Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lance Khrome's avatar

What I find rather remarkable in Justice Alito's "statement", or "opinion" - his mea innocentia, if you will, is that these allegedly supportive references can be readily checked, as you did, Mr Greider, and found wanting. Why further jeopardize your assertion of "impartiality" by supplying essentially a factitious argument or non sequitur in aid of a shaky position?

Frankly, Alito would have been better served to just continue imperiously waving away criticisms, dismissing his questioners as so many " petty muckrakers", and leave it at that. Guilty conscience? Whatever, but in no way will this man ever bow to calls for recusal...unless, of course, the MSM make a "federal case" of it as was done in the matter of Justice Abe Fortas, whose continued tenure on the Court became unsustainable after allegations of improprieties were made public. We shall see, but the ethical climate within politics and the law during the 1960s was far, far different than the risibly lax environment that people such as Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, et al seem to thrive and prosper today.

Expand full comment
Cynbel Terreus's avatar

To the point about SCOTUS justices having no one to replace them if they recuse... is a great indication that the Court should in fact have more than 9 justices. "Well if we recuse no one will take our spot as is the case for lower courts"... so you agree that for SCOTUS justices to be better about recusal we should in fact have additional justices (probably like 2) that are there in the event of recusal (or if a judge cannot be there for some reason like a surgery). Again the constitution says nothing on what the makeup of the court should be or how it best be ran. But we historically have had instances with more justices (I don't know of an instance were some were there to fill in).

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts