Ethical Clusterf*ck? In Samuel Alito's Supreme Court???
He is Rome.
When physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, the “father of the atom bomb,” famously said, “I am become death, destroyer of worlds,” he was expressing regret over the impact his creation would have on the world. You don’t get the same sense of humility from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s latest power-mad rant in the Wall Street Journal.
It’s obvious where this is going from the absurd title of David B. Rivkin Jr. and James Taranto’s piece, “Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court’s Plain-Spoken Defender.” Yes, we must hear from the true victim of the radical right-wing Supreme Court’s latest rulings … Samuel Alito!
The Supreme Court’s Chief Snowflake had whined a few months ago about Americans criticizing the Court and its recent rulings as if they were actual citizens in a democracy. He considered our utter gall completely unmitigated!
Now, he’s back, because apparently he can’t just quietly savor the human misery he’s caused. Our complaints are like a tell-tale heart he can’t ignore. He’s especially incensed that elected officials, who must answer to voters like a bunch of chumps, want to impose a code of ethics on him and his fellow hacks on the high court.
“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told Rivkin Jr. and Taranto, the WSJ’s editorial features editor. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”
Presumably, all his “bwah-ha-has” were removed for clarity.
A quick refresher: The Supreme Court is a part of the judiciary branch, which is one of three co-equal branches of government. The other two are the executive (the presidency) and the legislative (the House and Senate, or “Congress”). What makes these branches “co-equal” is the built-in system of checks and balances. I’m not saying this is basic, but …
Alito seems to think the Supreme Court stands alone and uncontested from the other, lesser branches that merely command an army and the power of the purse.
Congress can impeach and remove a sitting justice, even if the votes required in the Senate make this all but impossible. Congress can (and has!) added seats to the Court. The throne from which Alito renders his rulings was one of two seats added in 1837.
Alito somewhat contradicts himself when he asserts his omnipotence. He whines, “the traditional idea about how judges and justices should behave is they should be mute” — and not take bribes! Let’s not forget that one.
“The organized bar” was supposed to defend the court, but Alito complains “that’s just not happening.” He apparently lacks the self-reflection necessary to consider that the usual sources aren’t rushing to defend the Supreme Court (or the federal judiciary in general) because it’s become irredeemably radicalized and corrupt. No, that can’t be it, so Alito resolved that if “nobody else is going to do this … I have to defend myself.”
Interesting also that he frames this as defending himself personally, not the Supreme Court as an institution, but Aulus Plautius once declared, “I am Rome!” and he didn’t have half the ego of Samuel Alito.
Alito raved to Rivkin Jr. and Taranto about his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court, whom he presented as neutral legal minds with differing methodologies that just logically lead them to denying people their basic human rights. However, regarding the three liberals — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown-Jackson, he said, “I don’t see that there’s a difference in interpretive method.” Those gals are just partisan activists!
Despite his condescending dismissal of the liberal women on the Court, I’m certain Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson have at least read Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution — the part that clearly says “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” Alito’s arrogance must squint to see his actual intelligence.
Reviewing Alito’s pity party, Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post writes:
This is Alito’s third appearance this year in the Journal’s opinion section. He has given two lengthy interviews — four hours in total — to Rivkin and Taranto. And he launched a preemptive strike against ProPublica, writing an op-ed prebuttal for the Journal when ProPublica did the professional, responsible thing and asked questions before publishing its latest blockbuster, about Alito’s Alaskan fishing trip with hedge fund tycoon Paul Singer, who had business before the court.
David B. Rivkin Jr. also has upcoming business before the Court, and he’s playing “journalerapist” to Alito. Yet Taranto seems shocked and appalled that Marcus would “smell a rat” and responded huffily in Tuesday’s WSJ, “Our Samuel Alito Scoop Is No Scandal.” I don’t think a Supreme Court justice using your paper as his personal PR flack counts as a “scoop.” Pulitzers will not be forthcoming.
[Slate/ Washington Post / Wall Street Journal]
Follow Stephen Robinson on Bluesky and Threads.
Subscribe to his YouTube channel for more fun content.
Catch SER on his podcast, The Play Typer Guy.
I would also have mentioned Article III, s1:
>> "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" <<
Who determines "good Behaviour" save congress, who hold the power of impeachment? If that doesn't imply a power to regulate the behaviour of Justices, I don't know what would.
>> “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.” <<
is simply false. He should frankly be impeached just for that.
Call me crazy, but I kind of think that members of the U.S. Supreme Court should have at least as high a standard relating to conflict of interest and ethical conduct as is required for an administrative staff member at my little place of employment.