#Senator Chuck Schumer

[govtshutdown]

It's easy to spot the sheep among the wolves

[thejewishlink]

Schumer Says to Grant Amnesty to Millions of Illegals to Replace Vanishing U.S. Population

Schumer Says to Grant Amnesty to Millions of Illegals to Replace Vanishing U.S. Population

WASHINGTON (Yaakov M / VINnews) — In a chilling video, Senator Chuck Schumer just admitted that he wants to give amnesty to 11 million illegals, because the US population is not “reproducing on its own. ” In other words, Schumer is replacing the traditional American family with illegals (who will no doubt become Democrat voters). It is not a stretch to believe that this has been the Democrat game…

[phoenixyfriend]

I feel like I need to look at a lot more analyses of the recent Chuck Schumer speech.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Thursday called on Israel to hold new elections, saying he believes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has “lost his way” and is an obstacle to peace in the region amid a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Schumer, the first Jewish majority leader in the Senate and the highest-ranking Jewish official in the U.S., strongly criticized Netanyahu in a 40-minute speech Thursday morning on the Senate floor. Schumer said the prime minister has put himself in a coalition of far-right extremists and “as a result, he has been too willing to tolerate the civilian toll in Gaza, which is pushing support for Israel worldwide to historic lows.” “Israel cannot survive if it becomes a pariah,” Schumer said. The high-level warning comes as an increasing number of Democrats have pushed back against Israel and as President Joe Biden has stepped up public pressure on Netanyahu’s government [...]. Schumer has so far positioned himself as a strong ally of the Israeli government [...].

There are... I want to say four? possible interpretations, generally:

A moral shift in response to circumstance: The situation in Gaza has escalated to such a point that he feels morally obligated to change his rhetoric, whether for Palestinians' sakes or Israeli's own sakes.

A moral shift in response to persuasion: Fellow Democrats and Independents have successfully begun to convince him that a change in rhetoric is needed.

A pragmatic shift in response to constituents: Voters from New York State have been blowing up his phones to argue him into putting conditions on aid to Israel, and he felt this was a good 'middle ground' to appeal to them without losing his pro-Israeli base.

A pragmatic shift in response to national trends: Continued protest votes like Michigan are starting to worry him and fellow 'traditional' Dems.

Or, most likely, some combination thereof.

Ethically, I hope it's one of the first two, and the Schumer has realized how ethically barren Israel's government currently is.

...in terms of 'can we actually affect things,' though? I hope this is a pragmatic shift. We cannot predict how individual Senators will change up their morals and philosophy, but if this change is in response to pressure from voters, then that means we can push them farther left.

Anyway.

Call your reps. Here's some suggestions on what to say.

EDIT: To clarify, I am not saying that Schumer is concerned about his own reelection. He is old and he isn't up for reelection until 2029, so it's even odds if he'll even run again. However, as the Senate Majority Leader, he is at least in theory required to take his party's opinions into account, and to worry about what is going to happen to the executive branch in November. Whether or not Schumer has any real power come 2025 is very heavily dependent on who the president is, and he is very aware of that.

He may also be worried about his actions causing backlash against Gillibrand (NY's junior senator).

[ms-boogie-man]

Ta-dah!!!!…

This just goes to show you Demonrats and Tessio Republicans (RINOs) really do exist

The uni-party cannot get this trash written in the lower House of Congress, so the Senate is going to do it themselves, and Joe Biden will sign it into law if it passes

This bill is not the will of We the People. Schumer, Lankford and Biden are treasonous

Enjoy the final loss of our republic yo

Angie/Maddie🦇❥✝︎🇺🇸

[lasseling]

Chuck Schumer Blocks Proposal to Link Proof of Voter Citizenship Measure with Spending Bill

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has blocked the upper chamber from voting on a measure to require voters to prove their citizenship.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Senate Democrats sought to pass legislation Tuesday banning bump stocks for firearms after the Supreme Court overruled a previous ban, but a single Republican objected on behalf of his party, effectively stalling the bill.

Backed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., sought “unanimous consent” to pass his BUMP Act that would prohibit the devices, which modify semi-automatic weapons to fire bullets more quickly.

The New Mexico senator said he’s a firearm owner who sees no purpose for bump stocks other than to facilitate mass shootings, as in Las Vegas in 2017, when a gunman killed dozens of people at a music festival and more than 500 people were injured.

“The Las Vegas gunman was able to murder and injure so many so quickly because he used a deadly device known as a bump stock,” Heinrich said on the Senate floor. “There’s no legitimate use for a bump stock. Not for self-defense, not in a law enforcement context, not even in military applications as they’re less accurate than a standard fully automatic military platform. But what they are tailor-made for is a mass shooting.”

But the bill was met with an objection from Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., blocking it from moving forward. The objection was backed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other Republican senators, marking a turnaround after many of them championed a bump stock ban imposed by the Trump administration after the Las Vegas massacre.

Ricketts labeled the bill “a gun-grabbing overreach," saying it is written vaguely and could give the Biden administration power to target “common firearm accessories, not just bump stocks.”

“That’s really, really scary,” Ricketts said, calling the measure an infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. He labeled it “another day in the Democrat summer of show votes,” following recent votes on protections for IVF and contraception which were also blocked by Republicans.

The clash comes in the heat of an election year, when Republicans are running as staunch supporters of gun rights while President Joe Biden and Democrats call for stricter firearm laws.

The move Tuesday followed a Supreme Court decision last week saying the executive branch may not use existing law to ban bump stocks, although the 6-3 ruling along ideological lines kept the door open for Congress to regulate the accessories with a new law.

Unanimous consent is one mechanism for the Senate to pass legislation speedily, often used for non-controversial measures. Schumer can also bring the bump stock bill or other legislation up through the regular process, which takes more time and requires 60 votes to break a filibuster. That means at least 9 Republicans would have to support it if Democrats and independents stick together.

Before the unanimous consent request, Schumer didn’t say whether he’d bring up the bill through regular channels if it stalled, imploring Republicans to “see the light” and not block it.

“Many of them were extremely supportive of this when President Trump did it as a regulation,” Schumer said. “Donald Trump is hardly a friend to gun safety. But I’m just shocked that the Supreme Court will be even to the right of him.”

Heinrich warned that if Congress doesn’t prohibit bump stocks, “street gangs and cartels and mass shooters” may be able to access these devices “and turn them against our communities.”

He added: “This will not be the last time you hear about these devices on the floor of the Senate.”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Amanda Marcotte at Salon:

Republicans know that their war on legal, accessible birth control is unpopular. But that's not stopping them because, as they learned from convicted felon Donald Trump, the way to hide what you're up to is simple: Lie. Lie a lot. Lie every time you open your mouth. Lie with a straight face, and have faith that the weak "fact checks" offered by the mainstream media don't matter. The Republican comfort levels with lying are sky-high in the era of Trump. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., does it with a smirk, satisfied that no one can stop him. It is somehow still staggering how much they lie about birth control and their nefarious intentions toward it. The good news is that Democrats are taking action to cut through the GOP's thick forest of falsehoods.

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., held a vote on the Right to Contraception Act, which guarantees the right of an individual "to obtain contraceptives and to voluntarily engage in contraception." The legislation also protects the right of licensed health care providers "to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information, referrals, and services related to contraception." Despite loudly insisting they have no desire to take away birth control, all but two Republicans voted against the bill. This follows a 2022 vote on the bill in the House, in which all but 8 Republicans voted against the right to use contraception.

Republicans' excuses this week ranged from obvious lies to obfuscation tactics which ultimately amount to lies. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., called the vote "phony" because "contraception, to my knowledge, is not illegal." But of course, no one is saying it's illegal — yet. The point of Wednesday's vote was preventive, to ensure the right to birth control in the face of overt calls, including from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to "revisit" the legality of contraception now that the right to abortion is no longer federally protected.  Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., whose State of the Union response introduced the nation to what a strange and dishonest character she is, went in for an appropriately weird lie. She falsely claimed the bill would "offer contraception like condoms to little kids." It does no such thing, though I have a lot more questions for Britt about how she thinks puberty works, and if it's induced by the sight of condoms instead of the natural process of growing up. 

Dishonest actors like Cornyn are being empowered by Trump, whose lies are even more hamfisted. Trump was recently asked by a reporter if he plans to restrict birth control and he simply said, "Some states are going to have different policy than others." Journalists know this is his way of avoiding a straight answer while letting the religious right know he supports any law they pass. Trump's campaign staff, clearly panicked that he'd let his anti-contraception stance slip, immediately took to Truth Social to claim he had "NEVER" and would "NEVER" support restrictions on birth control. This, however, is a blatant lie. During his time in the White House, Trump passed policies to cut off contraception coverage on health insurance, appointed health advisors who would like to see most methods banned completely, and ended federal funding for birth control at about 1,000 family planning clinics. 

Republicans use two big, interlocking lies to conceal an anti-contraception agenda from the public. First, they deny they intend to take birth control away, by limiting their definition of "birth control" to condoms and the rhythm method. To justify that shell game, they lie about how the most popular and effective forms of birth control work, claiming they are "abortion." They ping-pong between these two lies, so that the fact-checkers can never keep up. 

[...] So many lies in such a short sentence! Plan B is not an abortion. As the Washington Post noted, "Emergency contraceptive pills such as Plan B and Ella work by inhibiting or delaying ovulation, thereby preventing sperm from fertilizing the egg." The second lie is her implication that if folks "consider" something to be true, that makes it the equivalent of a fact. But many people also "consider" the Earth to be flat or believe Ernst is a hobgoblin in a lady suit. Doesn't make it true! Then there's the dishonesty of focusing only on Plan B, which is a drug stigmatized because it's taken after intercourse. What Ernst fails to mention, however, is that emergency contraception and the birth control pill are the same drug, just different doses. They work identically, by suppressing ovulation. The Christian right opposition to Plan B is a stalking horse for banning all hormonal contraception. Ernst's failure to admit that is a lie by omission. 

The Right To Contraception Act vote in the Senate laid bare the GOP’s hypocrisy on contraception: They seek to wage war on contraception and birth control by deceiving the people, including falsely equating most common forms of birth control and contraception to “abortifacients.”

[generallemarc]

What's actually in the Ukraine bill-a breakdown

Military Assistance

Military Personnel(no, this does not mean troops are being deployed) to respond to the situation in Ukraine and for related expenses: $238,190,000, subdivided into

Army: $207,158,000

Marine Corps:$3,538,000

Air Force: $23, 302,000

Space Force: $4,192,000

This is literally what it sounds like: paying for people to do things, as opposed to the next item...

Operations and Maintenance: $34,243,729,000, subdivided into

Army:$4,877,581,000

Navy:$976,405,000

Marine Corps$69(nice),045,000

Air Force: $371,475,000

Space Force:$8,443,000

Defense-wide(bolded for being important): $27,930,780,000. Of this, $13,772,460,000 is directly for aid to Ukraine, and $13, 414,432,000 is for replacement and reimbursement for both physical aid and service aid(ie training) given to Ukraine. In other words, only the first half is actually going to Ukraine(mostly in the form of physical things like vehicles, guns, ammo and equipment and not just money) while the second half never leaves America.

Procurement:$13,276,910,000, subdivided into

Missile Procurement, Army:$2,742,757,000

Ammunition Procurement, Army:$5,612,900,000,

Other Procurement, Army: $308,991,000

Weapons Procurement, Navy:$706,976,000

Other Procurement, Navy:$26,000,000

Marine Corps:$212,443,000,

Missile Procurement, Air Force:$366,001,000

Other Procurement, Air Force:$3,284,072,000

Defense-wide:$46,780,000,

Research Programs

Research and Development:$633,387,000, subdivided into

Army:$18,594,000

Navy:$13,825,000

Air Force:$406,834,000

Defense-wide:$194,125,000

Other Military Aid

Office of the Inspector General(this is funds for oversight): $8,00,000.

Related Agencies

Intelligence Community Management Account:$2,00,000

Energy Programs

Science for the production of medical, stable, and radioactive isotopes(no idea why this is here): $98,000,000

Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation for etc etc:$143,915,000

Federal Salaries and Expenses for etc etc: $5,540,000

Health and Human Services

Refugee and Entrant Assistance: $481,000,000. This provision specifically allows the relevant agencies to use this money for grants or contracts with nonprofits, which imo means it's likely that most of this will go towards aiding Ukrainian refugees in Europe, and thus that this isn't just money for moving Ukrainians to America.

Department of State

Diplomatic Programs to respond to the situation in Ukraine and countries affected by said situation: $60,000,000

United States Agency for International Development

USAID operating expenses appropriated to the President for response to etc etc: $39,000,000

USAID Office of Inspector General: $10,000,000

Bilateral Economic Assistance

Transition Initiatives(meaning transition to democracy): $25,000,000

Economic Support Fund(for Ukraine's government): $7,899,000,000. A provision states that none of this money may be used for pensions(as an anti-corruption measure) and that at least $50,000,000 of this amount must be used to respond to food insecurity caused by the war.

Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia(for Ukraine's private sector):$1,575,000,000

International Security Assistance

International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement(for Ukraine and other countries affected by the invasion):$300,000,000

Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs(for Ukraine and other countries affected by the invasion): $100,000,000

Foreign Military Financing Program(for Ukraine and other countries affected by the invasion): $1,600,000,000

Some of the more impactful general provisions of the act:

The transfer of long-range ATACMS to Ukraine was required by the act, and that appears to have already happened. The President was given the option to not do so if he determined it would be detrimental to America's national security interests, but it appears he didn't.

The Secretary of State was directed to insure as much in-person monitoring as possible for funds appropriated for Economic Support, Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia, International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement, and Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs

The amount of money spent out of the total amounts budgeted for Economic Support and Assistance for etc etc may not exceed half the total amount of funds given by all donors to Ukraine. This basically means that, in terms of economic assistance, Europe has to do at least as much spending as we do.

The two headings for economic assistance mentioned above(totaling to $9,474,000,000) are loans that the President may only forgive in the following circumstances: up to 50% of the debts incurred by these loans may be cancelled by the President at any time after November 15th, 2024, while the remaining 50% may be cancelled at any time after January 1st, 2026. Both cancellations would be subject to Congressional approval.

[speedygal]

whenever this bill passes in my lifetime it will be historic in such a way that it becomes unnecessary whenever scotus gets corrected but very needed should scotus ever become the way it is now or remains the way it is.

I have some healthy doubt it will pass this year or next year.

I do applaud the sincere attempt though to try and fix this scotus made problem the only way they can.

[blondesforreagan]

Why look like professionals? Many senators don't act like ones. The tragic thing about this is that they likely would have changed the dress code for Fetterman D-PA even if he hadn't have stroked out and been left impaired. People just do not care anymore and it shows.

[phoenixyfriend]

Okay! Today brought some some more varied and nuanced analyses of the recent big Schumer speech, which I have previously posted about, and touched on the Trump response.

There are two that stood out with me:

One was really critical in a "this is not enough, it's just pretty words that functionally mean nothing" sense. This came from Democracy Now. Caveat: they focused way more on the UN resolution.

The other was, in my opinion, much more nuanced, and came from NYT's "The Daily" podcast, which featured an interview with Schumer himself. Caveat: the NYT has come under fire for being too biased towards Israel, though the podcast team is separate from the papers' team, and were previously responsible for getting a major story to undergo heavy revisions due to anti-Palestinian biases.

Going into this, I want to be clear that I am going to be viewing these through a lens of how much they may or may not help Palestine, and how much I think a given argument or form of rhetoric may have impacted the actions that Schumer and those around him have taken.

Democracy Now (March 22, 2024 episode)

Available in video/audio form, and as a transcript here. This section of the episode is titled "U.S. Said It Was Calling for a Gaza Ceasefire, But Its U.N. Resolution Didn’t Say That: Phyllis Bennis."

One of the things I just want to point out in the last moments, this issue of Chuck Schumer coming out against Netanyahu, there’s a move to isolate Prime Minister Netanyahu right now. And it’s certainly appropriate. Part of the reason he’s still in power is to stay out of jail. It’s a very personal crusade on his part. But we have to be very clear that the people who are likely to replace him, if he were to either resign or be recalled in an election, they all support this war. So we should not have the illusion, that I’m afraid people like Chuck Schumer and others might have, that anybody who’s not Netanyahu should be and would be welcomed with open arms in Washington with more weapons, more hundreds of smaller weapons shipments that wouldn’t necessarily have to be approved by Congress. This is a very dangerous reality. We have to be very clear that this is a systemic decision by the Israeli leadership. This is not a one-man show in this horrific genocidal war that is being waged in Gaza. And we have to be careful not to fall into that trap of putting it all on one person and thinking that if one person is replaced, somehow that’s an answer.

The Daily, from The New York Times

You can listen to it on Spotify or Youtube. Transcripts are not yet available for this one; the site says they're usually available by the next day. That said, I went through the YouTube auto-generated transcript because I thought some of it was important enough for that effort.

However, I think it's worth it to listen through to the whole thing if you've got the time. Things it touches on includes:

The relationship that Schumer and other older Jews have with the idea of Israel, as it developed during his childhood in the fifties and sixties, due to the very recent memory of the Holocaust.

Schumer's statement that he believes that Israel is seeding more problems for itself with the current conflict, due to how it is destabilizing the region and provoking escalations with Iran and its proxies, most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The connection of Netanyahu's radicalization in general and his growing unpopularity with the American left with his friendship with Trump.

Schumer couches an incredible amount of his argument in what he believes will convince American Jews and people with conflicted feelings on Israel, and an insistence that he believes in what Israel stands for.

An implied threat of aid withdrawal from Israel if Netanyahu remains in power.

A recurring cynicism and criticism of Schumer by the podcast hosts. They explicitly ask "what is your red line" in regards to the number of dead civilians in Palestine.

This podcast included more of the actual speech, and the logic that underpins it, than any other coverage I've read or listened to yet.

Schumer is very careful to not threaten to withdraw aid, so it's only implied. He is very careful to not explicitly dictate who leads Israel.

What he does say is that, should Netanyahu remain in power...

The United States' bond with Israel is unbreakable, but if extremists continue to unduly influence Israeli policy, then the administration should use the tools at its disposal to make sure our support for Israel is aligned with our broader goal of achieving long-term peace and stability in the region.

and

BB, I agree with you, [that] the greatest short-term threat to Israel is the rockets Iran gives Hezbollah, and they put them in Lebanon, and shoot them at Israel, but the greatest middle and long-term danger is you lose America, particularly the half of America that's more Progressive and/or the half of America that's young, and by your embracing Trump, you are making that happen.

I agree with the hosts' interpretation that 'tools' refers to the US financial backing of Israel, particularly the military funding. Schumer denies a lot of the interpretations, but generally he denies it with 'that is not what I said,' rather than 'that is not what I meant.'

Italics indicate something was said during the interview; the podcast switches between the interview and commentary a few times.

Interviewer: You don't want a ceasefire, but, like, what is--there like 30,000 more Palestinians dead-- Schumer: Well I wouldn't, I-- I'd say look Isra-- Interviewer, commentary: I said, you know, what's your red line, what is the civilian death toll that would have to be reached for you to say 'we're pulling this funding.' Interviewer: You said in your speech, if something doesn't change then there's the threat of American rich-- Schumer: I didn't--I didn't say conditions and I didn't say, um, leverage, I just said 'America's going to look at it as a thing that's' and-- Interviewer: You didn't say exactly what-- Schumer: No because I didn't want to Interviewer: You didn't want to, but what would the scenario be where that would-- Schumer: Well, I--you'd have to see it, I don't, I couldn't speculate on the future. Interviewer, commentary: ...and he didn't want to say. Second host: Well then why even give the speech? If Schumer is not willing to talk about the real consequences for Israel if there are no elections, and if Israelis don't end up removing Netanyahu from office, if he can't explain that, why give this speech?

I think that overall, this podcast and the interview it contains is... encouraging. Much of what drove Schumer's rhetoric is something I spoke about a month ago, namely the ways that Israeli propaganda rests on real fears based in history, and the ways that convincing people who believe that propaganda is to stress how the current situation is increasing danger to Israel in the middle and long term.

It's a little gratifying, at least, to know that my own understanding of the political science of it all is relatively accurate, and that at least a few of the arguments I presented in my How To Call Your Reps post are things that have worked their way into higher levels of political discourse.

To support my blogging so I can move out of my parents' house, I do have a ko-fi. Alternately, you can donate to one of the charities I list in this post.

[kp777]

Excerpt:

The Democratic leader of the US Senate, Chuck Schumer, has warned his opposite number, the Republican minority leader, Mitch McConnell, that history will judge him “poorly” because he paved the way to rightwing policies out of touch with the American people.

In an interview with Punchbowl News conducted at the Democratic national convention in August but published on Monday, Schumer accused McConnell of enabling Donald Trump’s remaking of US politics and the judiciary. By helping to shift the supreme court sharply to the right through the former president’s three appointments to the top judicial bench, McConnell had played a part in abolishing the federal right to an abortion in the ruling ending Roe v Wade, and much more, Schumer contended.

Read more.

[gwydionmisha]

* Have something you want to tell your Senators? If you can't safely contact them in person, here are some other options:

Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected to the representative of your choice.

Here is one that will send your reps a fax: https://resist.bot/

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

Hundreds of Jewish anti-war demonstrators have been arrested during a Passover seder that doubled as a protest in New York, as they shut down a major thoroughfare to pray for a ceasefire and urge the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, to end US military aid to Israel.

The 300 or so arrests took place on Tuesday night at Grand Army Plaza, on the doorstep of Schumer’s Brooklyn residence, where thousands of mostly Jewish New Yorkers gathered for the seder, a ritual that marked the second night of the holiday celebrated as a festival of freedom by Jews worldwide.

The seder came just before the US Senate resoundingly passed a military package that includes $26bn for Israel.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, plans to block an effort by Senate Democrats to unanimously pass a Supreme Court ethics bill Wednesday on the Senate floor.

“I will object,” Graham, R-S.C., told NBC News.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said earlier Tuesday that he would make a unanimous consent request to pass Supreme Court ethics legislation that the panel advanced last July.

Graham's objection means the bill won't be able to move forward, because any senator can block a request.

It isn't clear whether the measure will come up for a vote under the normal process, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he’s considering it.

Even before Graham made his comments, Democrats doubted the legislation would advance. “I think I know the outcome, but we’re going to go through the exercise to make sure that both parties are in the record,” Durbin told reporters Tuesday afternoon.

The Democratic-led Judiciary Committee advanced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act on a party-line vote nearly a year ago, but it can't break a filibuster on the Senate floor without 60 votes. Democrats have 51 members, and no Republican is on board with the bill.

In a news release, Democrats said the vote follows "a myriad of apparent ethical lapses by Supreme Court justices, which demonstrate the need for ethics reform."

A spokesperson for the Supreme Court didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday night.

Justice Clarence Thomas reported a pair of trips in 2019 with billionaire friend Harlan Crow to Bali and to the private Bohemian Grove club in California in his annual financial disclosure report, which was released last week. ProPublica reported on Thomas' and other justices' previously undisclosed lavish travel in a series of stories last year that raised questions about the court’s ethics.

The bill would give the court 180 days to adopt and publish a code of conduct, allowing the public to submit ethics complaints that would then be reviewed by a randomly selected panel of lower-court judges. It would also establish new rules for disclosing gifts and travel.

The legislation would also require justices to publicly explain any decisions to recuse from cases.

Durbin last month called on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from a pair of cases tied to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, after The New York Times reported that an upside-down American flag was displayed outside his home in the days after the riot. Alito declined to step away from those cases.