The Democratic establishment has in recent months waged a concerted public-private campaign to neutralize conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Democratic lawmakers and their allies in the media have admitted that part of what's driving this campaign is the need to swing upcoming rulings in their favor. After all, the cases under consideration related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 protests as well as regarding the question of former President Donald Trump's immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump, may prove consequential in November.

Christopher Bedford, senior editor for politics and Washington correspondent for Blaze Media, recently indicated that the broader purpose is "to try to combat virtually the only check remaining on the Democrat Party's political power."

A senior Republican aide told Bedford that Democrats' overall strategy is fourfold:

First, incentivize justices to defect and change their rulings. Second, delegitimize the Court’s outputs. Third, provide political cover for aggressive ethics reforms that are stalking horses for bureaucratic controls to kneecap the Republican majority, such as mandatory recusals on the basis of unevenly applied ethical standards. And fourth, create the political conditions necessary for court-packing.

Desperate, per this scheme, for Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves, Democratic operatives have manufactured scandals, drummed up outrage, and applied scrutiny and standards to the conservative justices they would not otherwise put to Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

With little runway left and a trail of failures behind them, Democrats are now leaning into the latest manufactured scandal over Justice Alito and Martha-Ann Alito's secretly recorded remarks at the Supreme Court Historical Society's annual dinner on June 3.

While false-flagger Lauren Windsor of Democracy Partners completes her media grand tour pushing Democrats' preferred narrative, fellow travelers in the Senate are attempting to advance a so-called SCOTUS ethics bill to effectively force Alito's submission.

Flags and failures

Blaze News previously reported that Obama hagiographer Jodi Kantor initiated the latest public-private campaign on May 16 with a piece in the New York Times entitled, "At Justice Alito's House, a 'Stop the Steal' Symbol on Display."

The so-called "Stop the Steal" symbol in question was the American flag, which Martha-Ann Alito flew upside-down "in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."

While it was clear Justice Alito had nothing to do with the distressed flag, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), and others were evidently ready for Kantor's report, immediately seizing upon it as an opportunity to demand that Alito both apologize and recuse himself.

Democrats ramped up their pressure campaign while the Times and other liberal publications leaned further into the false narrative — that the flying of the flag had something to do with the January 2021 Capitol protests, that Justice Alito possibly flew the flag, and that the justice was therefore ideologically compromised.

When the false flag narrative failed to yield results, the public-private campaign tried a new angle, sounding the alarm over Justice Alito's divestment from Anheuser-Busch InBev months after it became clear the company would not soon recover from the boycott over its collaboration with a transvestite activist. What to nonpartisans may have registered as a sound investment decision was to leftist publications "suspicious" — more evidence that Alito should not be making decisions.

'I am therefore duty-bound to reject your recusal request.'

That spinoff scandal similarly didn't take.

Kantor then penned another alarmist piece — this time aided by former Bellingcat research director Aric Toler and former Washington Post researcher Julie Tate — concern-mongering about "An Appeal to Heaven" flag allegedly flying above Alito's New Jersey beach house.

The suggestion was this flag, which flew outside of San Francisco's Democratic-controlled city hall for 60 years until late last month, was again an insurrectionist symbol reflecting poorly upon the conservative justice.

Not only was this line of attack similarly ineffective, it led to Justice Alito telling Sens. Durbin and Whitehouse he would not be recusing himself.

"A reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases would conclude that this event does not meet the applicable standard for recusal," wrote Alito. Having previously referenced the disqualification provision in the court's code of conduct, the justice added, "I am therefore duty-bound to reject your recusal request."

Democrats, growing desperate — especially after the Times undercut the previous flag narrative with details about Alito's rabid leftist neighbor — began to dream up new ways to kneecap Alito.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) penned an op-ed in the New York Times, suggesting the Biden Department of Justice can lean on the high court to help Democrats get their way.

Barring a total collapse of the separation of powers and a clampdown by the Biden DOJ, Raskin and other Democrats' campaign to control the court from the sidelines appeared dead in the water; however, on Monday, Lauren Windsor put some wind in their sails.

Secret recordings

Lauren Windsor is a self-described "advocacy journalist" on the team at Robert Creamer's Democrat-aligned Democracy Partners. Creamer, who previously pleaded guilty to tax violations and to bank fraud, is the husband of Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.).

Democracy Partners has served numerous Democratic groups across the country and leftist lawmakers such as Sens. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Cory Booker (N.J.). It has also worked for clients such as Anheuser-Busch, Wikimedia, GLAAD, Human Rights, the American Federation of Teachers, and ActBlue.

Windsor, a partner at Democracy Partners and the executive director of the Democratic-aligned dark money group American Family Voices, helped the Lincoln Project stage a fake white supremacist rally in 2021 to smear then-candidate Glenn Youngkin ahead of the Virginia gubernatorial election. She has also spent time in recent years attempting to dox Project Veritas operatives.

Rather than create another fake hate rally this election season to help Democrats, Windsor claimed to be a religious conservative and secretly recorded brief conversations with Justice Alito last year and again on June 3. In the most recent instance, Windsor also recorded a conversation with Mrs. Alito.

Despite the anticipation and subsequent spin, Windsor not only failed to catch the Alitos saying anything damning but helped to further undermine the public-private campaign's previous narrative.

In the secret recordings, Alito notes that: The left and right disagree on "fundamental things that really can't be compromised"; there will likely be a victor in the culture war; American citizens ought to "heal this polarization because it's very dangerous"; and the Supreme Court is "not a law enforcement agency" and therefore cannot be weaponized against criminal leakers.

Mrs. Alito, alternatively, makes clear that: She is an agential woman whose decisions about what flag to fly are not determined by her husband; Justice Alito cautioned her against flying the supposedly controversial flags; she entertained the thought of flying a Sacred Heart [of Jesus] flag in response to a nearby LGBT activist flag; she finds comfort in Psalm 27 and is unshaken by her vilification in the press; and she might ultimately hold the liberal media accountable for alleged defamation with legal action.

While the recordings were relatively benign, the private side to the campaign has stressed that the couple's comments are, again, compromising and demonstrative of Justice Alito's inability to be impartial.

Public-private swan song

Windsor desperately attempted to provide other Democrats with the spin they needed, telling MSNBC's Alex Wagner, for instance, "The American people deserve to know: Is the Supreme Court so compromised that we do not really have impartiality? ... I think, hearing it from his mouth, that he cannot be impartial, that there are things that cannot be compromised, that needs to be fuel for journalists and for Congress to say, 'Okay, well, tell us what are the things that can't be compromised?'"

Windsor repeatedly suggested in other interviews that Alito's observation of the incommensurability between contemporary liberal and rightist worldviews constitutes an admission that he himself cannot be objective — a talking point the Associated Press and other publications have adopted.

'His rising power on the Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy.'

Speaking to NewsNation's Chris Cuomo, Windsor said that in terms of holding the Supreme Court accountable, "I think extreme measures are warranted."

Once the false-flagger had set the narrative with the help of Rolling Stone, CNN, and other liberal outfits, Democratic lawmakers did their part.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote in response to the recordings, "Stomach turning & scary. Such repugnant threats of revenge reveal a mindset — apparently shared by Alito himself, since he's declined to disown it. Also unacceptable is Roberts' lack of leadership & Congressional inaction because of Republican resistance."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said, "Alito is an extremist who is out of touch with mainstream America. His rising power on the Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy," reported The Hill.

"I am most concerned about the appearance that Justice Alito has prejudged cases that will come before him," continued Warren. "That is one of the biggest sins that a judge or justice can commit, and his willingness to align so publicly in the middle of a hotly contested political battle is deeply worrisome."

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) tweeted, "Alito answered like a movement activist. Movement activists have their role but it's not on the Supreme Court."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) indicated that Democrats would seek to advance their so-called ethics bill via unanimous consent Wednesday, reported The Hill.

"I don't rule out any tactic at this point. Our initial effort is to enact the law that passed the committee 11-10. We're going to try to do that this week with a [unanimous consent request]," said Durbin.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham vowed to block the effort, telling NBC News, "I will object."

The proposed legislation, the so-called "Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023," cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in a party-line vote last July but has not yet been brought to the floor for a vote.

The bill would greatly advance the public-private campaign's cause by expanding the circumstances under which a justice must be disqualified and require the high court to both adopt a code of conduct for justices and establish procedures to receive and investigate complaints of judicial misconduct.

While liberal justices have ethics issues all their own, Senate Democrats have indicated who the real target of the bill is.

"Alito is becoming a loose cannon turned on the Court itself. He mocks ethics," said Blumenthal. "Really discouraging — in fact, outrageous — that Roberts is implicitly condoning Alito’s behavior, so demeaning to the Court & degrading to himself."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said, "These are people who want to destroy public confidence in all of our institutions and they are focused on the Supreme Court in particular."

The Hill indicated Cornyn has made clear the bill won't go anywhere, at least this week.

Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) said the bill amounts to another attempt "by the left to delegitimize the court."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!