President George W. Bush did not name Justice Samuel Alito as his first choice for the Supreme Court seat vacated by the retirement of pro-abortion Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. White House Counsel Harriet Myers was his first choice.
Mears had a weak record as a Supreme Court justice: she had not written much, she had not graduated from an Ivy League law school like most of the other justices, and she had never served on the bench. Opposition to Mears came from the right wing of the Republican Party, which holds Supreme Court justices to a pro-life standard. They thought Mears was not a reliable candidate to overturn Roe v. Wade.
In the face of strong opposition, Mears asked to withdraw her name, and Bush turned to Samuel Alito, a conservative Catholic who fits anyone’s definition of a sure vote to overturn Roe.
Alito struggled to win confirmation as a little-known justice on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats became aware of his views on abortion and were only mollified when his fellow 3rd U.S. Circuit Judge Edward Becker was confirmed. testified Justice Alito, speaking on his behalf before the Judiciary Committee, argued that Justice Alito was not a fanatic but a rational judge who followed the law. The Republican Senate confirmed Justice Alito by a vote of 58-42.
Becker was wrong about Alito: He was partisan, he was radical, he was an extreme conservative.
Justice Alito cannot be accused of applying the law fairly. He Explained as the court’s “most reliable party.” Hard evidence It concerns the principle of standing, or rulings on whether a party has the right to bring a lawsuit before the court. Ian Millhiser wrote in Vox magazine, “An empirical analysis of the Supreme Court’s ‘standing’ decisions finds that Justice Alito has ruled in favor of conservative litigants 100 percent of the time and against liberal litigants in every case.”
It’s no wonder he voted with the Citizens United majority, allowing unlimited campaign funds to flow in from Super PACs and enabling Donald Trump to solicit millions of dollars in donations from corporate titans.
No wonder he said during oral argument that if former presidents are not given immunity from criminal prosecution, they will remain in office and try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
It is not surprising that no basis was found under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to disqualify Trump from voting, even though it was found that he participated in the insurrection.
It’s no wonder Alito found his Holy Grail by writing the opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned a half-century of precedent created by the landmark Roe decision.
Let us not forget that Roe was upheld by five Republican-appointed justices. What legal basis could Justice Alito have had for voting to overturn such a formidable authority other than the politically charged partisan belief that women have no autonomous right to control their own bodies?
To support Dobbs’ position, Alito unearthed the work of 17th century British Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Hale, known as one of the most misogynistic people to ever serve on the bench. It is an insult to scholarship for a Supreme Court justice to cite a misogynist who died over 400 years ago to support an opinion that ignores the constitutional rights of American women.
But Alito’s problems don’t end there.
He has not been reported Fishing trip In 2008, he went to Alaska with billionaire Paul Singer. Singer flew the judge on his private jet. Singer filed a major lawsuit in the Supreme Court and later won. Justice Alito voted in favor and won $2.4 billion. Justice Alito said he did not have to recuse himself from any cases involving Singer because he did not know Singer was involved in the case, and he believed the travel and lodging were permissible under judicial ethics guidelines. Tell me one more thing.
Justice Alito’s penchant for evasion also extended to explaining the upside-down American flag in front of his Virginia home, which he said was a response to a neighbor flying a “Fuck Trump” flag. He blamed his wife for the flag raised by the Proud Boys on January 6th, claiming that he has no control over her. In other words, he takes the contradictory position that states can control a woman’s right to an abortion, but that a sitting judge cannot control his wife’s right to partisan speech while the Capitol storming case is pending before the court.
Of course, that explanation was a lie. The flag had apparently been up for two weeks before the dispute with the neighbor. And there was another flag: The Alitos have a vacation home in New Jersey, where they fly a “Appeal to Heaven” flag that they identify with Trump. There was no dispute with a neighbor in New Jersey.
The climax came when Lauren Windsor, a self-described documentary filmmaker, approached Alito at a reception, posing as a conservative activist and, with a tape recorder rolling, telling him she was worried about polarization in the country. talked With surprising candor, he said: “So, there may be ways to work together, ways to coexist peacefully, but it will be difficult, because we disagree on fundamental points and we cannot compromise on them.”
At another moment, Windsor told the judge, “I don’t know if we can negotiate with the left in the way that’s necessary to end polarization. I think it’s a matter of winning.”
Alito responded: “One of us will win. I don’t know. I mean, maybe there’s a way to live peacefully together, a way to work together, but it’s difficult, because we disagree on fundamental points that really can’t be compromised. We can’t compromise. So we can’t find a middle ground.”
They argue that Justice Alito should be forced to remove himself from Trump-related cases because of this scandal, but because the Supreme Court has no enforceable ethics code, no one can force him to do anything.
James D. Zillin is an author, legal analyst, and former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He is also a public television talk show and podcast host.A conversation with Jim Gillin.
