Justice Alito was recorded expressing his belief that one side or the other will win in America's political differences.
Martha-Ann Alito expressed frustration towards critics and indicated a desire to sue the media for defamation.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, have been criticized for flying flags at their residences during Pride Month and in response to rainbow flags.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, have found themselves at the center of controversy in recent weeks due to flags flying at their residences. While Martha-Ann Alito has expressed her displeasure about seeing rainbow Pride flags during Pride Month and wants to fly a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag in response, she has also been criticized for having two flags seen at their properties that have been associated with right-wing movements questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election results. In a secret recording obtained by Rolling Stone, Martha-Ann Alito expressed her frustration towards those who criticized her husband and raised provocative flags at their properties. She also indicated she is spoiling to sue the media for defamation and has a long memory, complaining about a Washington Post style section item from two decades ago.
At a Supreme Court Historical Society dinner last week, Justice Alito was recorded expressing his belief that one side or the other will win in America's political differences and agreed with a woman's suggestion that the nation should return to a place of godliness. Chief Justice John Roberts, who was also at the event, rejected this idea and stated that it is for people we elect, not for lawyers.
Martha-Ann Alito has a reputation in GOP circles for ranting about politics, the culture wars, and the Left. She has been described as talking like Breitbart assumed a human vessel. In her conversation with Justice Alito at the dinner event, she expressed her disdain and bitterness towards others in the D.C. elite for supposedly excluding or shunning her and her husband, and for being too mean about them and their unabashedly conservative beliefs.
It is important to note that these recordings were obtained by a left-wing activist who did not disclose her identity during the conversations. The overall score of each source article varies, with some sources having higher scores than others based on their credibility and accuracy.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. expressed the belief that one side or the other will win in America’s political differences and agreed with a woman’s suggestion that the nation should return to a place of godliness.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. rejected the idea that the Supreme Court should lead the country on a more moral path and stated that it is for people we elect, not for lawyers.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(70%)
The author, Abbie VanSickle, presents selective reporting by focusing on the contrasting views of Justices Alito and Roberts without providing any context or balance. The article implies that Alito's view is extreme and dangerous while Roberts' view is more moderate and acceptable.
The two justices were surreptitiously recorded at a Supreme Court gala last week by a woman posing as a Catholic conservative.
Ms. Windsor pressed Justice Alito further... “Like, people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.” “I agree with you, I agree with you,” he responded.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a woman posing as a Catholic conservative last week that compromise in America between the left and right might be impossible and then agreed with the view that the nation should return to a place of godliness.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe Subscribe. Already a subscriber? Log in.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author reports on the different views expressed by Justices Alito and Roberts during a secret recording at a gala. While reporting the views of Justice Alito, the author includes his statement that 'One side or the other is going to win' and 'like, people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.' These statements can be considered an appeal to authority fallacy as Alito is expressing his personal belief as if it were a fact or truth that should be followed. Additionally, the statement 'One side or the other is going to win' can also be considered a dichotomous depiction fallacy as it presents only two options and ignores any possibility of compromise or alternative solutions.
“One side or the other is going to win,”
“Like, people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.”
Bias
(80%)
The author quotes Justice Alito endorsing a return to 'godliness' in contrast to Chief Justice Roberts' pushback against the idea that the court should lead the country on a more 'moral path'. This suggests religious bias on the part of Justice Alito.
“Like, people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.” - Justice Alito
“Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” - Chief Justice Roberts
Martha-Ann Alito expressed her displeasure about having to look at Pride flags during Pride Month
Martha-Ann Alito considered designing her own flag with the Italian word for shame on it
Martha-Ann Alito has a reputation in GOP circles for ranting about politics, the culture wars, and the Left
Accuracy
Martha-Ann Alito mentioned wanting to fly a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag in response
Deception
(30%)
The authors use emotional manipulation by describing Martha-Ann Alito's desire for a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag and her disdain for the Pride flags. They also use selective reporting by only mentioning Martha-Ann Alito's negative comments about the Pride flags and ignoring any positive or neutral statements she made during the conversation.
She'll be all kinds. I made a flag in my head. It's white and has yellow and orange flames around it. And in the middle is the word 'vergogna'.
There's a five-year defamation statute of limitations.
I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag because I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride flag for the next month.
Fallacies
(75%)
The authors use inflammatory rhetoric by describing Martha-Ann Alito as a 'right-wing ideologue' and 'unbowed by criticism and controversy'. They also appeal to authority by quoting liberal documentary filmmaker Lauren Windsor and using her recording as evidence of Martha-Ann Alito's views. Additionally, they make a dichotomous depiction by contrasting Martha-Ann Alito with the 'radical Left' and 'Femnazis'.
The justice’s wife is a right-wing ideologue that matches with the private reputation that Mrs. Alito has developed in the Republican Party and judicial social circuits in the D.C. area and beyond.
They’ll be all kinds. I made a flag in my head... It’s white and has yellow and orange flames around it. And in the middle is the word ‘vergogna.’ Vergogna means shame – vergogna.
Mrs. Alito indicates she is spoiling to ‘get even’ by suing the media.
One longtime Republican operative... tells Rolling Stone that they were personally aware of Mrs. Alito privately cheering on Trump’s public pledge during the 2016 presidential campaign to ‘open up U.S. libel laws, so that we’re going to have people sue you [media outlets] like you’ve never got sued before.’
A well-connected GOP lawyer says that Justice Alito ‘is like if you turned National Review into a single person.’ Martha-Ann Alito, the lawyer says, ‘talks like if Breitbart assumed a human vessel... They’re the Washington couple of Donald Trump’s dreams.'
Bias
(5%)
The authors express a clear disdain for the Pride flags and those who fly them. They also indicate a desire to sue the media, suggesting monetary bias.
I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag because I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride flag for the next month.
There's a five-year defamation statute of limitations.
Justice Samuel Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, were secretly recorded by a left-wing activist during a dinner event
Justice Alito endorsed the activist’s suggestion that ‘people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that - to return our country to a place of Godliness’
Martha-Ann Alito expressed frustration towards those who criticized her husband and raised provocative flags at their properties, including an upside-down US flag and an ‘Appeal to Heaven’ flag
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position of deception by the activist. The author does not disclose that the recordings were made without consent and fails to mention any context or justification for why Alito and Roberts' statements could be considered deceptive or problematic. The article also uses emotional manipulation by implying that the secret recordings are a significant issue, but does not provide any evidence to support this claim.
Justice Alito endorses her suggestion that ‘people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that – to return our country to a place of Godliness.’
Martha-Ann Alito can be heard bemoaning a Washington Post style reporter who wrote critically about her, and goes on to complain about ‘femnazis,’ who she says ‘believe (Justice Alito) should control my.’
The left-wing activist on Monday released secret recordings of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and his wife, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts, discussing a range of politically sensitive topics.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes no explicit fallacious statements. However, the article does contain several potential issues:
1. The activist misrepresented herself to the justices and recorded them without their knowledge or consent.
2. The article reports on an opinion expressed by Martha-Ann Alito about 'femnazis', which could be considered inflammatory rhetoric, but it is not clear if this was said in response to a question or provocation from the activist.
3. The article mentions that the subjects were unaware they were being recorded, which raises ethical concerns about journalistic practices and privacy.
4. The article does not provide any context or evidence regarding the 'growing list of ethics controversies' that have plagued the court in recent years, making it an appeal to authority without proper foundation.
5. The article uses the term 'flag controversy' multiple times, but it does not define what this means or provide any details about the flags in question beyond what was said by Martha-Ann Alito and Windsor.
Given these potential issues, I cannot give a score higher than 85.
The activist misrepresented herself to the justices and recorded them without their knowledge or consent.
The article does not provide any context or evidence regarding the 'growing list of ethics controversies' that have plagued the court in recent years.
Martha-Ann Alito is incensed about seeing rainbow Pride flags during Pride Month and wants to fly a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag in response.
Martha-Alito has been at the center of controversy over two flags seen flying at their residences that have been associated with right-wing movements questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election results.
Martha-Alito believes there is no negotiating with the radical Left and claims they believe she should be controlled by her husband.
Martha-Alito indicates she is spoiling to sue the media for defamation and has a long memory, complaining about a Washington Post style section item from two decades ago.
Martha-Alito has a disdain and bitterness towards others in the D.C. elite, whom she has bashed for supposedly excluding or shunning her and her husband, and for being too mean about them and their unabashedly conservative beliefs.
A well-connected GOP lawyer describes Martha-Alito as talking like Breitbart assumed a human vessel.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains several examples of deception. The authors use emotional manipulation by describing Martha-Ann Alito's desire to fly a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag in response to seeing Pride flags as 'satisfying herself' and 'getting even'. They also use selective reporting by only mentioning Martha-Ann Alito's criticism of Pride flags and her desire to sue the media, while omitting any context about her criticisms towards the left or Democratic lawmakers. The authors do not disclose their sources in the article.
One longtime Republican operative – a fellow partygoer among the conservative elite – tells Rolling Stone that they were personally aware of Mrs. Alito privately cheering on Trump’s public pledge during the 2016 presidential campaign to ‘open up US libel laws, so that we’re going to have people sue you [media outlets] like you’ve never got sued before.’
Mrs. Alito indicates she is spoiling to ‘get even’ by suing the media.
The justice’s wife is unbowed by the criticism and controversy – as she makes clear in comments recorded by liberal documentary filmmaker Lauren Windsor.
Fallacies
(75%)
The authors use inflammatory rhetoric by describing Martha-Ann Alito as a 'right-wing ideologue' and 'unbowed by the criticism and controversy'. They also make a dichotomous depiction of Martha-Ann Alito as someone who is spoiling to 'get even' with the media, versus those who are being persecuted. However, they do not directly quote any fallacious statements made by Martha-Ann Alito herself.
][The authors] use inflammatory rhetoric by describing Martha-Ann Alito as a 'right-wing ideologue' and 'unbowed by the criticism and controversy'.[/]
[They make a dichotomous depiction of Martha-Ann Alito as someone who is spoiling to 'get even' with the media, versus those who are being persecuted.][
Bias
(5%)
The authors express a clear disdain for the LGBTQ community and their symbols, as evidenced by Martha-Ann Alito's desire to fly a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag in response to seeing Pride flags. They also indicate a willingness to sue the media, which could be seen as an attempt to silence opposing viewpoints.
There’s a five-year defamation statute of limitations.
You know what I want? I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag, because I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride flag for the next month.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito questioned the possibility of political compromise in a conversation recorded at the Supreme Court Historical Society's annual dinner last week.
Alito agreed with a woman who suggested returning the US to ‘a place of godliness’.
Accuracy
Justice Alito agreed with a woman's suggestion that the nation should return to 'a place of godliness'
Justice Alito endorsed the activist's suggestion that 'people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that - to return our country to a place of Godliness'
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(95%)
The author does not demonstrate any bias in the article. However, the liberal filmmaker, Lauren Windsor, who recorded the conversation and is quoted in the article, demonstrates a clear religious bias by suggesting that 'people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.' This statement is an example of bias.
I think that the solution really is like winning the moral argument. Like, people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.
