The Scoop: The Supreme Court’s neutrality is once again struck with an upside-down flag

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is under investigation for flying an upside-down flag over his home in Alexandria, Virginia, days before President Joe Biden’s inauguration.

According to an investigation by the New York Times, neighbors shared photos of the flag, which is both a symbol of concern and a symbol of protest that was widely seen during and after the Jan. 6 insurrection as a symbol of support for Donald Trump.

“I had no part in raising the flag,” Alito told the Los Angeles Times in a statement. “It was briefly posted by Ms. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of inappropriate and personally offensive language on yard signs.”

Reports from other residents in the area indicate that the homeowner did, in fact, post an anti-Trump sign with a swear word in his yard, sparking a dispute with Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann.

Still, the neighbor was probably not the wife of a Supreme Court justice.

Ethics experts say that even if Alito personally had nothing to do with the flag, the appearance of bias in his home is still a problem.

“You always want to be proactive about the appearance of impartiality,” Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge and director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute, told the Times. “Best practice would be to make sure nothing like this is in front of your house.”

Indeed, the flag appears to violate the court’s own rules prohibiting political signs or bumper stickers, although the court did not answer questions about whether those rules apply to judges.

Why is it important: The court has faced increased ethical scrutiny in recent years, especially around Clarence Thomas. Thomas is accused of, among other things, for close ties to prominent conservatives, including free vacations, tuition at his grandson’s private school and a forgivable loan on a luxury RV.

Confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court is currently at an all-time low. As of July 2023, only 44% of Americans have a favorable view of the court, the lowest level since polls began in 1987. Since 2020, trust has dropped 26 points.

It would be easy now to suggest that all this decline is due to ethics scandals. The shocks of the Covid pandemic and the 2020 election certainly play a role. However, the opacity of the Supreme Court’s ethics and lack of any real transparency and accountability likely also came into play.

This latest event won’t help.

It is likely that none of the judges will face consequences or be forced to resign; they hold lifetime appointments. However, the lack of trust in the core institution remains a concern.

Consistent, clear and publicly communicated ethical guidelines are not only good for public trust – they are also good for staff, from the most senior employee to the greenest hourly employee. This helps ensure that everyone is on the same page and understands what is expected of them, which can help avoid inappropriate behavior from appearing in public.

Most frequently read by the editor:

• As Google puts AI at the top of its search results pages, we’re learning “Google” in new ways. People will no longer have to search through multiple links to find what they are looking for; in theory, AI often displays what we want directly on the results page. The Washington Post conducted a series of tests and fact-checks to see how the new AI-powered technology performed. The restaurant’s critic rated it low for “best Mexican restaurant in my area, with great margaritas, nice atmosphere and at least four stars on Yelp,” while “Mexican restaurants near me” returned results quite similar to the searches we’re used to . The “best vacuum cleaners for pet hair” produce results that no one actually claims to be the “best” when in fact they are vacuum cleaners for pet hair. Finally, a simple request for factual information yielded accurate information, but experts remain concerned about hallucinations. There are many unanswered questions about how this will impact media site traffic and content marketing. But this is good news as we enter a brave new world of exploration. Stay tuned on Monday for more coverage from PR Daily.
• An autopsy revealed that a high school sophomore who died after participating in Paqui’s “One Chip Challenge,” which involved eating an intensely spicy chip, died of a heart attack. The boy had both an enlarged heart and an arterial defect. It was found that his body contained large amounts of capsaicin – a chemical substance that causes the spicy taste of food. The AP reported that although heart defects likely contributed to his death, people with healthy hearts can still experience problems after eating very spicy foods. After his death, the chip, which was sold in a coffin-shaped box, was withdrawn from the market, but Paqui still struggles with the consequences. “We were and remain deeply saddened by the death of Harris Wolobah and offer our condolences to his family and friends,” Paqui said in a general statement. Between this and Panera Charged Lemonades, it’s a reminder of the obligation that companies and communicators have to communicate product risks directly and clearly. Failure to do so can be devastating.
• A letter revealing that American Airlines flight attendants can earn as little as $27,315 a year has gone viral, drawing attention to the low salaries these professionals can earn. Although the flight attendants’ union verified the letter, American Airlines itself declined to comment. However, the union is using this as an opportunity to draw attention to the low wages of its workers and notes that they have not received a raise since 2019. Although the average salary for a flight attendant is $70,000, the letter gave the union a powerful bargaining chip and a chance to make its case. history while American Airlines remains silent. This may mean changes at the negotiating table.

Allison Carter is the editor-in-chief of PR Daily. Follow her on X Or LinkedIn.

COMMENT