On behalf of all New Jerseyans, I want to formally apologize to my fellow citizens for New Jersey producing the right-winger Samuel Alito who helps facilitate the continued right-wing hijacking of our nation's common sense and laws.
Compare the politics and public thoughts of the two sons of Italian Catholic immigrants - Samuel Alito and the late Mario Cuomo (Sr.) - and you can't help but come away dumbfounded at the gulf of humanity, decency and compassion between the two men.
Compare the politics and public thoughts of the two sons of Italian Catholic immigrants - Samuel Alito and the late Mario Cuomo (Sr.) - and you can't help but come away dumbfounded at the gulf of humanity, decency and compassion between the two men.
36
"self-indulgent eccentricity that has rendered Justice Clarence Thomas a nonplayer." ------- that's all you have to read to understand that this author is a bona-fide Know-Nothing. Justice Thomas is generally on the strongest grounds in his analysis and consistency, and is least likely to create pretzels of logic to support his conclusion. The other Justices of all stripes would do well to base their decisions as solidly and consistently as he does.
1
Some smart person should write a book with a title "The Rise of the Ideologues" -- an authoritative analysis of what makes an ideologue, how they seem to have increasing influence on our national affairs, and how they will ultimately destroy the country. The author should have a background in psychology but also should have broad knowledge of history and politics. Steven Pinker, are you listening?
15
"Alito" and "popularity" are not two words that spring to mind, neither in conjunction nor in simultaneity. Sort of like "Thomas" and "verbose."
8
Alito is a facile justice who decides his position based on his values then justifies
21
Anti-defendant (innocent till proven guilty?), anti-professional standards (why?)? anti-labor? Clarence Thomas without the self-indulgent quirks?
I could pick Mr. Alito out of a line-up. But it's not his looks that concern me. His opinions betray a rigid doctrine, ill-suited to the demands of a unique branch of government - one founded on the idea encompassing the people, by the people, for the people. Individuals are hurt by Mr. Alito's approach. In groups those individuals make up the American people.
I could pick Mr. Alito out of a line-up. But it's not his looks that concern me. His opinions betray a rigid doctrine, ill-suited to the demands of a unique branch of government - one founded on the idea encompassing the people, by the people, for the people. Individuals are hurt by Mr. Alito's approach. In groups those individuals make up the American people.
35
It is unseemly that, as Greenhouse as pointed out on several occasions, it is entirely possible to know the vote of most of the justices based simply on the parties in the brief rather than the facts.
The justices on the far right of the Court are rigid ideologues eager to ratify decisions which comport with their monochromatic views and re-visit those which do not. Stare decisis is their best friend when they need to rail against 'activist judges' but is no impediment when the facts are the other way.
Even a casual observer must see that the credibility of our system of government depends upon the perceived impartiality of the Court.
The justices on the far right of the Court are rigid ideologues eager to ratify decisions which comport with their monochromatic views and re-visit those which do not. Stare decisis is their best friend when they need to rail against 'activist judges' but is no impediment when the facts are the other way.
Even a casual observer must see that the credibility of our system of government depends upon the perceived impartiality of the Court.
37
The great American poet, Ralph Waldo Emerson, wrote that: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
However, I'm less concerned with whether he's being "foolishly" consistent (though I'd argue he is) than with the fact he is consistently mean-spirited. He well represents all the uneducated angry white men railing against any and all perceived slights or injustices or threats.
The man's lack of empathy for anyone other than those like him is appalling, especially given the Court's responsibility for protecting the rights of those who are truly oppressed. In some quarters, that lack of empathy would be seen as bordering on the sociopathic.
Given Alito's power, the consequences of whatever it is he is suffering from will likely be just as bad as if he were.
However, I'm less concerned with whether he's being "foolishly" consistent (though I'd argue he is) than with the fact he is consistently mean-spirited. He well represents all the uneducated angry white men railing against any and all perceived slights or injustices or threats.
The man's lack of empathy for anyone other than those like him is appalling, especially given the Court's responsibility for protecting the rights of those who are truly oppressed. In some quarters, that lack of empathy would be seen as bordering on the sociopathic.
Given Alito's power, the consequences of whatever it is he is suffering from will likely be just as bad as if he were.
55
Wow - didn't know that Alito had that level of control of the docket and that influence. Nor, his consistent voting record. Now, my impression of Justice Alito has increased substantially - thanks to this column. Thank you Linda.
What this is really about - despite Greenhouse's reticence - is the crucially important upcoming presidential election. Because of Justice Bader's refusal to retire when the Democrats held the Senate majority, and despite their pleading, the possibility of Obama replacing her - should the frail, elderly, woman actually retire - with another from the far left is not going to happen. The Republicans will go to war over the next appointment.
So, Greenhouse, using Alito as a strawman, is delivering a timely warning for her fellow Liberals - we must, absolutely must win the upcoming elections. Or Bader's replacement will be another Alito type.
The Republicans should send a copy of this column to all their members so as to remind them what's at stake and why they must win in 2016.
What this is really about - despite Greenhouse's reticence - is the crucially important upcoming presidential election. Because of Justice Bader's refusal to retire when the Democrats held the Senate majority, and despite their pleading, the possibility of Obama replacing her - should the frail, elderly, woman actually retire - with another from the far left is not going to happen. The Republicans will go to war over the next appointment.
So, Greenhouse, using Alito as a strawman, is delivering a timely warning for her fellow Liberals - we must, absolutely must win the upcoming elections. Or Bader's replacement will be another Alito type.
The Republicans should send a copy of this column to all their members so as to remind them what's at stake and why they must win in 2016.
8
2016 matters, but the most important election will be 2020, the census year leading to reapportionment.
Alito is most certainly no straw man. He's the real thing. the right-wing avatar.
Alito is most certainly no straw man. He's the real thing. the right-wing avatar.
4
“I cannot follow the court’s logic,” Justice Alito objected,...“Under our modern Eighth Amendment cases, what counts are our society’s standards — which is to say, the standards of the American people — not the standards of professional associations, which at best represent the views of a small professional elite.”
Unless, of course, socity's standards run counter to Alito's prejudices, such as his mysogeny, homophobia, racism, contempt for non-Christian religions, and disposal of all who disagree with or are different from him.
Alito is an utter disgrace. He is not on SCOTUS to promote equal justice under law, or secure the blessings of liberty to all Americans. He is there to return America to a better, more conservative time, when blacks, Jews, other non-Christians, women, homosexuals, the poor, the weak, the disabled, and other non-white Christian males knew and accepted their second- and third-rate status in America.
Unless, of course, socity's standards run counter to Alito's prejudices, such as his mysogeny, homophobia, racism, contempt for non-Christian religions, and disposal of all who disagree with or are different from him.
Alito is an utter disgrace. He is not on SCOTUS to promote equal justice under law, or secure the blessings of liberty to all Americans. He is there to return America to a better, more conservative time, when blacks, Jews, other non-Christians, women, homosexuals, the poor, the weak, the disabled, and other non-white Christian males knew and accepted their second- and third-rate status in America.
48
Greenhouse is a joke. She drips with condescension towards any conservative judge. This makes me laugh since for years as the Times supposedly unbiased Supreme Court reporter she always exhibited this bias. She would have always denied it of course but those with a brain saw the bias. Now of course she is unmasked for the leftist she apparently always was.
10
Any arguments here? Or it's just self-evident?
3
I don't know what qualifies as "leftist" nowadays. But, calling Scalia bombastic, and occasionally overreaching is neither a reach nor condescending. It's an uncontroversial fact, and something that his proponents, not to mention the man himself, embraces.
10
Yeah, she has a point of view and this is an op-ed piece. So your "unmasking" of her is a little like me seizing on a segment of Fox "news" and saying, "see, I knew they had a point of view!" You should take a look at the op-ed page of the WSJ.
18
Alito is also a sexist. A Princeton alumnus, he vehemently opposed admission of women to that university.
He exemplifies everything that is wrong with conservatism.
He exemplifies everything that is wrong with conservatism.
60
so this guy literally just can't wait to kill people. what an embarrassment to our country and judicial branch.
27
Hmmmm, wonder if Justice Alito considers the NRA a "private group with limited membership," not a voice of any importance.
33
Similarly, the Federalist Society?
14
What, if any, actions were taken against attorneys Eric Butts and Phil Horwitz for their apparent irresponsibility; i.e., breach of fiduciary responsibility and dereliction of duty? If none, why not?
13
I have always considered Justice Alito's criminal law jurisprudence to be the essence of simplicity: the police and prosecutors win, the defendant loses. Don't bother him with underlying rationales or generally applicable principles, he is only interested in the bottom line.
31
This column puts in the sharpest focus one reason that a Presidential election is so important. What kind of individual will a President appoint to the supreme court? Imagine what the court would look like if John McCain had been elected in 2008. We'd have two more Alitos. A 7 to 2 extreme conservative advantage. Voters had better realize that the 2016 Presidential election will be one of the most important in this nation's history. Moderates, progressives, liberals, women, Hispanics, African Americans, gays/lesbians, the middle class, the poor and especially the working poor must all forget their differences and elect a Democrat to the White House. Hopefully also retake the Senate and win a majority in the House.
13
The people who actually vote have given us the current Congress.
Everyone zealots--but only if they are on their side. Sam Alito vs. Bill Douglas? Liz Warren vs. Ted Cruz? Bernie Sanders vs. Rand Paul?
For those of us who are moderates, there are fewer icons.
For those of us who are moderates, there are fewer icons.
3
Say what you want about Alito, at least you can count on him to be consistent with his ideology. But with Justice Kennedy, you have no idea what is going to pop out of that Pandora's box of unpredictability...which is why he is called the "swing" person on the Court.
Of all Kennedy's decisions and written opinions, the worst is when he wrote that: “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
Of all Kennedy's decisions and written opinions, the worst is when he wrote that: “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
8
An apparent problem with Supreme Court justices having a "base" in populist politics is on display here in the comments. To be fair, there are not Republican or Democratic justices. Jurist generally fall along a jurisprudential (not a political) range.
But there is no question that the current court is on the far right of the spectrum, in all the history of the Supreme Court. Doubtless, President Clinton will have the chance to steer the Court back toward the norm when she nominates a replacement for Justice Scalia.
But there is no question that the current court is on the far right of the spectrum, in all the history of the Supreme Court. Doubtless, President Clinton will have the chance to steer the Court back toward the norm when she nominates a replacement for Justice Scalia.
11
As a lawyer who closely follows the Supreme Court, I thank you for publishing this article. It vindicates me before my colleagues who refuse to acknowledge that Alito is by far the most conservative member on the bench. His selection was George W. Bush's prerogative, but the manner in which Alito lied during his confirmation hearings is galling. The drama created by his wife (who's acting chops appear to be second to none) left a bad taste in the mouth that lingers today.
36
Wouldn't it be easier, and perhaps take less space in the Times, to just say "I'm an ideological liberal, and I don't like Sam Alito? IT would also be more honest.
You don't seem to complain that Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer are totally predictable and adored by the people who agree with them?
The Times is such a great paper, can't it engage legal analysts who are more objective and open minded?
You don't seem to complain that Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer are totally predictable and adored by the people who agree with them?
The Times is such a great paper, can't it engage legal analysts who are more objective and open minded?
11
Actually Breyer is not totally predictable. The liberals tend to follow the Constitution, and are predictable that way. The rightists tend to put their preferred candidates in office by any available means.
20
There is a qualitative difference between reasonableness and intractability.
8
I guess conservatives (oligarchs) love Alito because they can count on him to rule the same way on Wednesday he ruled on Monday, regardless of what happens on Tuesday.
21
Consistency in following the Constitution is a good thing.
4
Another example of why there should exist reasonable term limits for Congressmen and Supreme Court Justices.
25
Here's a thought to consider. If the Supreme Court Justices responsibility is to determine if a law is constitutional their record should not be all conservative or liberal unless they are allowing their personal beliefs and political orientation to affect their opinions. Life is just not black and white. While I often do not agree with Justice Kennedy, as the "swing" Justice, he perhaps shows less bias towards his beliefs than others.
9
Just the opposite would be true. It is liberals who believe the constitution is a "living document" that can be manipulated to fit their ideology. The perfect example is Roe4 v. Wade. Regardless of whether you are for or against abortion, that ruling was one of the worst in the history of the Supreme Court, in that the justices "found" that right somewhere in the Constitution, even though it is not there.
It is liberals who want to scrap the Constitution and write a new one, not conservatives. It is liberals who complain about that old document written by white men (liberals always have to inject race into everything). There is even a Constitution political party, and it is conservative, not liberal.
Look at the Obamacare ruling. It was the conservatives who said the mandate was a fine, which the law clearly states (and Obama said repeatedly). It was Roberts and the liberals who re-wrote the law to say it was a tax, which is beyond their power.
The latest challenge to Obamacare should reveal a lot. The law clearly states that only states with exchanges get subsidies, there is no wiggle room in the language at all. The architect of the law even says so. But you will see all the liberals change the specific intent and wording of the law to match their ideology, and that is the biggest difference between liberal and conservative justices. To liberals, ideology always trumps the Constitution, whereas conservatives have the opposite view.
It is liberals who want to scrap the Constitution and write a new one, not conservatives. It is liberals who complain about that old document written by white men (liberals always have to inject race into everything). There is even a Constitution political party, and it is conservative, not liberal.
Look at the Obamacare ruling. It was the conservatives who said the mandate was a fine, which the law clearly states (and Obama said repeatedly). It was Roberts and the liberals who re-wrote the law to say it was a tax, which is beyond their power.
The latest challenge to Obamacare should reveal a lot. The law clearly states that only states with exchanges get subsidies, there is no wiggle room in the language at all. The architect of the law even says so. But you will see all the liberals change the specific intent and wording of the law to match their ideology, and that is the biggest difference between liberal and conservative justices. To liberals, ideology always trumps the Constitution, whereas conservatives have the opposite view.
8
Roe v. Wade was the right decision for the wrong reason.
We the people never delegated the power to supervise the internal processes of our own bodies to any government in the US.
We the people never delegated the power to supervise the internal processes of our own bodies to any government in the US.
12
I'll leave to others specific replies regarding Ms. Greenhouse's recitation of Alito case examples, but innuendo which is good for the goose...
If Alito is a conservative rock star who appears at the Federalist Society, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a left wing rock star who appears at liberal-left organizations - and isn't shy about making her views known outside the Courtroom.
If Alito will never go soft in the crunch, neither will Ginsburg. If Alito cites the Constitution as support for his votes, Ginsburg cites what will happen if the Court doesn't vote her way - something more the responsibility of the Legislative than the Judicial branch.
If Justice John Paul Stevens could be flexible enough to support Indiana's voter ID law, Ginsburg can always be relied upon to be rock solid for the left wing view of the matter - any matter. So why not write a column pointing out all of the above? Answer: it wouldn't have furthered Greenhouse's argument, which I suspect would have been stronger had she left out innuendo which applies equally to her own rock star hero(ine) - Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
If Alito is a conservative rock star who appears at the Federalist Society, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a left wing rock star who appears at liberal-left organizations - and isn't shy about making her views known outside the Courtroom.
If Alito will never go soft in the crunch, neither will Ginsburg. If Alito cites the Constitution as support for his votes, Ginsburg cites what will happen if the Court doesn't vote her way - something more the responsibility of the Legislative than the Judicial branch.
If Justice John Paul Stevens could be flexible enough to support Indiana's voter ID law, Ginsburg can always be relied upon to be rock solid for the left wing view of the matter - any matter. So why not write a column pointing out all of the above? Answer: it wouldn't have furthered Greenhouse's argument, which I suspect would have been stronger had she left out innuendo which applies equally to her own rock star hero(ine) - Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
14
Really wish you'd at least point out where you find innuendo. This is a pretty straightforward piece about a judge who is pretty straightforward about where he stands. Why does everything have to be a left-wing conspiracy? This struck me as a very informative article, that's all.
5
Mr. Alito reminds us of those politicians that had little flare, but who were efficient, got things done, and delivered for their base. That is, a partisan but effective politician, who today sadly fits right where he is: in a Supreme Court that has become nothing more than an over-powerful partisan organ.
If this is to remain, then we need to elect Court Justices, or return the Court to its proper and Originalist Constitutional role: a small backwater, dedicated to defining minor territorial conflicts between the states, but a far second to the Executive and Congressional powers, without the abilities to constrain either (given both, though imperfectly elected, actually represent the People).
There should be no preeminent role given to any unelected court in a Republic if it does not pursue justice)
If this is to remain, then we need to elect Court Justices, or return the Court to its proper and Originalist Constitutional role: a small backwater, dedicated to defining minor territorial conflicts between the states, but a far second to the Executive and Congressional powers, without the abilities to constrain either (given both, though imperfectly elected, actually represent the People).
There should be no preeminent role given to any unelected court in a Republic if it does not pursue justice)
2
I'm with Alito on his disdain for "expert" opinion. Should the police be the arbiters of appropriate policing methods? How about the generals deciding on the defense budget? The AMA determining medical reimbursement rates?
I don't care what the organization is, it will always look out for itself or its members rather than the general welfare.
I don't care what the organization is, it will always look out for itself or its members rather than the general welfare.
5
Precisely how is an organization of medical professionals coming up with guidelines for diagnosis, etc. "looking out for itself"? I take yours and Alito's disdain as an example of the anti-intellectual strain that runs through this country in which, not only is there ignorance of science, but disdain for it. Any field has its experts and, while they should not have an absolute say over anything, by virtue of becoming expert in a field (whether it be medicine, psychiatry, engineering, auto mechanics, electricians, etc.) they deserve some deference. The fact that they're in an organization that pools expertise to come up with standards, etc. should not undermine the expertise of the individuals which is what you do when you disdain the organization.
9
It is mind-boggling to think how Bush presidents have changed this country--far right courts to unending wars. And now another Bush is on the horizon. Where will it end?
4
I wonder if Linda would rewrite this exact same article and replace the words "Alito" and "conservative" with "Ginsburg" and "liberal"?
5
Nice bit of character assassination.
3
Columnists/commenters always amaze me with their unintentional irony: in this case, progressive deplore conversatives for being too partisan while intentionally ignoring the fact that the liberal justices vote as a block much more frequently than the converative members.
I cannot recall any liberal judge ruling against the Democratic Party mindset like Chief Justice Roberts did with ObamaCare (yet he is still reviled here!)
I know, I know: it's still false equivalence!
I cannot recall any liberal judge ruling against the Democratic Party mindset like Chief Justice Roberts did with ObamaCare (yet he is still reviled here!)
I know, I know: it's still false equivalence!
8
You are wrong. Look at the record made by Justice Breyer.
4
And people should keep an eye on the next Republican appointee, Orin Kerr.
1
This article characterizes why I find H.W. and W. Bush so abhorrent. They saddled the court with two lousy justices. And, of course, the affects of these two appointments will haunt the halls of justice forever. And now Jeb is running. OMG!
14
As other comments suggest, it is fair that the same things could be said of the more liberal justices on the court. It is a reflection of our politcs. Justices are nominated by President's who have a viewpoint and an agenda. Those President's did not go through the brutal campaign process to have their programs overturned by some justice so they the presidents look for a reliable vote (now more than ever). Take the Affordable Care Act. That was a reform that was attempted and failed numerous times by numerous presidents over the course of decades. It cost Obama a mountain of politcal capital so the last thing he wants to see is the Court overturn it (though that may still happen.)
While it would be nice to have ideological pure and centrist Justices on the Court who saw their jobs as simply to "call balls and strikes" that is not going to happen. When the court is poisoned with justices like Thomas, Alito and Scalia, the only thing a progressive president can do is provide a counterweight to hopefully neutralize the extremism. That has been done.
Have we turned the court into another legislative branch? Yes. Is that good for the country? No. But that is what we have now. Fortunately, in some small way, thiis does actually reflect the long-term views of the majority of Americans since it takes so long for the politicasl change to occur on the court given the lifelong appointments. Assuming Hillkary wins, we will see 5-4 progressive domination fro years. Oops.
While it would be nice to have ideological pure and centrist Justices on the Court who saw their jobs as simply to "call balls and strikes" that is not going to happen. When the court is poisoned with justices like Thomas, Alito and Scalia, the only thing a progressive president can do is provide a counterweight to hopefully neutralize the extremism. That has been done.
Have we turned the court into another legislative branch? Yes. Is that good for the country? No. But that is what we have now. Fortunately, in some small way, thiis does actually reflect the long-term views of the majority of Americans since it takes so long for the politicasl change to occur on the court given the lifelong appointments. Assuming Hillkary wins, we will see 5-4 progressive domination fro years. Oops.
4
Has Linda Greenhouse ever described a Supreme Court Justice as "a lifelong movement liberal"?
6
Amazing. People expect Linda Greenhouse to be without political bias, but such bias within the Court is perfectly acceptable. The truth is that the cry to rid ourselves of activist judges has the same hollow ring as the demand for term limits in Congress. Now that Republicans are in control we debate, not judicial activism, but the KIND of judicial activism that is being exercised. If decisions in the Supreme Court required the same supermajority as is required in the US Senate to move matters, then we would have stagnation in all branches of government. But we don't. Now one politician in a robe can declare any law that they don't like unconstitutional and they do.
13
Justice Alito's view of the ABA is clearly correct. Only a minority of American lawyers belong to the ABA and it represents the parochial interests of its members, not the public interest. Accordingly, its views deserve consideration along with the views of all of the other organizations trying to persuade the Court to do one thing or another.
7
So Alito can't follow the Court's logic in Florida v. Hall? He was certainly aware that the issue in Hall was not WHETHER an intellectually disabled person could be executed – that issue was already decided in Atkins v. Virginia - but rather, how to DEFINE intellectual disability. In suggesting that the Court should not look to professional medical and psychological organizations, or consider their guidelines, opinions, and expertise, Justice Alito belies any notion that he is anything other than a right wing ideologue who will use his immense power to further his party’s agenda, notwithstanding what is just, fair, and constitutional. Societal standards are certainly relevant in determining whether an intellectually disabled individual should be eligible for the death penalty, but play little role in determining how to define such an individual; this should be left to the “elites” in the fields of medicine and psychology (otherwise known as doctors and psychologists). Indeed, contrary to Alito’s assertions, our elected officials seem to recognize as much, for every statute in every state barring the execution of intellectually disabled persons define such persons according to definitions provided by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and the American Psychiatric Association, professional organizations both. The only “logic” in Alito’s dissent was how his disingenuous populist tone would logically appeal to those in his base.
29
Ailto is a lightweight intellectually, a common malady among republican idealogues
7
And yet, Roberts is considered to be the smartest person in the room by a wide margin.
According to the right-wing, activist judges are only bad when they are liberal.
9
Not always. The right is now using the courts to push their agenda. There was an article about it the other day, sorry for being vague. But I have seen it in other court cases. As legislatures and executives are more Republican these days, they are filling the benches with like minded judges. As positions get filled, challenges are made and the cases go before these new and conservative judges. The rulings benefit the conservative cause and can be used as precedent in other cases, which leads to more challenges, more conservative-leaning rulings and so on. Rather than complaining about progressive activist judges, the right is now using judicial activism and wondering why they waited so long to do it.
1
Shortly after then-Judge Alito had been nominated for the Supreme Court I had lunch with a leading member of the Philadelphia bar, who in response to my strong concerns that Judge Alito's appointment would tip the Court much further to the right, assured me that at most his views were quite moderate. Ha!
2
His long, pre-SCOTUS anti-abortion record should have told your friend something. In bed recovering from minor surgery, I watched the senate hearing on his nomination knowing very little about the man. By the end of the day, I was sick at heart. The show with his family, the way he answered questions, all pointed to a basic dishonesty that would be deadly on the court. And it has been, in many ways.
12
Whatever various readers feel about Justice Alito and this article, let's thank Linda Greenhouse for calling out, by name, the two attorneys assigned in the Missouri death penalty case. Mr. Butts and Mr. Horwitz are incompetent lawyers, at best, and should be disciplined by the Missouri bar or the federal bar. Their actions (or the lack of them) were unconscionable, cynical, and inexcusable. I hope having been named here will at least cause them some shame and embarrassment among their professional colleagues.
Regardless of how Justice Alito and the rest of the Court rule on this particular case, it is lazy or incompetent lawyers like Butts and Horowitz that make so many of these appeals necessary in the first place. Ms. Greenhouse could have simply referred to them as “Mr. Christeson’s attorneys,” but instead named them, without additional comment. Nice touch.
Regardless of how Justice Alito and the rest of the Court rule on this particular case, it is lazy or incompetent lawyers like Butts and Horowitz that make so many of these appeals necessary in the first place. Ms. Greenhouse could have simply referred to them as “Mr. Christeson’s attorneys,” but instead named them, without additional comment. Nice touch.
19
Justice Alito has served as a film reviewer at the NY Historical Society, this year he spoke before a screening of "Witness for the Prosecution," maybe a new career in the future?
Better he take that new career up now, rather than later.
2
The last three republican presidents have given us the worst justices since at least the 1930s.
11
Ms. Greenhouse's column simply confirms that, despite our national insistence that Supreme Court nominees and justices are impartial and apolitical, the process of nomination, Senate approval and legal renderings by SCOTUS are intensely political, and have been throughout history.
That said, I have no doubt that Alito was a Trojan horse of the right wing political class, foisted on the Bush White House as a take it or leave it deal to right the ideological heresies of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He is not a justice of the law, but a cipher for a political movement, plain and simple.
That said, I have no doubt that Alito was a Trojan horse of the right wing political class, foisted on the Bush White House as a take it or leave it deal to right the ideological heresies of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He is not a justice of the law, but a cipher for a political movement, plain and simple.
37
Not having read all the reader contributions, I may be in error, but nobody has referred to his Roman Catholicism - varying degrees of religious devout and faithful behavior, buttressed by a solid Catholic education. This background he shares with all the five conservative justices: al five of them solid Catholic believers. What they all need now, it seems, is a visit from the Pope Francis, where he gathers them all into an elegant room and lectures them, just as he did the aging and out of touch cardinals quite recently.
We don't yet know if that talking to has had an effect, but we can hope. Same for the Catholic justices. But at least the Pope could shame the older ones into retiring soon, perhaps, and the younger ones to straighten out their act or he will revisit the issue; bye bye Thomas and Scalia, and learn the new theology, Roberts and Kennedy, and meanwhile we will reserve special shaming for you medieval relic thinker, Mr. Alioto.
Finally, perhaps we could have the Pope give his recommendation for the replacement Catholic justices, no ?
We don't yet know if that talking to has had an effect, but we can hope. Same for the Catholic justices. But at least the Pope could shame the older ones into retiring soon, perhaps, and the younger ones to straighten out their act or he will revisit the issue; bye bye Thomas and Scalia, and learn the new theology, Roberts and Kennedy, and meanwhile we will reserve special shaming for you medieval relic thinker, Mr. Alioto.
Finally, perhaps we could have the Pope give his recommendation for the replacement Catholic justices, no ?
17
What a fantastic piece. Truly, the irony of a person, who is so far to the right politically, and so in favor of protecting corporate interest, railing against elitism is breath taking
Does Justice Alito really believe that the well-educated, well-experienced views of professionals (such as the APA and ABA) should not have a bearing in decisions that they are eminently qualified to speak on (such as mental competence)?
Perhaps we should apply this notion to the court system and do away with "professional" judges. What do those robe-wearing elitists know anyway? Shoot I never went to law school but the constitutional clearly does not care about "qualifications". Why should I weigh the opinion of someone who has dedicated a career study something any more than someone who has a vague idea about a topic. Every persons opinion is just as valuable as another even if don't have any "professional knowledge" that bears on the subject.
Perhaps should simply select judges the same way we select jury members. If you are called you serve for a week behind the bench and then go back to your regular life. What could be more democratic?
Does Justice Alito really believe that the well-educated, well-experienced views of professionals (such as the APA and ABA) should not have a bearing in decisions that they are eminently qualified to speak on (such as mental competence)?
Perhaps we should apply this notion to the court system and do away with "professional" judges. What do those robe-wearing elitists know anyway? Shoot I never went to law school but the constitutional clearly does not care about "qualifications". Why should I weigh the opinion of someone who has dedicated a career study something any more than someone who has a vague idea about a topic. Every persons opinion is just as valuable as another even if don't have any "professional knowledge" that bears on the subject.
Perhaps should simply select judges the same way we select jury members. If you are called you serve for a week behind the bench and then go back to your regular life. What could be more democratic?
11
I agree with the tenor of Prof Greenhouse's summary of Justice Alito in this column.
What would she make of two cases where Justice Alito was in lone dissent: US v Stevens, the video sales of dogfighting case and Snyder v Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church picketing military funerals?
Dude is bad news but give the devil his due: In each of the cases above I agreed with Alito's lone dissent as to what he believed should have been the outcome, notwithstanding the negative implications for free speech and freedom of religious practice and notwithstanding the lack of support from his usual reactionary cabal. He is against commercial dog torture and he thinks blunt, crude pickets at a funeral don't deserve constitutional protection. At his journalistic sentencing today in front of Judge Greenhouse I ask for clemency, but only a bit, on Alito's behalf.
What would she make of two cases where Justice Alito was in lone dissent: US v Stevens, the video sales of dogfighting case and Snyder v Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church picketing military funerals?
Dude is bad news but give the devil his due: In each of the cases above I agreed with Alito's lone dissent as to what he believed should have been the outcome, notwithstanding the negative implications for free speech and freedom of religious practice and notwithstanding the lack of support from his usual reactionary cabal. He is against commercial dog torture and he thinks blunt, crude pickets at a funeral don't deserve constitutional protection. At his journalistic sentencing today in front of Judge Greenhouse I ask for clemency, but only a bit, on Alito's behalf.
1
One can speak freely from virtually anywhere, so legislation that prohibits it during private ceremonies protects free exercise of religion without silencing speech.
for anyone who bothered to look closely, when justice alito was on the third circuit, his voting record placed him among the most predictably conservative judges in the country. he, thomas, and scalia are politicians, purely--voting for results.
roberts and kennedy, although conservative, tend to be slightly more balanced.
there is no member of the court to balance alito, scalia and thomas, and for that reason the court has moved the country to the right, with very damaging results.
roberts and kennedy, although conservative, tend to be slightly more balanced.
there is no member of the court to balance alito, scalia and thomas, and for that reason the court has moved the country to the right, with very damaging results.
23
Last time I checked, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan were the most predictable. But I guess "predictability" is in the eyes of the beholder.
5
For those who feel nostalgia for a more honorable Supreme Court, look for the film Gideon's Trumpet, it is on DVD.
It stars Henry Fonda, and shows the history, and true story, of a time not that long ago, when legal representation was not required before being judged guilty or not guilty. It shows how a case finally came to the Supreme Court and how the judges decided to require legal representation for all defendants....
It stars Henry Fonda, and shows the history, and true story, of a time not that long ago, when legal representation was not required before being judged guilty or not guilty. It shows how a case finally came to the Supreme Court and how the judges decided to require legal representation for all defendants....
5
The book is pretty good, too. It stars Mr. Gideon.
Linda Greehouse won't characterize Alito's actions in the Christeson case, but I will. They reveal a man who evidently sees no problem with executing a man who may have received inadequate legal representation and makes that more likely by throwing pointless roadblocks in the way of the lawyers trying to help him. What else would we expect from a jurist who, as this disturbing portrait shows, is entirely incapable of setting aside his preconceptions about criminal defendents, corporate "rights," or anything else when evaluating cases. I suppose it's arguable whether judges should be compassionate. But if they don't have open minds they belong in Congress, not on the Supreme Court.
48
R,
If "Compassion" is your concern, who will represent those murdered and their survivors before the court? Should they not also be represented? (rhetorical question) The court repersents the dead, the survivors and the public.
If the court feels that the purpose of the chalange is to delay an otherwise just execution the "Compassion" should be for a swift conclusion and closure for the survivors not endless delay.
If "Compassion" is your concern, who will represent those murdered and their survivors before the court? Should they not also be represented? (rhetorical question) The court repersents the dead, the survivors and the public.
If the court feels that the purpose of the chalange is to delay an otherwise just execution the "Compassion" should be for a swift conclusion and closure for the survivors not endless delay.
1
No, the Court represents justice; the government (the prosecution) represents "the dead, survivors and the public," the defense attorneys represent the accused and the convicted.
5
But the Supreme thugs have made it clear that an occasional wrongly executed person is only so much collateral damage.
3
I used to think that Justice Scalia was the most pro-Theocracy Justice of the Supremes. I have had to change my mind and baptize Justice Alito with that banner.
12
That the basest of Republicans are known to all as the base, so perfectly defines their space.
America wants to do better than to be a part of that base. This guy will likely hang around until he dies. Linda is losing her infinite patience. This is the dweeb who decided to stop attending the State of the Union because it was not his cup of tea.
America wants to do better than to be a part of that base. This guy will likely hang around until he dies. Linda is losing her infinite patience. This is the dweeb who decided to stop attending the State of the Union because it was not his cup of tea.
8
He stopped attending because the President decided to attack the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address while they were sitting there (and lied while doing it). One of the most crass and unprofessional things I have seen in my lifetime. For someone who is supposed to be a "constitutional scholar" you would think he would have a little more respect for the institution.
2
The same article could be written about the far left opinions of Democrat Justices. The NY Times own lengthy study shows Republican appointed Justices are much more likely to issue a 'centrist' or 'leftist' vote than a Democrat Justice would vote 'right of center'.
11
Though I am naturally inclined to ignore the ravings of anyone who uses "Democrat" as a pejorative adjective, as you do, in this case I cannot.
Could you please provide a link the the study you've referred to?
Could you please provide a link the the study you've referred to?
3
What far left opinions of Justices appointed by Democrat Presidents?
This is a conservative Supreme Court by any legal standards. Most justices - except the social and religious reactionaries like Scalia - abide by stare decisis and by established legal tenets.
What you call "centrist" or "leftist" are actually conservative opinions based on precedent and strict Constitutional interpretations. The fact that so-called leftist judges are prone to not support what you call "rightist" positions is because these are not conservative, but reactionary.
This is a conservative Supreme Court by any legal standards. Most justices - except the social and religious reactionaries like Scalia - abide by stare decisis and by established legal tenets.
What you call "centrist" or "leftist" are actually conservative opinions based on precedent and strict Constitutional interpretations. The fact that so-called leftist judges are prone to not support what you call "rightist" positions is because these are not conservative, but reactionary.
5
"The same article could be written about the far left opinions of Democrat Justices."
that they're dismissive of the most qualified people to offer opinions on a given subject?
that they're eager for people to be executed and can't bother to review their cases? maybe you skipped this part, but christeson's court-appointed lawyers "neglected to meet with him for 11 months," causing him to miss a filing deadline. what kind of person, when hearing of this kind of obvious legal incompetence on the part of a person scheduled to be executed, says, "who cares, kill him anyway"?
that they're dismissive of the most qualified people to offer opinions on a given subject?
that they're eager for people to be executed and can't bother to review their cases? maybe you skipped this part, but christeson's court-appointed lawyers "neglected to meet with him for 11 months," causing him to miss a filing deadline. what kind of person, when hearing of this kind of obvious legal incompetence on the part of a person scheduled to be executed, says, "who cares, kill him anyway"?
2
In my humble opinion, you may have made the argument that he is the most dangerous man in America today
27
Well, what can we do about it ? Vote...and get those lazy leftist friends of ours to vote in every election. Furthermore, don't be to persnicketty. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Elizabeth Warren is better, but Hillary Clinton will do just fine compared with what we'd get on the other side. After eight years of Hillary, the Supremes are bound to be better. VOTE.
20
I'm sorry but your "Hillary is better than anyone form the other side" argument is terrible. Is that the best we can hope for; the lesser of two evils? I have on occasion voted for a Republican. I would have totally supported McCain in 2000, but not after that, as he went off the reservation after his ugly defeat by the forces of evil (GWB and Co.). And it won't matter who is put on the court; the whole process is flawed and corrupted by politics that bad nominees are given a pass and good nominees are hounded into hiding. It is so important to vote, but just voting isn't the solution, we must have good people running for office and we, the voters, must maintain standards.
BTW I personally am sick to death of Presidents named Clinton and Bush. If either of them is elected it will be solely because of name and influence. Neither has a solid track record as an administrator or leader and, as with all the other candidates, will not be open about their platform. It will be filled with great sounding homilies about American spirit and other vague and possibly non-existent intangibles. In 2016 we are going to get another in a line of bad presidents. It won't matter which party, the system is broken and we are going to continue this downward slide until we fix the system.
BTW I personally am sick to death of Presidents named Clinton and Bush. If either of them is elected it will be solely because of name and influence. Neither has a solid track record as an administrator or leader and, as with all the other candidates, will not be open about their platform. It will be filled with great sounding homilies about American spirit and other vague and possibly non-existent intangibles. In 2016 we are going to get another in a line of bad presidents. It won't matter which party, the system is broken and we are going to continue this downward slide until we fix the system.
"It sounds discordant to suggest that a Supreme Court justice has a base, but Sam Alito has one."
And Justice Ginsburg doesn't, with Greenhouse as her lead cheerleader? Greenhouse is a modern-day Pauline Kael, out of touch with most Americans, many lawyers, and dismissing a legal viewpoint as outrageous simply because she disagrees with it. The Times should do better than this.
And Justice Ginsburg doesn't, with Greenhouse as her lead cheerleader? Greenhouse is a modern-day Pauline Kael, out of touch with most Americans, many lawyers, and dismissing a legal viewpoint as outrageous simply because she disagrees with it. The Times should do better than this.
13
Tu quoque is not an argument. And... the Times seems to be doing very well.
1
I feel Ms. Greenhouse has laid out her case using logic and reason and her piece isn't a knee-jerk emotional response. She clearly explains her position and provides supporting material. I agree with her here, but even if I didn't I would say she has made an excellent case with her argument. It's hard to argue with facts.
5
Ms. Greenhouse refers to a "religious journal First Things." This is a bit misleading and strange. First Things has more to do with promoting right wing politics through the apparatus of organized religion; as such is it much more a political journal than a "religious" journal.
6
From their website:
"First Things is published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and educational 501(c)(3) organization. The Institute was founded in 1990 by Richard John Neuhaus and his colleagues to confront the ideology of secularism, which insists that the public square must be 'naked,' and that faith has no place in shaping the public conversation or in shaping public policy.
The Institute’s flagship program, First Things magazine, is the leading intellectual journal of its kind in the United States. In addition to publishing ten issues of First Things each year, the Institute hosts educational programs that promote religiously informed analysis of culture, society, theology, and religious liberty."
Don't know how that actually works out on the page.
"First Things is published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and educational 501(c)(3) organization. The Institute was founded in 1990 by Richard John Neuhaus and his colleagues to confront the ideology of secularism, which insists that the public square must be 'naked,' and that faith has no place in shaping the public conversation or in shaping public policy.
The Institute’s flagship program, First Things magazine, is the leading intellectual journal of its kind in the United States. In addition to publishing ten issues of First Things each year, the Institute hosts educational programs that promote religiously informed analysis of culture, society, theology, and religious liberty."
Don't know how that actually works out on the page.
1
It is an outright end run around the specific ban on faith-based legislation in the First Amendment. Lawyers cheating the law.
1
@mumon-
In conservative circles, the two have become merged and for conservative religious groups the GOP and the hard right political ideas are one in the same. This you had the Catholic Bishops telling their membership to basically vote for the GOP candidate because of its stance on abortions and gays, yet remaining mute on the income disparity in this country or the outright greed of those at the top and so forth. You saw it with Evangelical Christians who have turned from Christ's admonition that blessed are the poor, to the whole culture of "Jesus wants you rich" (not spiritually, literally), who talk about helping those less fortunate yet cheerlead for gutting social programs while cutting taxes on the rich, or the churches who cheerlead the Iraq war and who teach as part of their church teaching anti global warming screed.......you cannot separate the two.
Alito is part of this,along with 4 of the other justices he believes that religious belief is perfect justification for law,and that if Christians are in the majority and want to discriminate, go ahead;more importantly,he turns the very reason we have a constitution on its head, when he talks about "will of the people' and 'what the legislature wrote' as being the fundamental basis of law, leaving out that the founders wrote the constitution to prevent that from being the tyranny of the majority (funny how the federalist society forgets that)
In conservative circles, the two have become merged and for conservative religious groups the GOP and the hard right political ideas are one in the same. This you had the Catholic Bishops telling their membership to basically vote for the GOP candidate because of its stance on abortions and gays, yet remaining mute on the income disparity in this country or the outright greed of those at the top and so forth. You saw it with Evangelical Christians who have turned from Christ's admonition that blessed are the poor, to the whole culture of "Jesus wants you rich" (not spiritually, literally), who talk about helping those less fortunate yet cheerlead for gutting social programs while cutting taxes on the rich, or the churches who cheerlead the Iraq war and who teach as part of their church teaching anti global warming screed.......you cannot separate the two.
Alito is part of this,along with 4 of the other justices he believes that religious belief is perfect justification for law,and that if Christians are in the majority and want to discriminate, go ahead;more importantly,he turns the very reason we have a constitution on its head, when he talks about "will of the people' and 'what the legislature wrote' as being the fundamental basis of law, leaving out that the founders wrote the constitution to prevent that from being the tyranny of the majority (funny how the federalist society forgets that)
4
Linda,
Usually one comes away from an opinion piece with a clear understanding of the author's opinion. Not in this case.
I suppose the examples you cite are meant to create a picture of obstinance. Or perhaps you want to caricature the man as out of touch or even cold-hearted. Well you failed.
Perhaps you should amend your opinion with a clearer statement of how you view the man.
Usually one comes away from an opinion piece with a clear understanding of the author's opinion. Not in this case.
I suppose the examples you cite are meant to create a picture of obstinance. Or perhaps you want to caricature the man as out of touch or even cold-hearted. Well you failed.
Perhaps you should amend your opinion with a clearer statement of how you view the man.
3
Really?
1
Hi Guy,
Ms. Greenhouse has profiled a Supreme Court justice who enjoys a lifetime appointment. Is it fair game to hold his record up for scrutiny ? If you think the writer has been careless with the facts, your obligation is to challenge her on that basis.
Your kinship with Justice Alito is quite clear, your personal feelings and political orientation trump the process of evaluation based on an open mind and the discovery of facts. I believe Justice Alito has a higher calling and responsibility to all Americans, not merely a religious or political minority.
Ms. Greenhouse has profiled a Supreme Court justice who enjoys a lifetime appointment. Is it fair game to hold his record up for scrutiny ? If you think the writer has been careless with the facts, your obligation is to challenge her on that basis.
Your kinship with Justice Alito is quite clear, your personal feelings and political orientation trump the process of evaluation based on an open mind and the discovery of facts. I believe Justice Alito has a higher calling and responsibility to all Americans, not merely a religious or political minority.
2
As far as I can tell Ms. Greenhouse has been crystal clear as to her opinion of the judge in question. She doesn't much care for him as a judge.
2
Does this suggest the Alito does not have to think; rather, that he needs only to feel he knows?
12
Yeah, what's up with that? Only the left is allowed to use that particular decision making process.
3
This col. only confirms what I concluded some time ago. Alito rivals Scalia and Thomas as one of the worst appointments to the Supreme Court in recent history. It isn't just because these justices are conservative. Lord, who could be more essentially politically conservative than a Roberts, Kennedy, O'Connor or Rehnquist? Yet each of the latter has proven herself or himself capable of setting aside politics and personal views and approaching cases before the Court with something approaching an open mind and trying to reach a decision based more on law and not politics. One indication whether Alito does or does not decide cases based primarily upon his personal political views and not the law is the predictability of his deciding one way or another. Greenhouse documents that he is all too predictable. In fact, there is never any doubt at all. In time, Alito will become more widely known for the kind of blinkered, politically-obsessed justice he is -- the worst kind of activist judge one can imagine. His fan club will be delighted. The rest of us have to endure him for decades. His influence will fade, however, once the balance of the Court shifts, as it inevitably will.
31
Thomas is the best Supreme Court justice of our lifetimes. He is the ONLY one on the court that you know how he's going to rule simply by reading the case and reading the law, regardless of his own personal opinions. THAT is what a judge is supposed to do. Ginsburg may be the worst justice of all time.
3
Justice Alito's introductory speech at his confirmation hearing was both bizarre and revealing. In describing his arrival as a new student at Princeton, he portrayed himself as an honest working class kid, confronted by the ugly self-indulgence of the elite. He still seemed to be nursing resentments he felt over 30 years ago, despite his subsequent success. Not a flattering self-portrait!
The bizarre part was that he seemed to have considered his resentment something to boast of before the US Senate, and the entire country.
Alito was signaling that he was a real conservative culture warrior.
The bizarre part was that he seemed to have considered his resentment something to boast of before the US Senate, and the entire country.
Alito was signaling that he was a real conservative culture warrior.
22
I remember that and here's what he actually said:
And after I graduated from high school, I went a full 12 miles down the road, but really to a different world when I entered Princeton University. A generation earlier, I think that somebody from my background probably would not have felt fully comfortable at a college like Princeton. But, by the time I graduated from high school, things had changed.
And this was a time of great intellectual excitement for me. Both college and law school opened up new worlds of ideas. But this was back in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities. And I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly. And I couldn't help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community."
He's talking about the Kent State killings period and protests against the Viet Nam War, bombing of Cambodia, etc. I was also in college at the time. When I heard that I thought uh oh, I know who this guy was and still is and it spells nothing but big trouble. Unencumbered by any specific legal analysis, it turns out that I got that one right.
And after I graduated from high school, I went a full 12 miles down the road, but really to a different world when I entered Princeton University. A generation earlier, I think that somebody from my background probably would not have felt fully comfortable at a college like Princeton. But, by the time I graduated from high school, things had changed.
And this was a time of great intellectual excitement for me. Both college and law school opened up new worlds of ideas. But this was back in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities. And I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly. And I couldn't help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community."
He's talking about the Kent State killings period and protests against the Viet Nam War, bombing of Cambodia, etc. I was also in college at the time. When I heard that I thought uh oh, I know who this guy was and still is and it spells nothing but big trouble. Unencumbered by any specific legal analysis, it turns out that I got that one right.
8
I want this job. All I would have to do is show up with a bunch of opinions that formed somewhere in my youthful past. In return, I would get a job for life, a generous salary, and health benefits (government financed health care!), and a rich retirement (government funded!).
In my very generous (government supported vacation!) I could spend my time junketeering (like all the other government employees known euphemistically as the Congress) with people who, if not actually paying me (that would be wrong!), but who would make my vacations very comfy and free of charge.
Instead, I am limping along with Social Security (my government supported socialist pension, which, incidentally, I have contributed to) and a significantly reduced IRA (reduced in exercise of God-endorsed capitalism), and (thank God) Medicare (another socialist program, for which I pay $100 a month).
God bless America.
In my very generous (government supported vacation!) I could spend my time junketeering (like all the other government employees known euphemistically as the Congress) with people who, if not actually paying me (that would be wrong!), but who would make my vacations very comfy and free of charge.
Instead, I am limping along with Social Security (my government supported socialist pension, which, incidentally, I have contributed to) and a significantly reduced IRA (reduced in exercise of God-endorsed capitalism), and (thank God) Medicare (another socialist program, for which I pay $100 a month).
God bless America.
78
Alito is the Stepford justice of the far right. It was his conformity that made him stand out, so to speak. He was pre-packaged and ready for nomination after Bush's attempt to appoint Harriet Meirs crashed. The right has gotten exactly what it wanted. The rest of us are left with the consequences.
48
This is a damning an indictment of a Supreme Court justice's judgement and bearing as I've ever read and the fact that it comes from a journalist with a long history of measured analysis and deep respect for the Court makes it even more so. Alito apparently believes that ideology and justice are one and the same and that serving the former - no matter the actual facts and circumstances of the case at hand - ensures the latter. This, as well as his previously demonstrated intemperate public disrespect for a sitting President, makes him a particularly unfortunate choice for a lifetime appointment. We have at least two others like him on the Court today, a Court that will likely go down in history as having produced the most politically biased and ideologically warped decisions - and I say that in full recognition of the fact that previous courts have the Dred Scott and "separate but equal" judgements on their hands as well as a series of political decisions seeking to dismantle progressive New Deal legislation in the 1930s. Guardians of the Constitution? Hardly. More often like guardians of privilege, unfortunately.
96
Yes, Justice Alito is a 'true conservative', but not necessarily in a good way. His ideology is too rigid to allow for the rich and unpredictable nuances reality presents, not allowing for the need to accommodate to the random series of possibilities not under his control. I suspects that he has yet to rid himself of the arrogance of an all-knowing infallible individual proud of his stance, unfortunately too late, if recognition of his failings come along, once his dogmatic decision impacts the lives and livelihoods of the people negatively. Such was the Hobby Lobby travesty Mr. Alito committed, by granting religious 'freedom' and 'rights' to a Corporation. Ludicrous decision, with no heads and no tails, nonsensical. Of course, Mr. Alito, as an individual, has the right to dissent from others' opinions, but not as a member of the Supreme Court, where justice is expected to be 'blind' (from biases).
24
He delivers: not only in the big cases, like Hobby Lobby last June, in which he wrote the majority opinion upholding the right of a corporation’s religious owners to an exemption from the federal mandate to include contraception coverage in their employee health plan.
Oh the horror. Private citizens not being forced to pay for contraception for other citizens. Women should adhere to feminist values and pay for their own birth control instead of pretending to be dependent and mooching off others. Guess equality is not very attractive when the double standard is more beneficial financially.
Oh the horror. Private citizens not being forced to pay for contraception for other citizens. Women should adhere to feminist values and pay for their own birth control instead of pretending to be dependent and mooching off others. Guess equality is not very attractive when the double standard is more beneficial financially.
12
So now for profit corporations are private citizens? Women should only have to pay for their own contraceptives when men are no longer covered for their recreational drugs for ED.
49
Needing financial assistance for medical needs has nothing to do with "feminist values," it's something that men and women alike often need.
And the court may have wrongly decided that corporation are "persons" for legal purposes, but that doesn't make them "private citizens"!!! That's offensive to the flesh and blood human beings who are actually private citizens. Corporations are legal entities created to provide certain legal protections to businesses that individuals don't get.
And the court may have wrongly decided that corporation are "persons" for legal purposes, but that doesn't make them "private citizens"!!! That's offensive to the flesh and blood human beings who are actually private citizens. Corporations are legal entities created to provide certain legal protections to businesses that individuals don't get.
28
Great explanation. Corporation are 'persons' for legal reasons. They are not 'private citizens' but legal entities.
1
""not the standards of professional associations, which at best represent the views of a small professional elite.” The judgment was for legislatures, he said, not for courts and not for doctors. "The professional elite" is a magical use of language, to reduce science to just another opinion. Don't get me wrong, psychology as a science is not that mature, and it is for sure we can learn, for instance literature, more about the mind from places other than science; but it is a science nonetheless. Alito, counting on God, to speak through the popular voice of elections, will have nothing to do with scientific facts. Even this could work, if it was consistent; many primitive cultures thrived before science. But the problem for conservatives, is the lack of consistency of where and how they will apply science. You can't let science run the electrical grid, and deny climate change science. God help us! We are still a nation that is letting certain narrow religious views drive the boat, and some who determine the law of the land, are caught in this fragile framework.
25
Money is speech and corporations are people. The last election was by far the most expensive and brought out the smallest participation since the middle of WWII. And the winners have made it plain that their immediate agenda is to satisfy the dictates of the biggest spenders (eliminate the EPA, lower taxes on the wealthy). You go, Supremes.
25
The "wealthy" pay the vast majority of taxes. The top 10% of taxpayers AGI of ~ $350K per year or more pay 36% of all federal income taxes. Even for people with smaller incomes taxes are one of their largest expenses. Eliminate foodstamps, housing vouchers, welfare, and taxes could be cut a lot. Let the Democrat's base support themselves. Also cut military spending. Let Europe and Israel pay for their own defense.
2
DC Reader: the wealthy pay the majority of taxes because the majority of income is theirs. If they earned 100% of income, and the poorest earned 0%, then 100% of taxes paid would be paid by the wealthy because they'd be the only ones with income to tax.
2
Right, and let's bring back debtor's prisons and slavery. You can live in your gated community and not worry about the starving riff raff unable to cross the moat.
Viva la revolution!
Viva la revolution!
2
This article is a defacto non-sequitor about the authors opposition to the death penalty as opposed to Justice Alito. Can we please go back to the days when Supreme Court justices just interpreted the Constitution by what is says. The Constitution mentions the the death penalty three separate times.
10
and its silence about slavery equals it's support.
There is something really strange about hard-nosed, doctrinaire conservatives like Alito. They are a punitive bunch; angry, rigid, unbending, sure of their rightness in all matters. There simply is little or no room for debate at the end of the day with such people.
One wonders how peacefully Alito & Co. sleep at night, faced with the glaringly horrific results of the Citizens United decision. Do images of the bullet ridden bodies of the Holy Innocents of Sandy Hook ever creep into their dreams? Can they sleep well knowing that some minimum wage worker at McDonald's was forced to work Christmas Day for straight time because the law is stacked against labor unions?
I suppose the same question could have been asked of, say, Chief Justice Roger Taney when he sent a free black man back into slavery 150 years ago.
Where is the humanity?
One wonders how peacefully Alito & Co. sleep at night, faced with the glaringly horrific results of the Citizens United decision. Do images of the bullet ridden bodies of the Holy Innocents of Sandy Hook ever creep into their dreams? Can they sleep well knowing that some minimum wage worker at McDonald's was forced to work Christmas Day for straight time because the law is stacked against labor unions?
I suppose the same question could have been asked of, say, Chief Justice Roger Taney when he sent a free black man back into slavery 150 years ago.
Where is the humanity?
138
It would take the three ghosts of A Christmas Carol; Scrooge thought he was perfectly virtuous until that 'bit of bad beef' persuaded him otherwise.... These justices are no less blind.
What in the world does the Supreme Court have to do with Sandy Hook? Or McDonald's workers? And Citizens United was a good decision which guaranteed equal protection under the law. It guaranteed that one group of individuals (corporations) have the same right to donate to political causes as do other groups of individuals (unions).
She states that her purpose is not to examine his jurisprudence here - but to look at "the distinctive role he is carving out for himself" as if that is a change for her. It's one more disguise for an ideological disagreement. What she is really doing is challenging his character for being as dedicated to his ideology as she and the judges she prefers are to theirs. All of the judges play an "inside game," shape the court's docket and seek to elevate their jurisprudence and ideology - even Kennedy (though less so). I don't doubt their sincerity or character in doing so, though I wish they did so less.
Ideologues on the right and left routinely accuse their adversaries of doing exactly what they do. Some writers are more open about their biases than others and I would urge her to be so. It wouldn't make her more right in her views - but more honest, fair and interesting. At least it is more interesting to me why she disagrees with conservatives on issues like labor or due process than her assaulting their character to disguise her political preferences.
Ideologues on the right and left routinely accuse their adversaries of doing exactly what they do. Some writers are more open about their biases than others and I would urge her to be so. It wouldn't make her more right in her views - but more honest, fair and interesting. At least it is more interesting to me why she disagrees with conservatives on issues like labor or due process than her assaulting their character to disguise her political preferences.
13
Surely, a more balanced writing is possible. Admittedly, it is difficult to "walk on the razor's edge", but someone who writes so regularly on our Supreme Court has an obligation to not hit below the belt.
7
Perhaps you should strive for a neutral view rather than a jaundiced view. A neutral view would allow the author to write the same type of article about a liberal justice, yet she never does.
How did the Democrats let this far right ideologist loose in the Supreme Court.
I think the Democrats of that time were trying to "Make Nice" with President Bush and now they see what that got them.
If President Obama has to choose a candidate for the Supreme Court watch the
Tea Party, NRA, and the majority of the Senate with their brand of "Making Nice." They will be like Hyenas in for the Kill.
Well done Ms Greenhouse for this enlighten column
I think the Democrats of that time were trying to "Make Nice" with President Bush and now they see what that got them.
If President Obama has to choose a candidate for the Supreme Court watch the
Tea Party, NRA, and the majority of the Senate with their brand of "Making Nice." They will be like Hyenas in for the Kill.
Well done Ms Greenhouse for this enlighten column
30
You can look it up, but four or five Democratic Senators voted to confirm this individual.
1
The most critical point being that what Justice Alito was mouthing "not true" about, notably the likely effects of Citizen's United, was, in fact, quite true, as evidenced by subsequent history.
99
As a long time member of one of those professional associations, I respect his skepticism as well grounded.
5
I shall hope that Pope Francis takes up the baton arguing against the death penalty. I will relish how the arch conservative and catholic Alito will square that with his ruthless and merciless views.
62
Alito and Scalia believe they are more Catholic than the pope. Scalia attends a church that disdains Vatican reforms and where the mass is said in Latin. Scalia believes that he is a chosen one and has no feelings for the poor or disadvantaged.
His superiority is the will of God. If he is not a member of Opus Dei then he certainly is in their camp. I don't' think any of the current Catholic justices are fans of Pope Francis.
His superiority is the will of God. If he is not a member of Opus Dei then he certainly is in their camp. I don't' think any of the current Catholic justices are fans of Pope Francis.
1
The greatest merit of this op-ed is that it doesn't even pretend to be objective. I suppose some must find it liberating to write, as Ms. Greenhouse so often does these days, without the constraint of feigned evenhandedness. The trouble is: such liberty often becomes license and then, at some point, wholly gives way to personal indulgence. Honestly, I think the New York Times can aim higher and do better, even for an opinion piece.
11
But, BK! Objectivity is not a requirement for Op-Eds! To paraphrase Danny DeVito in "Heist," that's why they call them Op-Eds!
The constraint of feigned evenhandedness is what the news columns are supposed to obey.
The constraint of feigned evenhandedness is what the news columns are supposed to obey.
5
Hi BK - When you call for even-handedness, are you thinking of some notably liberal positions Alito has taken, that would show that really he is not all that conservative at all? She talks about his popularity with conservatives, but should she have referred to some liberal groups that seem to like him? Maybe you could give an example?
Or are you suggesting that she got his positions right, but she should have added a sentence like "of course, there are lots good things about Alito's program of not giving criminals effective legal representation, and crushing the power of unions, and so on." You might notice that while she was outlining his right-wing profile, she never talked about how much harm he has done, or what is wrong with his views - she just says that this is what he has consistently done. I imagine he would be happy with this sketch, and might not want a more "even-handed" treatment if it somehow made him look more liberal. He probably doesn;t think being called conservative is an unfair criticism.
(The only Justice who might have a complaint about his treatment in this article would be Thomas, and who knows, he might be proud to be called eccentric...)
You can't just ask for some abstract "even handedness" without giving a clue as to what you think has been left out . Maybe she should have mentioned that he is kind to dogs - if that is the case?
Or are you suggesting that she got his positions right, but she should have added a sentence like "of course, there are lots good things about Alito's program of not giving criminals effective legal representation, and crushing the power of unions, and so on." You might notice that while she was outlining his right-wing profile, she never talked about how much harm he has done, or what is wrong with his views - she just says that this is what he has consistently done. I imagine he would be happy with this sketch, and might not want a more "even-handed" treatment if it somehow made him look more liberal. He probably doesn;t think being called conservative is an unfair criticism.
(The only Justice who might have a complaint about his treatment in this article would be Thomas, and who knows, he might be proud to be called eccentric...)
You can't just ask for some abstract "even handedness" without giving a clue as to what you think has been left out . Maybe she should have mentioned that he is kind to dogs - if that is the case?
2
Both you and Alito see equivalence where there is none.
1
Unmentioned here is Alito's public disdain for President Obama, done on national TV for the world to witness.
50
He only reacted to Obama's clear disdain for the Supreme Court, when he lied about and insulted a co-equal branch in a State of the Union speech. Obama was clearly being unprofessional, and Alito disapproved of that for good reason.
1
Sure thing, Jethro.
A president who was illegitimately installed by five cynically political, conservative activist justices, then spiked the Court with two additional conservative activist justices. Roberts is the disingenuous one, claiming just to call balls and strikes. As conservative as he is, he's at least concerned with the reputation of the institution. Alito is the true determined activist who, as you say, delivers.
The threat presented by this travesty of a majority, willing to distort and pervert the law to serve ideological ends, is perhaps the most important reason why the 2016 elections are crucial to the future of our country.
The threat presented by this travesty of a majority, willing to distort and pervert the law to serve ideological ends, is perhaps the most important reason why the 2016 elections are crucial to the future of our country.
90
Come on, you can't still be beating that dead horse of Bush v. Gore. The court ruled correctly according to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Gore wanted to only do recounts of counties where he would benefit, which is clearly unconstitutional. Had Gore requested a full recount of the whole state, the Supreme Court would not have intervened. And Gore would have still lost.
1
Justice Alito not only disgraced President Obama by slowly shaking his head in protest at president's comment on the Citizens United case, he also disgraced himself. He should do everybody a favor and step down. He is an embarrassment to the judicial system and the people of the United States.
94
No, Mr. Obama disgraced himself by lying that Citizens United would allow foreign contributions to influence our election. Unquestionably he was unhappy with the outcome of the case but to show disrespect to a co-equal branch of government in a State of the Union address is reprehensible and made more egregious because Citizens United did no such thing. There are many venues the president could have used to vent his anger but he diminished the dignity of his office and his lack of character by choosing the State of the Union address to air his petty political grievance.
6
MLH,
I didn't know that the domination of our political process by the rich and by big corporations, to the exclusion of regular American individuals, was a "petty" issue.
I didn't know that the domination of our political process by the rich and by big corporations, to the exclusion of regular American individuals, was a "petty" issue.
8
Alito wasn't elected by a majority of Americans. Obama was. You thought it was petty, I did not. Last I saw, most Americans think Citizen's United was a bid deal and a serious departure from our democratic norms.
3
Actually, Justice Samuel Alito has two bases. The base that loves him and the growing base that hates him. The Bush family has done more harm to gay and lesbian Americans than any other powerfully connected family in modern times. The appointment of Justice Alito is one of the more glaring hurts. Civil rights history (which is moving faster than in the past) will not look kindly on their ideological records.
43
Justices Thomas, Alioto and Scalia have mired the Roberts Supreme Court in such public disrepute that Roger B. Taney must be relieved that the burden of history has shifted.
They have allowed for the unlimited corrupting influence of money in politics.
They have elevated the religious rights of corporate owners above that of all their many employees.
They attempted to stop equal protection and due process under the law from applying to gay people.
They gutted the Voting Rights Act, though it was passed overwhelmingly by Congress just years before, and allowed the immediate passage of racist voter suppression measures in the covered states.
They accepted the politically motivated attack on the Affordable Health Care Act despite decades of legal precedence and Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
History will remember Alito for being a political hack appointment who sold the American democracy and the American dream for ideology and monied interests.
He is a disgrace.
I doubt in my lifetime the US Supreme Court will ever be held in high public regard again as a result.
They have allowed for the unlimited corrupting influence of money in politics.
They have elevated the religious rights of corporate owners above that of all their many employees.
They attempted to stop equal protection and due process under the law from applying to gay people.
They gutted the Voting Rights Act, though it was passed overwhelmingly by Congress just years before, and allowed the immediate passage of racist voter suppression measures in the covered states.
They accepted the politically motivated attack on the Affordable Health Care Act despite decades of legal precedence and Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
History will remember Alito for being a political hack appointment who sold the American democracy and the American dream for ideology and monied interests.
He is a disgrace.
I doubt in my lifetime the US Supreme Court will ever be held in high public regard again as a result.
221
totally agree DSavid. As a poli-sci major in the 70s I worshiped at the alter of SCOTUS. I read case law and Gideon's Trumpet with equal ardor. However, especially since Citizens United, I hold this court in complete contempt. I called my poli-sci friend the day of that decision and together we mourned the destruction of our democratic experiment.
14
No ms. Greenhouse. W all due respect our country is not okay w this gentleman in there for God knows how long. Ick! Wasn't it his wife who shed tears at his confirmation hearing?
Pres. W. can paint people, dogs, himself whatever. But his legacy lives on. And if our fellow citizens are as stupid as they can sometimes be, come 2016 we cd have more if Mr. Alito's ideological ilk on the SCOTUS courtesy if Bush the third aka Jeb.
Thanks but no thanks.
Pres. W. can paint people, dogs, himself whatever. But his legacy lives on. And if our fellow citizens are as stupid as they can sometimes be, come 2016 we cd have more if Mr. Alito's ideological ilk on the SCOTUS courtesy if Bush the third aka Jeb.
Thanks but no thanks.
24
Interesting, in this long and informative column about Mr. Alito Ms. Greenhouse left out the most important fact: that most of his legal reasoning is, quite simply, wrong.
21
It only goes to show that Justice Alito is truly just a partisan hack. To truly be a thoughtful judge one would have to rule on the merits of a case not whether it personally sits well with his politics. Conservatives are never happy, whether on the Court or in Congress, unless everyone is doing only what they want them to do. Somehow they see this as upholding the Constitution. As Charlie Brown would have said, "Good grief!".
30
Loud-mouthed bullies are usually less effective and dangerous than the silent but deadly ones. And thanks to Ms. Greenhouse we now know what kind Justice Alito is. And that is downright scary.
64
I recall that when Alito was nominated to the Court, David Broder wrote a column that was published under the heading "Alito Will Be a Company Man". Prescient.
31
I know Alito is supposed to be smart, but it is sure hard to tell that from reading his opinions. His signature one is Ledbetter v Goodyear. If you read Alito's decision, I am sure you will find it bereft of logic.
The issue here is that Congress passed a law that contained a deadline for filing against a discriminatory act. The question at issue was when the clock started to run. Debate in Congress was clear; it started up each time the act was perpetrated. The law had been administered for many years in this manner. I challenge you to tell me when Alito says the clock starts. He says it starts when the decision to discriminate is first made. Is this when an executive wakes up in the middle of the night and thinks, "Let's pay Lucy less than the guys." Or when he writes the memo to payroll. Or when payroll processes the check. Or.....
Another problem is that whenever the employer makes the discriminatory pay decision, no law has been broken. Indeed, he may change his mind, the employee may quit and so on. It is not until the employee receives the paycheck that the law has been broken, and if this is the case, it continues to be broken each time she receives the discriminatory check.
The main point here is not the decision itself, but how far the conservative Justices are willing to go to overthrow accepted law in their ideological quest for injustice and Alito's divorce from logic.
The issue here is that Congress passed a law that contained a deadline for filing against a discriminatory act. The question at issue was when the clock started to run. Debate in Congress was clear; it started up each time the act was perpetrated. The law had been administered for many years in this manner. I challenge you to tell me when Alito says the clock starts. He says it starts when the decision to discriminate is first made. Is this when an executive wakes up in the middle of the night and thinks, "Let's pay Lucy less than the guys." Or when he writes the memo to payroll. Or when payroll processes the check. Or.....
Another problem is that whenever the employer makes the discriminatory pay decision, no law has been broken. Indeed, he may change his mind, the employee may quit and so on. It is not until the employee receives the paycheck that the law has been broken, and if this is the case, it continues to be broken each time she receives the discriminatory check.
The main point here is not the decision itself, but how far the conservative Justices are willing to go to overthrow accepted law in their ideological quest for injustice and Alito's divorce from logic.
83
Very smug Mr. Luettgen. But if the number of Senate seats - 2 per state - reflected the actual distribution of the population (i.e. Idaho population:1.6 million; Brooklyn population: 2.6 million etc.) most likely Bush 43's choice of Alito would have failed. Also, do you mean to imply that a parliamentary system would have obviated the lifetime tenure of "Ruth" and "Stephen" whose appointments to the Court preceded the Obama administration.
22
The Senate is particularly unfair because it has exclusive province over executive and judicial appointments, and ratification of foreign treaties.
7
In a society that seems hell-bent on increasing income inequality, stabilizing the interests of the few over the many, re-introducing dynasties and privilege, that Justice Alito is the ideal representative on the Supreme Court to drive the ideology forward. Just as the political ruling class loses the respect of the electorate, the legal elite is suffering a similar fat because of its politically motivated blinkers. A sad time for those that had high hopes for a nascent democracy.
40
Income inequality only started to rise under Obama, due to his policies that favor the rich. During the Clinton and Bush terms, income inequality remained flat.
It is a disturbing tale you tell, of Mr. Alito and his ambitions for himself and for American justice. But allow me to take exception to one point here. I believe Mr. Alito is correct to question the authority of a professional association - the ABA in this case - as a factor in the making of law.
The AIA (the American Association of Architects) is parallel group to the ABA for Architects. Recently this group was pressed from within to adopt a rule making it a violation of professional ethics to design a facility for torture. This proposal clearly arose from the recent contoversy surrounding the CIA and its behavior in the War on Terror. Unfortunately the AIA directors could not agree on this resolution and so it was not enacted. As an architect, and member, I was appalled. I will probably decline to renew my membership this year, and I hope many others do the same. (As an aside, the BSA, the Boston Society of Architects passed such a rule and await further action from the national group.)
The point is, professional associations do not have a focus solely on ethics, or on the technical issues that make up the work of the membership. They often look at business, on how to increase the membership's share of the GNP. I suppose that is normal in a Capitalist economy. (If anything is "normal" in a Capitalist economy.)
One difficulty here, I admit: it is hard to assign a sensitivity to possible Capitalist-based conflicts to someone like Alito.
The AIA (the American Association of Architects) is parallel group to the ABA for Architects. Recently this group was pressed from within to adopt a rule making it a violation of professional ethics to design a facility for torture. This proposal clearly arose from the recent contoversy surrounding the CIA and its behavior in the War on Terror. Unfortunately the AIA directors could not agree on this resolution and so it was not enacted. As an architect, and member, I was appalled. I will probably decline to renew my membership this year, and I hope many others do the same. (As an aside, the BSA, the Boston Society of Architects passed such a rule and await further action from the national group.)
The point is, professional associations do not have a focus solely on ethics, or on the technical issues that make up the work of the membership. They often look at business, on how to increase the membership's share of the GNP. I suppose that is normal in a Capitalist economy. (If anything is "normal" in a Capitalist economy.)
One difficulty here, I admit: it is hard to assign a sensitivity to possible Capitalist-based conflicts to someone like Alito.
4
I think Alito is also attractive for his human side. For example he dissented in the 8-1 decision permitting picketing of military funerals, an act which is legally defensible but morally obtuse. He seems to feel as well as think, which isn't too common on this Supreme Court.
2
Well, I guess Dubya's choice was as effective in Sam for the ends he sought as was Barry's choice of Sonia and, almost to the same degree, Elena. But no real need to single out Alito as if he were abnormal in some way for allowing his fundamental beliefs to color his jurisprudential decisions. Where Scalia and Thomas, particularly Scalia, have largely worked out rationalizations for why the law so coincidentally draws one right, Alito makes no bones about it: if you're not an ideological conservative, you're a Martian and should remain there, admiring Deimos and Phobos.
And why not? It's not as if the liberal side of this bench is less definitely moved by ideological convictions as the right side: it's simply the frustration, for the time being, that Linda's own ideological idiosyncrasies aren't matters of worship for a working majority of the U.S. Supreme Court.
But I'd suggest, given the current ideological balance in Congress, as well as in statehouses, governors' mansions and local elected offices, that the split on the bench and Alito's assurance aren't unusual: conservative convictions are informing our governance at ALL levels.
If ours was a parliamentary system, Mr. Obama would have been long since sent into the wilderness, along with Ruth, Stephen, Sonia and Elena.
And why not? It's not as if the liberal side of this bench is less definitely moved by ideological convictions as the right side: it's simply the frustration, for the time being, that Linda's own ideological idiosyncrasies aren't matters of worship for a working majority of the U.S. Supreme Court.
But I'd suggest, given the current ideological balance in Congress, as well as in statehouses, governors' mansions and local elected offices, that the split on the bench and Alito's assurance aren't unusual: conservative convictions are informing our governance at ALL levels.
If ours was a parliamentary system, Mr. Obama would have been long since sent into the wilderness, along with Ruth, Stephen, Sonia and Elena.
3
As Ms. Greenhouse demonstrates, Alito's record speaks for itself. Reflexively pro-prosecution, reflexively anti-union. Sort of calls his intellect into question. It's easy to stake out a position and stick to it no matter what. Apparently not so easy for Alito to see that the other side may have the better argument sometimes. He more resembles an ideologically driven politician than a justice. His activist attempts to get cases to the court that serve his agenda are inappropriate.
118
windyjammer:
He's reflexively pro-prosecution institutionally. You could only question his intellect if, presented the details of a specific prosecutorial indiscretion, he found for the prosecution -- and he's not likely to get any of those situations in his current posting.
As to being reflexively anti-union, some of the best minds I know are. or do you approve of the clown-car antics of NYPD's union in the current dust-up? Yet these are typical "my parochial interests above all others and hang the consequences" tactics of unions, particularly public sector unions.
If he honestly believes that the state of law is wrong on basic issues, why is it inappropriate to seek cases that provide an opportunity to clarify and rectify the wrong? After all, he still needs to convince Anthony Kennedy he's right.
He's reflexively pro-prosecution institutionally. You could only question his intellect if, presented the details of a specific prosecutorial indiscretion, he found for the prosecution -- and he's not likely to get any of those situations in his current posting.
As to being reflexively anti-union, some of the best minds I know are. or do you approve of the clown-car antics of NYPD's union in the current dust-up? Yet these are typical "my parochial interests above all others and hang the consequences" tactics of unions, particularly public sector unions.
If he honestly believes that the state of law is wrong on basic issues, why is it inappropriate to seek cases that provide an opportunity to clarify and rectify the wrong? After all, he still needs to convince Anthony Kennedy he's right.
1
It's lots of fun to speculate, but speculation goes both ways. If we were a parliamentary system then Dubya would not have had eight years to ruin the country and this article would never have been written because no one would have ever heard of Samuel Alito. Pity that things are as they are.
16
In a dark irony, on a day when extremism abroad casts its bloodstained avatar, Ms. Greenhouse underscores the germination of extremism in our highest, most hallowed halls.
174
Alito, Thomas and Scalia have -- perhaps irrevocably -- tarnished whatever hallow those halls may once have had. Add Roberts as the worst CJ since Roger Taney and little in the way of justice can be expected from the Supreme Court.
25
@Tokyglide, I'd agree with you except for the part about hallowed halls. The appearance of politicians in robes such as Alito makes it clear that the court is no beacon for our society, but rather a lagging indicator of where our country used to be. In another generation we will attain much of the legislation the current conservative bloc is, well, blocking.
3
Yes, our own participation in intolerance of all sorts is getting a good airing. Thank you for reminding us of that.
Conservatives believe that the people of property and wealth, the leaders of society, should control society. Making money into speech helps them do this. They trust both the morality and the competence of those at the top even though history shows this trust is often misplaced.
147
In the last 2 elections, including the 2014 midterms, the rich contributed more to Democrats than Republicans. This is why we see income inequality rising under this administration, when it remained flat under the previous two. It is the Democrats who are the party of the rich.
This is a fascinating portrait and analysis that at bottom, reinforces the view that the Supreme Court is not only highly politicized but with their five member majority, has essentially become the in-house law firm of the Republican Party. Neither federal law nor the Constitution is relevant to the conservative activists, ostensibly led by Roberts, but more effectively led by Alito. Their goal is no different from that of the Tea Party or the religious right, and unless one of the big three (Scalia, Thomas, Alito) dies soon, they may yet achieve their goals.
219
I'm sure you would say the same thing about the liberal bloc. Now let me guess which side of partisans you support.
3
The word "conservative" has a changed meaning in Exceptional America; it is now what formerly was called "authoritarian" (as in dictatorships).
I'll add something else: if the five-member majority of the Supreme Court has basically become the in-house law firm of the GOP, then the National Rifle Association has changed from a useful group of safety-conscious gun enthusiasts to the armed militia of the GOP.
This is what happens in a nation which considers itself immune from the teachings of history and dooms itself to make the same mistakes over and over again. Seventy-five percent of high schools students answering a recent poll believe that Germany was America's ALLY in World War II. A mindset like that ensures that we'll follow Germany to the same awful fate it brought on itself in 1945.
I'll add something else: if the five-member majority of the Supreme Court has basically become the in-house law firm of the GOP, then the National Rifle Association has changed from a useful group of safety-conscious gun enthusiasts to the armed militia of the GOP.
This is what happens in a nation which considers itself immune from the teachings of history and dooms itself to make the same mistakes over and over again. Seventy-five percent of high schools students answering a recent poll believe that Germany was America's ALLY in World War II. A mindset like that ensures that we'll follow Germany to the same awful fate it brought on itself in 1945.
3
With respect to whether the record would deal with legal representation, it clearly would in a case where the client was contending that the lawyer was pursuing an appeal without the client's permission. That is really all Justice Alito was trying to ascertain given that that the lawyers representing Mr. Christeson were contending they were the attorneys authorized to represent him rather than the school of law attorneys.
2
This article nowhere says that the client contended that that the lawyer filed an appeal without the client's permission. You are assuming something not in evidence.
9
The article assumes that the lawyers originally appointed had been replaced by the new attorneys. And Justice Alito was trying to determine which set of attorneys, in fact, had the client's permission to represent him since both sets were claiming that they were the proper attorneys.
2
Justice Alito's strongly versed
In words making Unions accursed,
His corp'rate role
Reveals a soul
As Right as Right can be,
Alito makes Scalia pale,
His vitriol is more upscale,
Decisions written do entail
His bias on the whole.
And with Ms Greenhouse I agree
That a softy he'll never be,
I fear I'm right,
He is a blight
The "rock star" of Plutocracy.
In words making Unions accursed,
His corp'rate role
Reveals a soul
As Right as Right can be,
Alito makes Scalia pale,
His vitriol is more upscale,
Decisions written do entail
His bias on the whole.
And with Ms Greenhouse I agree
That a softy he'll never be,
I fear I'm right,
He is a blight
The "rock star" of Plutocracy.
87
With respect to the Constitution,
Justice Alito's an institution.
Public Sector Unions,
Favoring redistribution,
Are facing a bloodless revolution!
Justice Alito's an institution.
Public Sector Unions,
Favoring redistribution,
Are facing a bloodless revolution!
3
Bravo Larry!!!
I remember Justice Alito's mug quite well, and for one particular reason: It was Alito that the cameras focused on during Obama's 2010 State of the Union address as the President very directly attacked the just-revealed decision of Citizens United v FEC. Alito sat there shaking his head from side to side as the president spoke, I believe silently mouthing the words 'not true, not true'. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers that spectacle, second only to Joe Wilson's 'You lie!'.
293
I remember that moment too…I think Alito's muttering of "not true" was with respect to the President's claim that the Citizens United decision "reversed a century of law" regarding campaign contributions. I don't know the arcane history of such laws any better than most commenters here, but I have no reason to doubt that Alito understands that history any less than President Obama. Given Mr. Obama's tendency (in my view) towards blithe linguistic legerdemain in scoring what he hopes will be seen as a self-evident point of argument, Alito's estimation of that SOTU comment seems understandable.
I find the moment memorable mostly for the utter arrogance exhibited by Mr. Obama in publicly castigating, to their faces, the members of the Court for issuing a decision he didn't like -- knowing that the Justices are constrained by custom from countering such jabs with public arguments in defense of their opinions. How statesmanlike.
Add to that the taunting near-threat to the Court that Mr. Obama laid down in 2012, when the first of the ACA cases was to be heard; musing that if "an unelected group of people [nice description of the Justices, sir] would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," that would be an unprecedented assault on self-governance. As if no law has ever been vacated by a Supreme Court ruling.
Notwithstanding the President's claimed "due deference to separation of powers" I think he's actually shown himself to be quite impatient with it.
I find the moment memorable mostly for the utter arrogance exhibited by Mr. Obama in publicly castigating, to their faces, the members of the Court for issuing a decision he didn't like -- knowing that the Justices are constrained by custom from countering such jabs with public arguments in defense of their opinions. How statesmanlike.
Add to that the taunting near-threat to the Court that Mr. Obama laid down in 2012, when the first of the ACA cases was to be heard; musing that if "an unelected group of people [nice description of the Justices, sir] would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," that would be an unprecedented assault on self-governance. As if no law has ever been vacated by a Supreme Court ruling.
Notwithstanding the President's claimed "due deference to separation of powers" I think he's actually shown himself to be quite impatient with it.
2
Joseph, you are incorrect. For their time, the Founders were very wary of corporations, even though they could not have imagined how enshrined and powerful they are today. There is history which backs up Obama's objection to this horrific and destructive decision, which time will prove, changed our country forever: citizens united institutionalized what then was just a budding oligarchy. Now only a constitutional amendment can undo this damage, an action by the way, that the authors of the constitution would have expected to see by now, but is unlikely to happen in this reactionary era. They believed their document was to be alive, responsive to future times and current events-- not to live unchanged, in some right wing tomb.
19
My bad...I meant to say "no reason to suspect" rather than "no reason to doubt." My thanks to the moderators, should they choose to publish this edit.
1
Respectfully, Alito's judicial temperament was on full display for all to see during the 2010 State of the Union speech, just after POTUS had called out the majority on the Roberts Court for their errant Citizens United decision:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-hb-hQXi9s
We are always intrigued how people react when publicly called to account.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-hb-hQXi9s
We are always intrigued how people react when publicly called to account.
210
Perhaps, but a review of the president's remarks to which Justice Alito was responding would indicate Justice Alito was correct - the president either did not understand the court's decision or was mischaracterising it.
5
Ashland - Considering all that has happened in campaign finance since the decision came down, there's no doubt POTUS understood the Citizens United decision exactly, and we have video evidence of him calling out the Court's majority on their error; even John McCain agreed with POTUS:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/john-mccain-citizens-united_n_1...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/john-mccain-citizens-united_n_1...
54
R. Law,
It is not or should not be within the purview of the courts to solve issues that can be addressed by legislation until they are addressed by legislation. We operate under a system where anything is legal until there is a law against it, the Congress not the courts must first write the law.
You seem comfortable with the current use of the "commerce between states" clause to grant the Federal Government powers beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Why are you not equally fond of the first Amendment being used in a similar manner?
It is up to the Congress to address campaign contributions in Federal Elections and the rights of L.E.s (I agree as to the need). Then it is up to the courts to rule on those laws as to their constitutionality.
If you don't like that system vote to change it!
It is not or should not be within the purview of the courts to solve issues that can be addressed by legislation until they are addressed by legislation. We operate under a system where anything is legal until there is a law against it, the Congress not the courts must first write the law.
You seem comfortable with the current use of the "commerce between states" clause to grant the Federal Government powers beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Why are you not equally fond of the first Amendment being used in a similar manner?
It is up to the Congress to address campaign contributions in Federal Elections and the rights of L.E.s (I agree as to the need). Then it is up to the courts to rule on those laws as to their constitutionality.
If you don't like that system vote to change it!
2
This guy should have never been allowed on the Court, and his voting record proves it.