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.
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).
It's one of many reasons I think we need to have a regular rotation to some sort of senior status for the justices. If one of the current seats is empty, whether because of a recusal, because of a medical need, or because the political branches can't get their act together to fill it, whichever justice most recently rotated off the court can come back in to fill the slot.
As a Disabled Veteran every time I hear the names of Justices Alito or Thomas I want to vomit and cuss the Bush Boys for nominating them for the bench. The 2 most corrupt members of the US Supreme Court ever.
Every time I hear Alito or Thomas blustering about concerns brought up by others, I keep picturing Sylvester Stallone in the movie “Judge Dredd.”
“I AM the law!”
They treat ethics violations as if they’re just, because their decisions MAKE them ethical and legal.
In the past, the Supreme Court didn’t have these ethical dilemmas, since most of the justices didn’t use their positions as ways to enrich themselves. We didn’t need strict requirements to report gifts, or on when recusal was required, but instead, our justices did these things because they were RIGHT. We need to hold our leaders accountable for their actions, and remove those who are corrupt, or our great experiment that is the United States won’t be a “...government of the people, by the people, for the people...” anymore.
Little thing: There is an Amanda Tyler, who is involved with the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (separation of church and state; good organization), but that's a different one from the woman who is mentioned in passing here.
Alito just looks more biased the more he "explains" himself.
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.
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).
It's one of many reasons I think we need to have a regular rotation to some sort of senior status for the justices. If one of the current seats is empty, whether because of a recusal, because of a medical need, or because the political branches can't get their act together to fill it, whichever justice most recently rotated off the court can come back in to fill the slot.
As a Disabled Veteran every time I hear the names of Justices Alito or Thomas I want to vomit and cuss the Bush Boys for nominating them for the bench. The 2 most corrupt members of the US Supreme Court ever.
The 2 most corrupt members of the US Supreme Court so far.
Michael Moore, can you please ask Prime Minister Trudeau if I can move to Canada if the shitshow actually comes to fruition?
Saying a recusal decision is “personal” does not make it immune to questioning on ethical grounds.
Every time I hear Alito or Thomas blustering about concerns brought up by others, I keep picturing Sylvester Stallone in the movie “Judge Dredd.”
“I AM the law!”
They treat ethics violations as if they’re just, because their decisions MAKE them ethical and legal.
In the past, the Supreme Court didn’t have these ethical dilemmas, since most of the justices didn’t use their positions as ways to enrich themselves. We didn’t need strict requirements to report gifts, or on when recusal was required, but instead, our justices did these things because they were RIGHT. We need to hold our leaders accountable for their actions, and remove those who are corrupt, or our great experiment that is the United States won’t be a “...government of the people, by the people, for the people...” anymore.
Little thing: There is an Amanda Tyler, who is involved with the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (separation of church and state; good organization), but that's a different one from the woman who is mentioned in passing here.
Alito just looks more biased the more he "explains" himself.
(I realize the substack doesn't confuse the two, but I was the first time I saw the name.)