Representative Jamie Raskin thinks that recusal can be forced.
Per Raskin,
No word on what the chances of that succeeding are, but my guess is not very high.
Gift link to NYTimes:
Returning to the prediction here:
Sam Alito notified Congress thusly:
It’s the most bog-standard predictable excuse at this point, I’m actually surprised that only Alito and Thomas have done this kind of spouse-trolling. Just an absolute bottomless ethical void.
I thought you were claiming that people on this board would defend her right to have hobbies.
Oh, it’s absolutely both.
Though of course some of the individuals in that thread are now banned, this is obviously the Republican party line, which is why it shows up everywhere.
Another gem from that thread:
If we haven’t heard it yet, it’s because those usual suspects have been banned, but I’m sure it will start cropping up again now that it’s coming directly from Alito.
Interesting read, my thanks. In addition to the compelling analysis (to me, anyway), the umpire analogies at the end were spot on to this baseball nut.
Yeah, in either of those scenarios, the umpires would be removed, and no one would question the wisdom. An umpire flies a pennant for one of the World Series teams in his front yard? He ain’t gonna have any involvement in that series, and rightly so.
The money quote: Justice Felix Frankfurter stated, “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” Even the appearance of bias must lead to recusal, even if the Justices’ hearts are pure and their motives noble. Which, of course, we can be certain is the case with Alito and Thomas. 
“Justice Thomas and I have absolutely no control whatsoever over our wives’ actions, but rest assured: after Dobbs, we own the women in your lives.”
[Alito didn’t say this … exactly]
“Far-fetched” isn’t a good enough word. Neither is ‘risible.’
In a relationship grounded in mutual respect and support, you’d think that ‘source of funds’ and ‘how the house is Titled’ wouldn’t be the deciding factors in whether or not you take an action metaphysically certain to rain a shitstorm down on your spouse.
Particularly because of petty squabbles with neighbors.
And especially when the neighbors are the ones who are right.
In such a relationship each person would have an agreement not to do things that would destroy their spouse’s career. That’s not subservience, that’s a partnership.
Has anyone suggested just cutting out the middle man, and putting Alito’s wife on the court?
Alito already asked her, she said no.
I’m hazy on the details, but I seem to recall a great disturbance in the Force right-wing blogosphere over a comment by Hillary Clinton to the effect that the country was getting a “package deal” by electing her husband. Something along the lines that she was declaring herself “co-President” or some such.
But I guess — as in so many other things — if you’re a conservative, “co-Supreme Court Justice” is perfectly cromulent.
I find it, (hilarious, disgusting, hypocritical, all of the above) that Alito will apparently trust his wife to hang a flag in their yard, but he won’t trust her enough to make her own healthcare decisions. Republican priorities.
Another “Appeal to Heaven” flag has been spotted, flying (for decades, apparently) outside of city hall…in San Francisco. I can see the 2028 Democratic primary campaign attack ads now: “When he was San Francisco mayor, Governor Newsom let the Appeal to Heaven flag fly outside of city hall.”
Just a couple of links, for those of you who are interested. The first give a little more detail about the “neighborhood spat”, and the second recounts what was said about Alito when he was nominated.
Our only hope would be if the bridge he was crossing the Hudson on broke and he fell into the water, dissolving into a swarm of orange TrumpTrout.
Beautifully said. May I steal it?
By all means.
A nice idea but I doubt it would work and would in all likelihood backfire. Overall the justices seem to go out of their way to protect their own. None of them have called out either Alito or Thomas for their shenanigans, so they are unlikely to decide against them. Even if it came down to a conservative vs Liberal split, the conservatives would have a 4/3 majority, so Alito and Thomas would get off.
Meanwhile, Garland taking a part in this would increase the appearance that the whole thing was partisan, making Trump more powerful while at the same time pissing off the court making it more likely to find in favor of him.
I think the best thing you can do is launch a Congressional inquiry into the court’s corruption (assuming that the justices don’t rule such a subpoena unconstitutional) and shame them for political capital which could conceivably be used to pack the court.
I should have seen this coming: