Alito trivializes the intelligence and individuality of Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan for no apparent reason beyond petty resentment. Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images and Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States via Getty Images.
We now know the SC is a corrupt and politicized entity thanks, in large part, to Leonard Leo, Mitch McConnell and Agent Orange installing three justices unqualified to serve on said court. To complete the mission of transforming the court into a supermajority of radical conservatives required John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and the esteemed Samual Alito to play their part in making it so but we didn't know Alito is also a practicing troll in addition to being a jihadist raging against the modernity of the 21st century with example No 1, the attack on women's rights.
To whit ...
The Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published a softball interview with Samuel Alito on Friday in which the Supreme Court justice once again flaunted his ability to troll the public without facing any consequences. The piece—authored by a conservative commentator and a Republican lawyer rather than real journalists—centered on Alito’s claim that Congress cannot impose an ethics code, or perhaps any rules whatsoever, on the Supreme Court. “No provision in the Constitution,” he declared, gives Congress “the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.” That declaration drew the most attention and controversy, in part because the justice appears to have forgotten about a provision of the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress authority to regulate the court, even using the word regulation.
This focus on Alito’s claim of absolute immunity from democratic accountability, however, obscured an equally strange and offensive comment from the interview. After describing his conservative colleagues’ differing methodologies, the justice told his interlocutors: “I don’t see that there’s a difference in interpretive method” among the three liberal members of the court. His message was hard to miss: The Republican-appointed justices have unique and complex approaches to the law, “very serious differences” that lead to fissures within the 6–3 supermajority, demonstrating intellectual integrity over results-based judging. The Democratic-appointed justices, by contrast, apply the exact same methods, which typically lead to the same outcomes. The implication seems to be that the conservatives are neutral arbiters of the law who follow unbiased judicial philosophies to their logical conclusions, while the progressive justices are inclined toward activist judging to reach liberal ends.
No comments:
Post a Comment