Buttigieg slams Martha-Ann Alito’s Pride flag comments

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg took a subtle dig Wednesday at Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann, after secret recording revealed her denouncing the display of an LGBTQ Pride flag near her home. House.

Martha-Ann Alito told an undercover activist posing as a religious conservative at an event earlier this month that she wanted to fly a religious flag in protest of a nearby Pride flag.

Buttigieg, the first openly gay Cabinet member, commented in an interview with CNN Wednesday that the court was the only reason he could marry his husband. Justice Alito ruled against legalizing gay marriage in a 5-4 decision in 2015.

“Look, I often remind myself that the most important thing in my life, which is my marriage, my family and the two beautiful children that my husband Chasten and I are raising, that this marriage only exists by the grace of a single vow. at the United States Supreme Court that expanded our rights and freedoms in 2015 and made it possible for someone like me to get married,” Buttigieg said.

He also urged the court to embrace ethics reform, as Alito is among the justices under scrutiny for potential political bias and accepting gifts.

“And, you know, Supreme Court justices have unbelievable power,” the secretary continued. “And by the nature and structure of the Supreme Court, there is no oversight over that power.”

“They are in charge of this literally as long as they live,” he continued. “And part of that trust is that we expect them to make enormously consequential decisions that shape our everyday lives with a sense of justice.”

Justice Alito’s conversation with the undercover activist included his agreement with her assertion that the US should strive to be a Christian nation and his admission that many of the court’s issues boil down to political ideology. Chief Justice John Roberts, on the other hand, fought her ideas in the pair’s own recorded conversation.

Lauren Windsor, the activist, told The Hill that she felt “justified” to surreptitiously record meeting participants because the court is “shrouded in secrecy, and they are refusing to submit to any accountability in the face of overwhelming evidence of serious ethical violations.” .”

This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story