I'm sure he does, too.

Which would seem to mean he was lying about the Constitution, which to my thinking is a really bad thing for a Supreme Court Justice to do, even just in an INTERVIEW.

But I'm more interested in why you wouldn't see any issue with a Supreme Court Justice blatantly mischaracterizing the Constitution.

?

I think you're mischaracterizing the intention of his remarks.

I believe that when Alito mentions "regulate the Supreme Court", he is talking about the imposition of ethics and recusal rules, since that was being discussed in Congress. Your Article III quote has to do with a completely different subject: the Court's "appellate jurisdiction" -- the issue of what types of cases can begin in the Court and when they need to originate in lower courts. We both agree that Alito understands that topic. Those are two different subjects.

So a perhaps better quote from Alito would have been:

“No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court's (ethics) — period.”

Sometimes in interviews, we don't say precisely what we mean.  

Really?

So you think an honest reading of that passage wouldn't allow Congress to impose, for example, recusal requirements on the Court in its appellate function?

And isn't the appellate function of the Court its main function?

And Alito's interview wasn't a standard, question-and-answer interview with essentially the entire transcript published; it was an article on Alito based on two interviews the authors conducted over the course of a couple months.

And there should be little doubt that Alito was given an advance copy of the article and the opportunity to request -- and get -- any changes he wanted, both because that's standard journalistic practice and because the authors, Alito, and the Wall Street Journal are all pretty much in lock-step in their legal and political positions.

Why are you trying to rationalize what Alito said and meant, clearly in contradiction of the exact words of the Constitution?

If I am uncharitable, I might conclude that an authoritarian mindset indicates to you that you have to defer to those above you in your perceived hierarchy, even when they are clearly and obviously wrong.

I hope you can give a better explanation.

Really?

yes

and the authoritarian mindset bullshit is becoming tedious

The late Charles Krauthammer famously wrote: 

“To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.”

I think we have to add: both sides think the other is authoritarian.

and the authoritarian mindset bullshit is becoming tedious

I've been asking you to give me a reason to abandon that perception of you, but you haven't yet given me one.

The late Charles Krauthammer famously wrote: 

“To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.”

I think we have to add: both sides think the other is authoritarian.

Well, I'll tell you one thing: if a Supreme Court Justice whom I thought was pretty good said something that directly contradicted the Constitution -- even a section of the Constitution that I don't like -- I would think the statement fell somewhere between careless, stupid, and dangerous. And if the statement was not clarified or retracted -- and I'm hardly the only person who has noted Alito's mischaracterization of the Constitution -- I would think that Justice didn't belong on the Supreme Court.

For example, if Elena Kagan -- whom I consider maybe the best Justice on the Court -- said that the Second Amendment only recognized a very limited right to bear arms, my reaction would be about the same as my reaction to Alito. I would probably sympathize with her more, but I wouldn't ridicule people who were dismayed that she would say such an obviously wrong thing. Really, I would share their dismay; even if you think weapons should be more closely regulated, the way to achieve that is not to pretend that words don't mean what they clearly mean.

Authoritarianism requires, I think, an "us/them" perception of society. There is no shortage of "liberals" who would buy into an authoritarian regime if given the chance. Not anywhere near as bad, from where I sit, as among "conservatives," but they are definitely there; the main difference between the two groups of authoritarians is which team they root for.

Alan, you seem to be intellectually lazy, but I doubt you're stupid. I could see someone making your "My Cousin Vinny" reference carelessly, but when you're called on it, unless you're just absolutely trying to be an asshole, I think the only reasonable response from a non-authoritarian mindset is something along the lines of, "Yeah, that comment is not a good look for a Supreme Court Justice."

And then there's your response.

Let's do an Authoritarian Quiz. 

I'll post some questions and we'll see where you fall on the authoritarian spectrum. Maybe tomorrow, as I have some work to do today.  

Of course, after I put up mine and, assuming you're willing to play, feel free to post your own question list. My hot button issues are probably not yours.

If anybody else has questions whose answers may elucidate authoritarian tendencies, please post them too. 

The late Charles Krauthammer famously wrote: 

“To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.”

I think we have to add: both sides think the other is authoritarian.

Only applies in the UK: The Right think that the Left don’t have a sense of humour. And…and that’s it!

The late Charles Krauthammer famously wrote: 

“To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.”

I think we have to add: both sides think the other is authoritarian.

I don't know if Republicans and the old-style Democrats are authoritarian, but the new woke/cancel culture definitely is. What's more: its authoritarianism is based not only on violence, but above all on the compulsion to agree with dogmas. It is more reminiscent of fascism than communism, which was simply old-style repression.

Can you show me on the doll where the mean people hurt you, Gamal?

Agrumentum ad personam? Thank you very much, Marsden. Schopenhauer says that using this kind of argument shows the highest level of desperation, you can't defeat the statement and have to attack the person. Try harder, it's not as obvious as you think, I could find some counter arguments.

Let's do an Authoritarian Quiz. 

Since I am in California, Governor Newsom is a treasure trove for this.

During Apr 2020, Gov. Newsom of California famously closed the beaches over social distancing concerns.

Q1.  If you wanted to go to an uncrowded beach during this period, would you:
   A: go anyway, despite the Governor's order
   B stay home

Q2. During these closures, a paddle boarder chose A and was arrested for refusing to get out of the water. 
     What is your reaction to that incident?
Q3. As a response to climate change, Newsom has ordered (starting in 2035) the sale of new cars with internal combustion engines to be illegal in California. Is that an appropriate role for government or should it be left to consumer choice?



Q4. Similarly, should the government have the right to ban home appliances that use natural gas: water heaters, stoves, furnaces?

Over to you, Marsden.

Agrumentum ad personam? Thank you very much, Marsden. Schopenhauer says that using this kind of argument shows the highest level of desperation, you can't defeat the statement and have to attack the person. Try harder, it's not as obvious as you think, I could find some counter arguments.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, Gamal, when I didn't accord sufficient respect to the nature of your complaint, which I believe was that people are being harassed and canceled for ... failing to show sufficient respect to the complaints of others.

I'll go vegetarian until suppertime in penance.

B; reasonable collar; appropriate role for government rather than being left to consumer choice, but I think the science is not quite right; I don't believe that governments have rights at all, but I do believe that they properly have the authority to regulate and even ban things that impinge upon the rights of people ... like the right to a livable planet.

Now back to you, and right now I think the score is 4-0 in my favor for you rather than me having an authoritarian mindset. I'll leave it to you to work out why.

(You can keep your responses to the first three questions to yourself; they're personal, and I include them mostly to assist you on a journey of self-understanding rather than anything else.)

Q1. When you were growing up, did you ...
a. ... idolize your father?
b. ... view your mother as somehow weak?

Q2. Did your father abuse your mother physically, emotionally, or through infidelity?

Q3. Did you parents separate when you were young, and which parent did you end up living with if they did?

Q4. Do you generally agree with the proposition that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?

Q5. Is the democratic process generally a reasonable way to determine the consent of the governed?

Q6. Which of the following would you consider to be a grievous enough violation of the democratic process to impair the determination of the consent of the governed?
a. Rigging the Senate to give states with small populations the same representation as states with large populations.
b. State legislatures gerrymandering Congressional Districts in order to maximize the number of Representatives from the political party in control of the legislature.
c. A majority of the Supreme Court, all fairly closely politically aligned, being elevated to the Court against the opposition from Senators representing a majority of the American people.

Q7. Would you say your posting of the My Cousin Vinny video in response to my noting of Justice Alito's apparent mischaracterization of the Constitution was more a matter of you thinking it's humorous that someone who effectively answers to no one would be dishonest about the written text that he is supposed to answer to, or more a matter of you being delighted by it?

Q8. Why didn't you register any issue with a Supreme Court Justice blatantly mischaracterizing the Constitution?

Q9. Why would you make up a bunch of nonsensical bullshit to defend Justice Alito's statement without bothering even to look at the passage I quoted from the Constitution in context to see that your post was just stupid?

Q10. Did you vote for Donald Trump for President in 2016? In 2020?

This is your opportunity to run up the score, Alan. Even without the first three questions.