Below is my column in The Hill on the renewed attacks on Justice Samuel Alito after a liberal activist secretly taped a dinner conversation with him and his wife. The feigned outrage of pundits and politicians is absurdly unconnected to anything even remotely surprising or unethical in the comments.
Here is the column:
In a world of moral relativism, Lauren Windsor may reign supreme. The Democratic activist recently lied to justices in order to record answers at a dinner.
In an interview with CNN, the filmmaker (who has been lionized by many in the media for her dishonesty) cheerfully explained that she lies to “elicit truths that serve the greater public good.”
The “greater good” is to contribute to a campaign of harassment and attacks on Supreme Court justices by academics, the media and Democratic members. The chief target of these efforts lately has been the author of the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito.
For years, the left has maintained a well-funded, unrelenting campaign against the court and its conservative majority. This has included an effort by such figures as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) to pack the court immediately with a liberal majority. Warren declared that the court must be packed because it is daring to oppose “widely held public opinion.”
The statement, of course, ignores that the court was designed to resist public pressure (and even members of Congress) in order to protect the constitutional rights and liberties of minority groups.
Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects have assembled again to call for resignations and impeachments after Windsor’s surreptitious taping of both Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. That includes Warren, who declared that “Alito is an extremist who is out of touch with mainstream America. His rising power on the Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy.”
It did not matter that what Windsor captured on her secret recording was neither surprising nor unethical. Pretending to be a religious conservative at a dinner of the Supreme Court Historical Society, Windsor successfully induced the deeply religious Alito to say . . . wait for it . . . that he believes the country should return to a place of “godliness.”
It was an otherworldly moment as this notoriously anti-conservative activist asked an unsuspecting Alito why the nation was so filled with rage. In the recording, Alito laments the divisions in the country, stating, “I wish I knew. I don’t know. It’s easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us. And so they have really eroded trust in the court…American citizens in general need to work on this to heal this polarization because it’s very dangerous.”
When pushed on what the court can do, Alito again answered honestly: “I don’t think it’s something we can do. We have a very defined role and we need to do what we’re supposed to do. But this is a bigger problem. This is way above us.”
There is nothing even slightly controversial there. But the quote being repeated, often in isolation, was when Alito acknowledged that, while “there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully…it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So, it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”
Warren and others already prove that very point on the left, as do many on the right. Again, this is not at all controversial. We are divided because people hold irreconcilable beliefs on which they are unwilling to compromise. Imagine the reaction of liberals if Justice Sonia Sotomayor suddenly “compromised” on abortion rights.
But pundits and politicians have since lined up, feigning vapors at the thought of a justice saying privately that he believed in “godliness” and had little hope of “compromise” on many issues.
Warren seemed beside herself with shock, acting as if Alito’s bland, obvious observation were some clear sign of political bias: “I am most concerned about the appearance that Justice Alito has prejudged cases that will come before him. That is one of the biggest sins that a judge or justice can commit.” Bear in mind, these are the words of a senator seeking to pack the court with an ideological majority to give predictable rulings on major cases.
Likewise, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) declared the tape to be proof that Alito is “a movement activist,” while Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D.-Conn.) denounced Alito’s “outrageous” behavior. Of course, the lying democratic activist was not outrageous, but the justice was outrageous in sharing his observation in a private conversation that the nation is irreconcilably divided on major issues.
Warren, Whitehouse, Blumenthal and many of the same pundits were strangely silent when liberal justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg engaged in actual partisanship, as when she openly opposed the election of Donald Trump and discussed cases and controversies that might come before her. There was no demand for a resignation when Justice Sonia Sotomayor called upon students to politically oppose pro-life laws after acknowledging, “they tell me I shouldn’t.” There were no vapors at the thought of justices expressing their political sentiments from the left.
Media even cleaned up interviews for liberal justices. Katie Couric famously deleted disparaging comments made by Ginsburg about players kneeling during the National Anthem at NFL games, even though that matter could have ended up before the Supreme Court.
What is most galling is the pile-on over not just this manufactured controversy, but the earlier controversy over flags. Years ago, one of the best reporters at the Washington Post investigated a report that the Alitos had flown an upside-down American flag, to see if it was a political statement associated with Trump. Robert Barnes interviewed neighbors and concluded that it was not Justice Alito but his wife Martha-Ann who had hoisted the flag. Mrs. Alito, he learned, was responding to an ongoing spat with a neighbor.
Barnes and the Post responsibly decided not to run the story. That type of journalistic restraint is now anathema in our age of rage, with reporters denouncing the Post for failing to run a “blockbuster” story.
This was then amplified when the public was told that Mrs. Alito had also hoisted at one of their properties the Revolutionary War-era “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which has enjoyed something of a revival since it featured in the introductory sequence of the acclaimed 2008 miniseries on the career of President John Adams.
It is not clear how that story was a “blockbuster” — that a justice has a wife with a flag fetish, which includes flying the historic Pine Tree Flag. (Tellingly and amusingly, after the left added that flag to its list of Alito’s transgressions, Democratic politicians suddenly had to scramble to remove it from their own buildings to clear the way for the outrage.)
Of course, Windsor also targeted Mrs. Alito in her secret recordings at the dinner. The media again pounced on a line where she complained of “feminazi” critics and added, “Don’t get angry. Get even!”
That statement followed her suggestion that they may sue for defamation, and that “there’s a five-year defamation statute of limitations.” She also added that her husband had tried to keep her from flying her flags and getting into neighborhood spats, but that “he never controls me.” Indeed, she said he had prevailed on her not to fly a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag, but that she was not giving up the ghost even on that flag.
Windsor generously allowed that a Supreme Court spouse “certainly” has a right to speak, before adding that expected “but!” Such liberty, she asserted, may not apply to Mrs. Alito “when your spouse is one of the most powerful men in the country, you know, with his fingers on the scale, literally, of justice. I mean, are we going to say that we are going to do away with impartiality, the bedrock principle of our democracy, of our jurisprudence? Is it okay?”
Well, the answer is yes, Miss Windsor. It is okay.
We do not require justices to divorce outspoken or irascible spouses. We do not punish them for speaking freely in private conversations with bottom-feeding gotcha activists who secretly record them at dinners.
Justices are even allowed to have strong opinions about controversial issues in dinner conversations. Strong personal opinions do not on their own constitute conflicts of interest.
None of this will matter, of course. Democrats will continue to chase Alito around the Beltway like a scene out of Lord of the Flies. The absurd demands for meetings with justices and threats of subpoenas will continue to thrill liberal voters.
It is all part of the threats made by Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on the steps of the Supreme Court. Schumer threatened the conservative justices, “You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
It is an extension of the pledge by activists to change the court “by any means necessary.” While thankfully denouncing the attempted assassination of Justice Bret Kavanaugh, liberals have proposed “more aggressive” targeting of justices at their homes, bribing conservatives to retire, and literally cutting off the justices’ air conditioning.
As Windsor explained, it is all just for “the greater good.”
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School. He is the author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (Simon & Schuster 2024)
The following explains the scorched earth attack on Justice Samuel and Mrs. Martha-Ann “Sacred Heart of Jesus flag” Alito . Jodi Kantor, someone with whom I am not acquainted, apparently is behind the drive by shooting of the Alitos.
So who is Jodi Kantor?
“On October 5, 2017, Kantor and Megan Twohey broke the story of three decades of allegations of sexual harassment and abuse by the film producer Harvey Weinstein.”
– Wiki
funny that. Kantor and Twohey “broke” the story that everyone in Hollywood knew for decades that Harvey “Hillary donor” Weinstein was a sexual predator.
Breathtaking journalism! Give her a Pulitzer Prize! Oh wait, they did!
😉
NYT’s Jodi Kantor Has A History Of Peddling Deranged Anti-Alito Hoaxes
Many left-wing activists are furious with the court, the last functioning institution in America and the only one they do not control. They have launched a scorched-earth attempt to destroy the court ahead of the end of the term. One such left-wing activist is Jodi Kantor of The New York Times. Unable to critique the court for any legitimate reason, Kantor has taken to writing numerous obsessive hit pieces not just about the wife of a Supreme Court justice, but about her flag choices.
Really.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/06/nyts-jodi-kantor-has-a-history-of-peddling-deranged-anti-alito-hoaxes/
TL;DR: yellow journalism
Jonathan: If there’s one thing we’ve learned from Justice Alito’s “Stop the Steal” battle flags and the secretly recorded statements of Alito and his wife it’s this. The right-wing supermajority on the SC doesn’t give a damn about judicial “ethics”. But this problem is bigger than Alito’s flags or the millions in “gifts” Thomas has received from billionaire Harlan Crowe. The root of the problem is that money from right-wing funders like Leonard Leo, Charles Koch and Crowe have used influence peddling and money to corrupt the Court to make sure their interests are protected. We can’t expect the right-wing majority on the court to be “fair and impartial” when it comes to the really important decisions that affect the financial interests of wealthy donors. And that corruption is undermining our Democracy!
A Fox News Poll finds most voters favor the following proposals:
— Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers (87%)
— Improving enforcement of existing gun laws (81%)
— Raising the legal age to buy a gun to 21 (81%)
— Requiring mental health checks on gun buyers (80%)
— Allowing police to take guns from those considered a danger to themselves or others (80%)
— Banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons (61%).
https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-gun-limits-arming-citizens-reduce-gun-violence
…………………………………….
61% favor banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons!
Yet today, the Supreme Court issued another 6 to 3 decision declaring that the Trump Administration’s 2018 ban on bump stocks was unconstitutional.
The decision basically splits hairs on the definition of machine guns; which Congress outlawed for private ownership back in 1934.
‘Technically’ a semiautomatic rifle, modified with a bump stock, isn’t really a machine gun. Or so Clarence Thomas argues in today’s decision which he authored.
In today’s column, Professor Turley notes that Justice Alito is bothered by all the negative coverage mainstream media projects regarding this court and their decisions.
Yet today’s decision, on bump stocks, reminds us again that this court has no regard for public sentiment. This court’s only allegiance is to Leonard Leo’s Federalist Society.
The recording seems to be no different than what project veritas did. Alito attacked pro-publica and questioned the funding sources of the organization. It’s a non-profit.
Alito is upset that he’s been caught being an impartial douche.
“The recording seems to be no different “
It is completely different. That you do not recognize the difference speaks volumes about what you don’t know.
How is it different? Both Veritas and the alito recordings were done thru deceit. So, how were they different?
“were done thru deceit.”
That is one characteristic of many. Both you and a squirrel eat to survive. Does that =make you the same as a squirrel? Some people think so.
Alito has been “caught” being impartial? So it’s bad for judges to be impartial? That’s news to me.
Sarcasm
THE LAND OF THE FREE
___________________________
“America: The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.”
Americans are free to follow predominantly unconstitutional orders from 438 predominantly unconstitutional departments, agencies, and sub-agencies.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alternatively, central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth, social engineering, the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and Karl Marx’s motto, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” must be immediately extirpated from America with extreme prejudice.
Freedom and Self-Reliance must prevail and hold dominion in America.
What is more amusing about this scandal with Alito is his wife. She’s a full blown Karen. Her rants and unhinged reactions to their neighbors free speech signs and flags is totally MAGA.
Turley claimed Judge Merchan should recuse from Trump’s case because his daughter does work for an organization that does work for democrats because it questions his impartiality. But Alito’s admission that he will not compromise or the flag problem is an issue is not a concern? Alito’s position demands a lower standard than Merchan or Engoron? Thats hilarious.
Then we have Thomas who keeps “forgetting” about these million dollar private jet trips and vacation resorts by wealthy donors. To be this careless would be grounds for an investigation.
Turley knows corruption when he wants to see it. But when it’s right in front of him and it involves conservative justices he turns a blind eye?
Mmm….some of us think Turley is a disingenuous political hack.
You seem to miss the distinction between Merchan being a district court judge who makes solo decisions vs. a Justice of the Supreme Court who is one of nine and cannot be replaced upon recusal.
The problem with this war on free speech is that it encompases a lot of fronts that we do not commonly talk about and yet it inhibits free speech. Accrediting groups of universities and medical schools that demand DEI, critical race theory , and the trans support lifestyle with hormones and surgeries despite virtually no scientific support. This builds a regulatory bohemeth into these sites of advanced education and the government does not have to even be there to see its views advanced and placed in concrete.
This ends up blocking grants, stopping faculty advancement, putting a velvet boot on the throat of both faculty and students (yet still a boot).
Obama failed to change sex to gender in the law against sex discrimination and now Biden is trying again and trying to block any funds to states that don’t follow the party line on gender “right’s.
We saw similar things occur with law schools having miniscule conservative representation, trying to yank doctors licenses because the spoke out against the covid vaccines (I took the vaccines by I never begrudged opponents their criticisms).
Now we see the DOJ charging a physician in Texas for a HIPPA violation because he whistle blew the Texas Children’s Hospital for continue to do hormonal and surgical manipulation of of minors despite the state law forbidding it.
I have seen Dr’s charged for a lot of things besides medical malpractice or HIPPA violations but usually HIPPA violations are an Organizational issue but a doctor , nurse or others can violate the law. I have never in 46 years seen the DOJ charge a single doctor for a HIPPA violation. The notice of an intent to investigate him followed very closely on his whistle blowing. My criticism of his whistle blowing was that he went to a newspaper and he might have better considered going to the TEXAS Attorney General.
I know that Hospital well because it is part of the Baylor College of Medicine participating hospitals and used for medical students, resident and fellows. For many years it was part of the Texas Heart Institute and St Luke’s Hospital. The Texas Heart Institute was founded by Denton Cooley MD and the Children’s Hospital was included because Dr. Cooley was trained in pediatric heart surgery and worked there as well as on Adults. Actually my Pulmonary and Critical Fellowship at Baylor was funded by St Lukes Hospital. I knew those corridors and ICU’s extremely well. It truly pains me to see them engaging in this type of surgery and treatments.
I am also a retired physician.
It may “pain you to see them engaging in this type of surgery and treatments”, but it is none of your business.
As a life long Republican I always believed in the right of the people to be left alone by the government. The antithesis of this idea is the nanny state traditionally associated with liberal Democratic government where the state “knows best” and dictates the lives of the people.
What “pains me” is that the Republican party now pokes its nose into many aspects of the personal lives of the people. The extreme right christofascist authoritarian component of the Republican party has taken over and seeks to dictate how people should live their lives. The government has no interest in abortion, what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, who they marry, what books they read, or health care decisions made by individuals for themselves or their children.
These decisions are none of your business, and certainly no business of government.
The extreme right christofascist authoritarian component of the Republican party
You claim to be a “life long Republican” but you talk exactly like a left-wing Commie Democrat socialist. I call BS on your claim, you liar!
P.S. Under your logic all state-level laws against child abuse are invalid, since most child abuse takes place “in the privacy of their own homes.” Yeah, you’re a shallow leftist dweeb.
” dictate how people should live their lives.”
You are neither a physician nor a Republican. You are little more than a savage who believes in savagery rather than the protection of children. Ten year old’s are not there to be mutilated or used as sexual toys. Get help.
Remember when Paint Chips (Peter Shill, Svelaz, Enoch Poor, Wally, et al) stated he is:
✔️ a heterosexual
✔️ married
✔️ has multiple children
✔️ homeschooled
✔️ Reagan Republican
✔️ practicing Jew
✔️ Vietnam Veteran
✔️ career earning 6 figures
those were good times
🤡
🙂 (Peter Hill)
People who express hysterics over this most bland of statements by a Supreme Court justice are disingenuous. They’re acting, they’re hypocrites. Alito did not say anything about a pending case or about any litigant before the court. He correctly observed that America has become polarized, and he expressed a desire for godliness in public life. The Dems apparently prefer a demonized government.
Professor Turley should know what Alito said and did erased any notion of impartiality.
It’s grounds for impeachment if it were to be put before congress. Thomas and Alito are the swamp dwellers of the Supreme Court. Alito just showed how partisan he is and that should be concerning to Turley, but of course he will defend such behavior. I seriously doubt that if judge Merchan or Engoron did that he would defend them as well as alito.
Alito is a partisan hack.
“It’s grounds for impeachment.”
Dumb. What are the grounds for impeachment? The personal opinions of Alito or Sotomayor? This dummy wants Supreme Court Justices to be less knowledgeable than himself (if that is possible), then they would have no opinions.
The Supreme Court is supposed to judge based on the law. That means whether the law is upheld from the left or the right, whether one personally believes in it or not. The problem we face today is partisanship from the left and the Stupidity of today’s Democrats.
Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial. If they can’t be it can be grounds for impeachment because public trust would be gone. He would no longer be seen as fair and impartial. If he’s pushing an agenda he does not belong on the court.
The Supreme Court is supposed to judge based on the law. That means whether the law is upheld from the left or the right, whether one personally believes in it or not. The problem we face today is partisanship from the left and the Stupidity of today’s Democrats.
It doesn’t take much intellect to understand the above, yet you can’t understand it. Can you figure out why?
“The Supreme Court is supposed to judge based on the law.”
And the way they do that is by being impartial. Alito just demonstrated that he is not. His personal views and beliefs dictate his reasoning. Not the law.
“Alito just demonstrated that he is not.”
George, you are true to form, Stupid. All justices have beliefs. They are supposed to put those beliefs away and judge the case on the law.
Alito is conservative and bases his decisions on the Constitution. Sotomayor is progressive and supposedly bases her decisions on the Constitution as well, but she admits to adding her personality into the law. I never heard such an admission from Alito.
S Meyer you’re responding to a troll who says absurd things for the sole purpose of getting a reaction. I advise just scrolling past and not even reading his lies. It has never been useful for a human being to ingest garbage, whether physical or mental.
Having Supreme Court justice who cannot show he’s impartial. Should be a concern to everyone.
That you choose to remain ignorant is truly sad.
Oldman, a troll maybe, but I want to know how stupid he is. When a person reaches such low IQ numbers it gets difficult to assess. He is able to provide reasonable sentence structure but no evidence of the ability to think.
‘what Alito said and did erased any notion of impartiality.’
‘Alito is a partisan hack.’
Takes one to know one, George?
Being one of the least impartial hacks here.
Choose one. We are living in the Dark Ages 2.0 or the Age of Hypocrisy (expressing disdain for the ‘Appeal to Heaven’ flag while remaining deafening silent for protesters raising the ‘red flag of Islam’.
Thank God we have someone of the character and intellect of Alito on the court.
If not for Trump and Mitch McConnell, the Court and the country would have no doubt suffered under a completely immoral, amoral, weak, unprincipled, leftist political hack like Merrick Garland being on the court ….
Sitting next to Ketanji baby who doesn’t know what a woman is….
Thank God.
Thank Trump.
Unborn babies are the ultimate minority, defenseless from the Angry Murderous Democrat Party mob.
““I wish I knew. I don’t know. It’s easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us. And so they have really eroded trust in the court”
And which individual spews more crap about the judicial system than any other person? DJT. The baby man is a one man walking disaster that blames everything bad he has done on the courts.
Get a grip JT, DJT is the one behind all the crap against our court system. Let’s see how that works out at his sentencing.
Lying Blumenthal is as low as a snake in the grass. Warren is not far behind.
Russ
Can we assume a “broken windows” approach to news gathering? Anyone who would secretly tape a conversation with a Supreme Court justice in the course of a dinner party is not a decent human being.
Democrats have been demanding partiality and activism in everything from journalism to law. But now they want “impartiality”? They don’t seem very interested in impartiality when it comes to Trump indictments and trials.
Honestly, these prog/left tools are starting to remind me of the gaggle of fainting, sobbing females in a Dicken’s novel. Get a grip on yourself and re-introduce yourselves to reality… The most difficult part of reading any Dickens is refraining from b*tch-slapping all the ditsy women who have no clue; and who live in a sheltered bubble far removed from reality.
In a world of moral relativism, Lauren Windsor may reign supreme. The Democratic activist recently lied to justices in order to record answers at a dinner.
In an interview with CNN, the filmmaker (who has been lionized by many in the media for her dishonesty) cheerfully explained that she lies to “elicit truths that serve the greater public good.”
The “greater good” is to contribute to a campaign of harassment and attacks on Supreme Court justices by academics, the media and Democratic members. The chief target of these efforts lately has been the author of the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito.
DIDN’T COMRADE LENIN SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO BREAK EGGS TO MAKE AN OMELET?
ANYTHING IN THE FIGHT AGAINST ‘FASCISM’ AND ”NAZIS’ IS FOR THE GREATER GOOD, RIGHT?
IF IT WEREN’T FOR THE ‘WRECKERS AND SABOTEURS’ WE WOULD ALREADY HAVE THE MULTICULT UTOPIA.
SEEMS S@@TLIBS HAVE THEIR OWN MORALITY WHICH IS TO SAY NONE; I THINK I AM BEING REDUNDANT THOUGH.
antonio
So let us see the playbook. Take a snippet of conversation and take that out of context and get outraged. Yep, we can ignore this one too.