes) who is not a disgusting hog wallering in the famous DC swamp that Trump yaks about. Trump himself was one of the primary hogs until the Dems proved they were more wiley than he was and found a way to be better at buying elections. The great entertainment that we get to see upcoming is who has the better cheating machine next election.
LikeLike
Each justices’ loyalty lies with the party by which they were appointed. The ideological allegiances are clear. At one’s core, an intelligent human simply cannot be devoid of a belief system & thusly apolitical.
LikeLike
Please explain Earl Warren and Bill Brennan and Harry Blackmun.
LikeLike
Derek, I should’ve clarified I was referring to the current Supreme Court in this modern age of hyper partisanship. I’d also add that Eisenhower & Nixon fucked up.
LikeLike
So hyper-partisanship good, eh? Unreal. You start with: “we can’t do better. How can we possibly do better?”
I counter. You say “I meant we cant do better NOW! And btw back when they were doing it better, they were fucking it all up.”
Impressive.
LikeLike
derek, you are truly insufferable. I’ve never waded into the pig pen sludge before but I know you revel in the slop & seek attention as the smartest guy in the room as you itch for a fight. I should’ve known better. No one cares for your opinion. Not your politics, but your opinion.
I never inferred the things you stated above, but you’re right; I should’ve referred to the current SCOTUS in my initial ramble. You connect the dots at your own whim & peril. My apologies for offending your sensibilities.
I really do value & appreciate your football insight & generally agree. Shame that you’re so belligerent otherwise.
The comment about Nixon & Eisenhower was red meat stink bait for you & you bit.
I’m done. You will undoubtedly get the last word & “win”. The good Senator banned the slop pen for a reason & I will not partake again. I wish Otis would do the same as it simply does no good for a football blog.
I do appreciate your Georgia Football passion & wish you the best. Life is too short to be angry. Good luck & Go Dawgs!
LikeLike