politics

No, it is not trivial, it is a fundamental rejection of (small r) republicanism in the pursuit of personal vainglory.

It is also an aspect of Christofascism that you would, admittedly, need quite a lot of reading on development of the medieval concept of knighthood to pick up on even if modern elements are recognizable but the tl;Dr of it all is that knights as a separate and popular European political class are fundamentally linked to the "Crusader" archetype as an innately Christian warrior who does violence for the faith.

Whether Alito is aware of that specifically or not, and I wouldn't put much money on it as most people are rather surprised to find out even the earliest conceptualization of knight is actually more of a 10th century/Crusade thing than a Dark Age concept, I would certainly argue that that innately Christian aspect is at least subconsciously understood by Western society in general and I can say with certainty that 20th century fascist messaging was aware of it specifically and used it quite a lot.

This seems like bad behavior to me, doing something explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. Given that the Constitution says a justice shall "hold their office during good Behavior", he should be terminated from his position of power.

So, he’s either a dumb azz or he is lying?

This has the added benefit of stripping Meghan Markle of her citizenship as well.

I really have no opinion of Meghan Markle but thought this was funny. It's insane that it'd be easier to ratify an amendment from 1810 which would impact a good handful of people to target Alito, than implement robust Supreme Court ethics reforms.

Doesn't matter here. The Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) bans public officials from receiving titles of nobility. Alito already falls under this. The writers of the Constitution thought this one was so important that it's not even an amendment. It's in the OG document.

Those were honorary knighthoods that generally mean nothing. OPs article claims that Alito pledged "an oath to the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George." That is an entirely different thing if true. As the saying goes, a man cannot serve two masters. If he has pledged an oath to this order and the Constitution of the United States of America, which takes precedence in his mind?

You have no idea how hard it is to suppress the downvote reflex here.

Don't worry, just get rich enough to not have the law apply.

Are you a US official, or just a dirty anti-American monarchist?

seems like the president has so much immunity for official actions that Alito accepting his knighthood should be an automatic empty slot on the court, Harris should appoint his replacement immediately so Alito can concentrate on his royal duties.

And when she does, she should point out the law, and Alito's dedication to originalist interpretation of said document.

With a 50% vote in the house and a 66% vote in the senate

Not quite but they did sober up and stopped seeing double.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

By the strict wording it's a violation because they absolutely style themselves as princes to a throne in exile.

No, that's actually extremely funny. Make them vote on whether or not he's french nobility. I need more Looney Toons C-SPAN coverage.