Justice Alito Preempts ProPublica "Investigative Journalism"

"ProPublica has leveled two charges against me. . . . Neither charge is valid."

ProPublica styles itself as "an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force." Let me translate "moral force" for you: ambushing conservatives with misleading accounts of dated accusations that, at worst, concerned good faith attempts to comply with the rules. I've lost count of the number of times that wild accusations against Justice Thomas have fallen apart. I think the only upshot of this breathless reporting is that the public has become tired/bored/numb to this "moral force."

ProPublica's latest research target is (you guessed it) Justice Alito. On Friday, ProPublica contacted Justice Alito, and asked him to respond to questions by a deadline of noon EDT Tuesday. Justice Alito provided such a response--in the Wall Street Journal.

Alito's decision was a masterstroke. Rather than providing comments to ProPublica, which can be cherry-picked and quoted out of context, Alito spoke directly to the public. Indeed, I long ago decided that if any outlet were running a hit job on me, and asks me for comment, I would pre-empt their story and post my reply on the blog. Alas, most of the hit jobs on me never bother seeking comment. But such is life.

Why did Alito speak directly to the public? Because there is a sustained movement to destroy the Supreme Court. In the past, the Court could have expected members of the Bar and the Academy to defend the Court. But no longer. Because five justices had the audacity to let the people cast votes on abortion (and in the past year, that decision has overwhelmingly resounded in favor of Democrats), the Supreme Court must be obliterated. I think several of the Court's moderates are swinging left this term to forestall more attacks. Who would have predicted that Justice Sotomayor would be the Justice in the majority the most on 6-3 "conservative" Court? Stay tuned for the affirmative action cases.

I have described Justice Alito as the heart of the Supreme Court. He defends the Supreme Court in ways that Chief Justice Roberts simply cannot.

I'll write more on this issue when I finally see the ProPublica allegations. One point to flag. Justice Alito offered a factual rebuttal to ProPublica's "investigative journalism." Apparently, ProPublica alleged that Alito was served wine that cost more than $1,000 at some luxury resort. Alito claims that accusation is "misleading." And who are you going to believe? ProPublica's shoddy reporting in the past has undermined any benefit of the doubt. On a personal note, a reporter from ProPublica contacted me last week seeking comment. I never even hit reply.

Comments

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Indeed, I long ago decided that if any outlet was running a hit job on me, and asks me for comment, I would pre-empt their story and post my reply on the blog. Alas, most of the hit jobs on me never both seeking comment.”

You’re an associate professor at fourth tier law school who happens to be known in online legal circles as a tedious and obsequious hack, as this piece so wonderfully demonstrates. What publication would do a hit piece on you?

[Kazinski]

He must be punching above his weight to get this kind of response trying to give a routine talk at CUNY:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Freason.com%2F&source_ve_path=MTY0OTksMjg2NjQsMTY0NTAz&feature=emb_share&v=kuWEFjnwLiA

Lets not forget the number one lesson from Ghostbusters, don't play along and choose the form of your destructor.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol wow that was pretty sad. Those protestors looked like morons, and that crowd was empty.

That's like sad^2.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lol. So yeah, no publication is doing a hit piece on him.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What publication would do a hit piece on you?"

About a professor? None

When he gets on the federal bench next GOP president, probably plenty

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He is an associate professor.

At one of the worst law schools in America.

After teaching at that low-quality law school for more than a decade,

Still an associate professor, rather than a full-bird professor.

Maybe that looks like a strong record of achievement to someone whose legal career has culminated in proofreading $43,200 residential deeds in a can’t-keep-up, three-stoplight backwater such as Lower Jesusland, Ohio.

Carry on, clingers.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Why do you want this guy to be a judge? How would it benefit the legal system? You think this clown who often gets basic stuff about legal practice wrong and is obsessed with SCOTUS inside baseball should be managing discovery? Interacting with litigators and litigants? Sentencing people in difficult cases? Making credibility determinations in hearings and trials?

The fact that you want this obviously unfit person to be a judge shows how much utter contempt you have for the law and legal system. It's all a game to you. You don't care if real people with real issues are harmed by this clown as long as you can own libs and gloat. But there are real people with real stakes involved. You're such a disgrace to this profession.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not so much I want him, its just that his nomination is inevitable.

He's obviously smarter than you if that helps soothe you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Its not so much I want him, its just that his nomination is inevitable."

But you take such glee in it. You obviously don't care about the harm he would cause

"He’s obviously smarter than you if that helps soothe you."

Assuming that's true. It does not, because "being smart" is not the measure of a good judge or a good lawyer. There are a lot of "smart" engineers...but they don't make good pro se litigants. There are also plenty of "smart" lawyers...that are terrible at actual lawyering. Same with judges. I mean I know a trial judge who people who cultivated a reputation as "smart" and "scholarly." He's actually a complete joke in and around the courthouse because he has no idea how to conduct a trial or manage a case.

Blackman routinely gets basic facts and legal principles wrong, is obsessed with minutiae that doesn't matter, and doesn't seem to understand human behavior outside of a too-online partisan framework. He'd be a very very bad judge. I probably wouldn't be a great judge either, but I know damn well I'd be better than Josh fucking Blackman.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Blackman’s best shot at the federal bench sank with Trump.

[Gandydancer]

Whereas I would unhesitatingly pick Josh fucking Blackman over you, because he's not a COMPLETE lunatic, though I suspect a tendency to be a sellout squish if careerism calls. (His willingness to advocate, in the ABA Journal, keeping the loathsome DEI bureaucracy in place if tenured professors are put in charge is diagnostic.)

[LawTalkingGuy]

You’re a neo-confederate weirdo who once spent time in a legal blog comments section talking about how you would have won an imaginary argument with a cartoon character in a children’s PSA. If I had your confidence, I would be deeply unsettled. So a sincere thanks for not giving it to me, and instead giving it to Blackman.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/30/thursday-open-thread-129/?comments=true#comments

[Aunt Teefah]

Imagine thinking putting Blackman on the bench is some kind of "own the libs" victory. He's the best you've got . . . and you're proud of that?? Lmao

[Randal]

See also Judge Cannon.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Imagine thinking putting Blackman on the bench is some kind of “own the libs” victory."

Did I say that? I think I said he would be appointed soon.

But he'd be a reliable judge for my political positions. Its all I care about in my federal judges.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Its all I care about in my federal judges."

So you have contempt for the law, the legal system, and the public that has to interact with it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"But he’d be a reliable judge for my political positions. Its all I care about in my federal judges."

We're all well aware that you're a pathetic partisan fuck. You can't even bring yourself to advocate for the Constitution, but rather solely what you personally believe in.

Society won't miss you.

[Gandydancer]

You also didn't say, "He’s the best [I]’ve got."

But as opposed to all the Judge Aunt Teefah's we've got atm, a huge upgrade, no doubt.

[bacchys]

Blackman does the usual pretend-victim dance, and ignores that this is basically a confession by Alito that he's the Dobbs leaker.

Which reminds me: why is a fascist like Blackman publishing in a libertarian site?

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

I think Eugene has set Blackman up to be the punching-bag. Like Alan Colmes on Hannity and Colmes, or like Polonius in Hamlet, or like Beckmesser in Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg. Audiences (and readers) love inept bad-guys.

[SRG]

Giving someone the name "Bucket knife" doesn't hurt.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I think Eugene has set Blackman up to be the punching-bag.

I sense Josh Blackman is performing as Prof. Volokh intended and providing content Prof. Volokh desires. I also sense Prof. Volokh was willing to accept the effective departures of the Orin Kerrs that were a predictable consequence of Josh Blackman's contributions to this increasingly disaffected blog.

Prof. Volokh may have a regret or two -- Manta, Somin -- but in general I sense he has structured this blog the way he wanted it.

[Doug Heffernan]

VC is not a libertarian blog. There is maybe one regular contributor that is libertarian-ish. The rest are just conservatives, some subset of which are also republicans. This should be abundantly clear to any regular reader of this blog who has been reading for even a modest amount of time.

As a point of reference, if someone like Julian Sanchez (Cato) is defined as having a libertarian credential value of 10 (most libertarian) on a scale of 1-10, then no one who contributes to this blog would be higher than 3, and most would be 1 or 0.

Commenters, on the other hand, are about 70% trump supporters, and 90% republicans (those two categories overlap), 5% libertarians, and the rest hecklers.

[bacchys]

Blackman isn't even a conservative.

[Kazinski]

I for one am not going to let you kick around the Rev. Kirkland like that.

But I will admit this site was labeled as one of the 10 most dangerous sites by a disinformation rating organization funded by both the US and UK governments.

Evidently there isn't much to worry about.

[Tom for equal rights]

A site labeled as one of the most dangerous misinformation sites is probably getting more things correct than a site rated as one of the least dangerous misinformation sites.

Case in point is NPR rates as one of the most accurate and least partisan news sites, Yet it in march 2020 ran expose over a full week explaining how a covid lab leak was near impossible and a conspiracy theory. Ran constant news stories on Trumps corruption during the first impeachment, but nary a mention of the Biden ukraine corruption.

[bacchys]

So far there's shit for evidence of "Biden ukrain corruption."

Despite non-stop shrieking from conspiracist nutjobs, there's still zero evidence supporting lab leak. Meanwhile, a study conducted by one of the signatories of the letter which decried "lab leak" getting dismissed out of hand (because so many nutjobs were claiming it was already proven) considerably bolstered natural zoonosis.

[Noscitur a sociis]

ignores that this is basically a confession by Alito that he’s the Dobbs leaker.

Say what now

[Gandydancer]

I think he's oneof yours.

FWIW, https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3978582-alito-says-he-has-pretty-good-idea-of-the-identity-of-dobbs-decision-leaker/

[A Guy]

Alito was able to reach the top editors at WSJ on a holiday weekend and they immediately granted him an op ed in the paper. The assumption is that he has been the "high level source in the supreme court" that WSJ has been referencing for a few years for minor leaks and behind the scenes gossip and information.

From there, if he's the guy that likes to leak, and if the leak worked to undermine Roberts more moderate opinion which could have had the majority, the thought is that he was the Dobbs leaker. Especially since the framing of the article feels like it came from a conservative leaker and the source within the court seemed to have direct knowledge of justices conferences.

Its not airtight, but its not strings on a corkboard either.

[Reallynotbob]

Plus, pre-empting the ProPublica story is the same strategy as leaking the Dobbs decision. As you say, not airtight but consistent.

[Gandydancer]

“Alito was able to reach the top editors at WSJ on a holiday weekend and they immediately granted him an op ed in the paper.”

Yeah, I’m sure the gatekeepers at the WSJ would tell him the top editors are out of town and he should call back on Tuesday. Because, hey, why NOT let him give the traffic to Politico? (Which is where the Dobbs leak was published, btw.).

[Bob from Ohio]

"Alito was able to reach the top editors at WSJ on a holiday weekend"

You got him. No Supreme Court justice could ever get a phone number on a weekend!

"they immediately granted him an op ed in the paper."

Double got him! No editor would accept an op ed from a Supreme Court justice without a prior secret relationship!

[A Guy]

A Supreme Court Justice is writing to debunk an article that noone has seen or yet heard of and may not even exist, and as the editor of WSJ you would see this as newsworthy and of legitimate interest?

How slow is it in Ohio, Bob?

[Gandydancer]

Not as slow as the neuron connections in your tiny little brain.

If it isn’t of legitimate interest why are you commenting here?

What sites do you frequent where such idiotic excuses for an argument fly? You need to avoid them. You can’t afford any more loss of function inside your skull or you may lose the capacity to breathe and walk at the same time..

[A Guy]

Yes, 200 legal nerds in a comment section is moving the needle at wall street.

There's also a bunch of comments on the yitzak grossman blog post here, should WSJ run an oped on that too.

I feel bad tha Alito only has you to defend him.

[bacchys]

A whiny rant against an unpublished article isn't news.

[Bob from Ohio]

"editor of WSJ you would see this as newsworthy and of legitimate interest?"

Yes. Its called a scoop.

"On Friday, ProPublica contacted Justice Alito, and asked him to respond to questions by a deadline of noon EDT Tuesday."

He could share the e-mail(s) if the WSJ needed proof. WSJ knew that based on this deadline, their op-ed would be out before the hit piece. So people would be talking about the op-ed well before the hit piece.

[A Guy]

So pretty slow then.

[Ed Grinberg]

Prof. Blackman: It's a good thing that the Supreme Court let the people cast votes on a highly controversial policy issue.
bacchys: Fascist!

[ReaderY]

“I’ll write more on this issue when I actually see the ProPublica allegatikns.”

I notice your lack of knowledge of what ProPublica said didn’t in any way inhibit you from opining confidently that what they said (whatever it is) is obviously false, a political hit job, etc. etc. etc. What they said doesn’t really matter to your opinion, does it?

[santamonica811]

I think we all noticed that glaring logical point. It (it goes without saying) completely flew over Josh's head, obviously.

His reasoning skills are, well, idiosyncratic.

[Randal]

Well, idio-something.

[Gandydancer]

It's not a "logical point".

Nor does it represent a failure of logic, which is what I suppose you meant to say.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Right, it's a prediction of future behavior based upon past behavior.

Pattern recognition is something humans are pretty good at.

[Gandydancer]

Lying liars lie. Do I really need to read one of, say, Artie’s posts in order to know what kind of crap it will be?

Also, he did not opine that what PrioPublica said was oibviously false. He clearly assumes that it will be false, but that is not the same thing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Artie can’t post at this faux libertarian blog. He was banned by Prof. Volokh for making fun of conservatives in a manner that triggered Prof. Volokh.

Prof. Volokh was entitled to impose viewpoint-driven censorship on Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland. Cowardly, partisan, disingenuous hypocrites have rights, too.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘Cowardly, partisan, disingenuous hypocrites have rights, too’. This understates your failings, AIDS. More importantly, you’re inferior and unequal, and so you don’t warrant equal rights or treatment. (And just wait till those American rightists go after your grandkids…)

https://www.thefacultylounge.org/

The blog linked above notes most of the new appointments to American law school deanships. You’ll note how most have mediocre to shit JDs and no real scholarly training — and no, earning a JD does not qualify as credible training for academia. (You’ll also notice what percentage of deanships over the the last two years were given to African American women who fall under the category of the previous sentence.)

Name one other Western country, or any other kind of department or faculty within the higher ranked American unis, where this COMPLETE disregard for merit, credentials, and proven scholarly and managerial experience has occurred on a systemic level.

Your country is becoming a joke. (The Hunter plea deal also just confirmed to the world that your government is a totally corrupt mafia.)

And stop complaining about ‘faux’ libertarianism. You’re yourself a totalitarian twit. The whole world sees through your American snakeoil now: your worldview is being thrown into the rubbish bin of history, as your country crashes and burns.

However, your media really ought to continue in its jihad against your highest court in the interim. Discrediting it will only help to secure your country’s downfall, not just your legal system.

Better still will be when the American masses wake up to the con artistry that is American constitutional theorisation, and the WEB OF LIES that drove America’s entire ‘liberal-progressive’ jurisprudence throughout the last century, and not just in ROE. The more people learn about how con law professors in America’s ‘top’ law schools are ALL CHARLATANS, advancing pseudo-theories that serve as cheap veneers to try to secure their politics of the moment, those profs' heads will roll.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

*fingers crossed*

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The whole world sees through your American snakeoil now: your worldview is being thrown into the rubbish bin of history, as your country crashes and burns.

*fingers crossed*

You guys can cross your fingers, cross yourselves, hold your breath, stamp your feet, hum loudly with your fingers in your ears, and rant all you like, but you are still going to continue to be stomped into cultural and political irrelevance by your betters (the liberal-libertarian, world class, culture war-winning American mainstream).

These are your fans, Prof. Volokh, and the reason even the atheists and agnostics at law schools that hired you and the other Volokh Conspirators are praying for your prompt departures.

[Theendoftheleft]

Wow, you are delusional and pathetic. Choose reason and read the global news, AIDS. Your country’s on the decline and the world, across the political spectrum, consciously rejects your garbage values. You are completely losing the global culture war, especially as your country continues to discredit itself.

And what should it matter, to us in the rest of the world, if the pseudo-scholars at the American law factories have become more openly political agents (of the authoritarian variety), raping all basic academic norms along the way?

Look at how your corporate media behaves like little fascist children on an extended temper tantrum. Why would 'liberal-progressive', or 'liberal-libertarian' respective media bodies in other Western countries ever want to emulate what they do (let alone continue to trust them)?

Wake up, AIDS.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What they said doesn’t really matter to your opinion, does it?"

Why should it? Its a left wing organization. Do you care what the RNC says about democrats?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I care what the RNC has to say about Democrats, when they provide receipts. Or even when they make an argument that hits home.

I'd hate to live in your world where all is partisanship and thus nothing matters.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I care what the RNC has to say about Democrats, when they provide receipts. Or even when they make an argument that hits home."

Pull the other one.

[Sarcastr0]

You’re the weirdo here, not even wanting to read what someone on the other side politically might say because you assume it’s all lies.

You think I read (parts of) the Durham Report for funzies?

[Bob from Ohio]

I didn't say not read it, I said there is no reason to pay attention to it.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you often read things you don't pay attention to?

[Gandydancer]

Sure. I never pay any attention to the nonsense you spew and I already know you’ll be spinning like a top and/or lying before I read your posts.

“Pay no attention to” is of course idiomatic English that you are pretending to not understand. Why you think this pretense is not self-clowning (which it is) is incomprehensible, but not worth worrying about.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 5 hours ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
You’re the weirdo here, not even wanting to read what someone on the other side politically might say because you assume it’s all lies.

You think I read (parts of) the Durham Report for funzies?

Sacastro - quit being a jerk

You might also read the durham report or read transcript from his testimony to congress today

Though it will bust the left wing echo chamber you have been hiding in.

[Sarcastr0]

No one who is liberal and reads the VC is into echo chambers. Did you think this through?

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 6 hours ago
"I’d hate to live in your world where all is partisanship and thus nothing matters."

You are living in that world of partisanship -
Pot meet kettle

[Sarcastr0]

Read below where I talk about the liberal Justices and law schools. Or defend Kavanaugh from a dumbass leftist conspiracy theory.

You may be a partisan cartoon. I’m not.

[EscherEnigma]

Do you care what the RNC says about democrats?

Some of us think it's unhealthy to live in a bubble.

[Gandydancer]

How does "not caring" imply "living in a bubble"?

It's not like you are convincing anyone that you spend your time reading RNC blasts.

So, you're just being demonstratively stupid. Why?

[EscherEnigma]

To the degree that I'm being "demonstratively stupid", it's because I'm frustrated with software at the moment so I'm burning time here.

That said, yes, I do read some RNC "blasts". I've been entirely open that my entire purpose for being on this site is to maintain awareness. Did you think you were special and I didn't pay attention to other conservative/GOP outlets?

[Social Justice is neither]

Right, their history is irrelevant and in no way a predictor. This is almost as stupid as breathlessly awaiting the NRAs position on the existence of the 2A.

[Jaypd]

We are all once again forced to wonder why volokh thinks commitment to first amendment principles means giving this obviously drunk intellectual midget a soapbox

[Michael P]

Nobody forces you to stand on that soapbox and rant while drunk, dude.

[Snorkle]

Mr. Manager's first crush is too cute.

Too bad I don't think Sam feels the same way.

[Gandydancer]

I guess this is the reference…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdGrC9S4PYA …is it famous in some circles?

It's import is anyway lost on me.

[Magister]

Saying only that an accusation is "misleading" is a wonderful non-denial denial.

Kavanaugh's personal debts mysteriously settled before his confirmation. Gorsuch selling a property immediately after joining the Supreme Court to the CEO of a law firm that appears at the Supreme Court. The wife of John Roberts receiving millions from law firms appearing at the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas receiving unaccounted gifts for himself and his mother from Harlan Crow. And now Alito, as if his earlier leaking of a Supreme Court decision on abortion weren't enough. The continuing drumbeat of scandals, even if they are stonewalled by the conservatives on the Supreme Court, will just make court expansion that much more attractive.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Saying only that an accusation is “misleading” is a wonderful non-denial denial.

This is typical Blackman ineptitude, but what Alito said was misleading was the description of the Alaska fishing lodge, not the accusation.

Kavanaugh’s personal debts mysteriously settled before his confirmation.

There's nothing mysterious about it, and the suggestion that there is is pure BlueAnon conspiracy mongering.

[Magister]

Well, according to Blackman, "misleading" was about the cost of the wine. Maybe it was only $500 - totally OK! I expect billionaires don't go for the cheap stuff. We know that conservative Supreme Court justices can be bought; it's just misleading to say that they aren't cheap dates.

The worse problem with Kavanaugh is the complete lack of judicial temperament displayed at his confirmation hearing. But if the debts were a nothing burger, why rush to get them paid off?

I expect that each of the various scandals wouldn't be an issue by itself, but all add to the dumpster fire that is the Court's reputation. (Unfair to dumpster fires, which have not failed to complete any of their required reporting and don't try to take down the entire country with them.)

[Gandydancer]

“…Alito, as if his earlier leaking of a Supreme Court decision on abortion weren’t enough…”

You subscribe to the same LoonLetter as bacchys?

[Magister]

Gandydancer the conservative troll has spoken, more than 20 times, in his usual quest to drown out any criticism of his conservative icons.

[Kazinski]

The ridiculous Kavanaugh debts conspiracy theory.

Mother Jones of all publications investigated Kavanaugh's finances and concluded he that actually he doesn't need any help from any outside sources. Outside his family that is.

Kavanaugh's father Ed is at least modestly wealthy, his compensation package for the year he retired was publicly reported as $13m. Presumably he got paid a fair amount in the years before he retired.

The idea that a fairly wealthy guy in his then late 70's might throw a few hundred thousand his son's way as he was ascending to the Supreme Court shouldn't need any other explanation.

He's 82, been well compensated his entire career, and Brett is his only son.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, he comes from $$ so this conspiracy theory doesn't hold together.

Don't love how it keeps coming up; it seems to have become leftist conventional wisdom.

[Magister]

I was sticking to financial scandals. There wouldn't have been a rush to pay off that debt if it wouldn't have looked bad, would there?

As I said, Kavanaugh's lack of judicial temperament was probably the worst thing about him, and there were the other sexual assaults that were never investigated.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, too many benign explanations due to spotty info on the financial timeline.

The pencil whipped investigation ticks me off.

[bratschewurst]

This is almost as unhinged (and ungrammatical) as the average Trump tweet.

[Magister]

The ProPublica story is out.

https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court

[SRG]

I am not sure why I should believe Alito over ProPublica:

The WSJ article:

Editor’s note: Justin Elliott and Josh Kaplan of ProPublica, which styles itself “an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force,” emailed Justice Alito Friday with a series of questions and asked him to respond by noon EDT Tuesday. They informed the justice that “we do serious, fair, accurate reporting in the public interest and have won six Pulitzer Prizes.” Here is Justice Alito’s response:

ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report. Neither charge is valid.

• Recusal. I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites. First, even if I had been aware of Mr. Singer’s connection to the entities involved in those cases, recusal would not have been required or appropriate. ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect. “There is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties” (Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices appended to letter from the Chief Justice to Senator Durbin, April 25, 2023). No such person would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that standard. My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court. On two occasions, he introduced me before I gave a speech—as have dozens of other people. And as I will discuss, he allowed me to occupy what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska. It was and is my judgment that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially.

Second, when I reviewed the cases in question to determine whether I was required to recuse, I was not aware and had no good reason to be aware that Mr. Singer had an interest in any party. During my time on the Court, I have voted on approximately 100,000 certiorari petitions. The vast majority receive little personal attention from the justices because even a cursory examination reveals that they do not meet our requirements for review. See Sup. Ct. R. 10. To ensure that I am not required to recuse, multiple members of my staff carefully check the names of the parties in each case and any other entities listed in the corporate disclosure statement required by our rules. See Supreme Court Rule 29.6. Mr. Singer was not listed as a party in any of the cases listed by ProPublica. Nor did his name appear in any of the corporate disclosure statements or the certiorari petitions or briefs in opposition to certiorari. In the one case in which review was granted, Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., No. 12-842, Mr. Singer’s name did not appear in either the certiorari petition, the brief in opposition, or the merits briefs. Because his name did not appear in these filings, I was unaware of his connection with any of the listed entities, and I had no good reason to be aware of that. The entities that ProPublica claims are connected to Mr. Singer all appear to be either limited liability corporations or limited liability partnerships. It would be utterly impossible for my staff or any other Supreme Court employees to search filings with the SEC or other government bodies to find the names of all individuals with a financial interest in every such entity named as a party in the thousands of cases that are brought to us each year.

• Reporting. Until a few months ago, the instructions for completing a Financial Disclosure Report told judges that “[p]ersonal hospitality need not be reported,” and “hospitality” was defined to include “hospitality extended for a non-business purpose by one, not a corporation or organization, . . . on property or facilities owned by [a] person . . .” Section 109(14). The term “facilities” was not defined, but both in ordinary and legal usage, the term encompasses means of transportation. See, e.g., Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 690 (2001) (defining a “facility” as “something designed, built, installed, etc., to serve a specific function affording a convenience or service: transportation facilities” and “something that permits the easier performance of an action”). Legal usage is similar. Black’s Law Dictionary has explained that the term “facilities” may mean “everything necessary for the convenience of passengers.” Federal statutory law is similar. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C §1958(b) (“ ‘facility of interstate commerce’ includes means of transportation”); 18 U.S.C §2251(a) (referring to an item that has been “transported using any means or facility of interstate commerce”); Kevin F. O’Malley, Jay E. Grenig, Hon. William C. Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions §54.04 (February 2023) (“the term ‘uses any facility in interstate commerce’ means employing or utilizing any method of . . . transportation between one state and another”).

This understanding of the requirement to report gifts reflected the expert judgment of the body that the Ethics in Government Act entrusts with the responsibility to administer compliance with the Act, see 5 U.S.C. App. §111(3). When I joined the Court and until the recent amendment of the filing instructions, justices commonly interpreted this discussion of “hospitality” to mean that accommodations and transportation for social events were not reportable gifts. The flight to Alaska was the only occasion when I have accepted transportation for a purely social event, and in doing so I followed what I understood to be standard practice.

For these reasons, I did not include on my Financial Disclosure Report for 2008 either the accommodations provided by the owner of the King Salmon Lodge, who, to my knowledge, has never been involved in any matter before the Court, or the seat on the flight to Alaska.

In brief, the relevant facts relating to the fishing trip 15 years ago are as follows. I stayed for three nights in a modest one-room unit at the King Salmon Lodge, which was a comfortable but rustic facility. As I recall, the meals were homestyle fare. I cannot recall whether the group at the lodge, about 20 people, was served wine, but if there was wine it was certainly not wine that costs $1,000. Since my visit 15 years ago, the lodge has been sold and, I believe, renovated, but an examination of the photos and information on the lodge’s website shows that ProPublica’s portrayal is misleading.

As for the flight, Mr. Singer and others had already made arrangements to fly to Alaska when I was invited shortly before the event, and I was asked whether I would like to fly there in a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant. It was my understanding that this would not impose any extra cost on Mr. Singer. Had I taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me.

Justice Alito is an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
----
If I saw "Republic of Argentina v NML Capital" I think I'd ask the question, "who are NML capital?" but maybe that's just me.

The charges against Alito seem relatively minor - but I think he's done a Streisand - not sure that ProPublica has the same level of influential readership as WSJ.

[Vryedni]

No such person would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that [appearance of impropriety] standard. My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court. On two occasions, he introduced me before I gave a speech—as have dozens of other people. And as I will discuss, he allowed me to occupy what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska. It was and is my judgment that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially.

To believe the impression created by those interactions is perfectly innocent, one would have to believe the same of Clinton’s tarmac conversation with Loretta Lynch. In neither case is there a shred of evidence of improper pressure or solicitation, yet in both cases the appearance is pure dog shit.

Congratulations, Sam, you have the professional ethics of Bill Clinton.

[Gandydancer]

Bullshit. Hillary Clinton was under active investigation for her criminal activity using her email server when Bill Clinton arranged the secret meet-up with Lynch in the middle of nowhere. Alito's fishing trip was years before he potentially had anything to discuss with Singer.

[Reallynotbob]

"...before he potentially had anything to discuss with Singer."

How do you infer that? Given the long arc of trial and appellate practice in the federal courts, I imagine Mr. Singer had some idea of issues that might arrive at the SCOTUS inbox a decade later.

[Gandydancer]

You can and do imagine all sorts of shit, but no one else is obliged to join you in your eager imaginings.

No doubt Singer has influence on Leonard Leo and Leonard Leo has influence on Alito. But your fantasy of monthly marching orders is just that, a fantasy. That's not how it works.

[Reallynotbob]

I should say you have "imagined" all kinds of arguments I didn't make. Odd.

[David Nieporent]

Bill Clinton did not "arrange" anything, and it was not "secret." It was public, which is why you know about it.

[Gandydancer]

Nopoint bullshit, of course. It took two days for the story to come out via a leak to journalist Christopher Sign (rip).

[David Nieporent]

Your name-calling is actually the most mature part of your posts.

It was actually reported the very next day, not "two days" later. And what's with the weird fetish about calling everything that someone says a "leak"?

[Michael P]

That was phenomenally stupid whataboutism. Which of those cert petitions involved someone stalking a federal official on an airport tarmac while the first person's spouse was being investigated for multiple felonies?

[Sarcastr0]

OK read that again and point out the whattabiutism.

[Vryedni]

Analogies, how do they work?

[Kazinski]

Its not doing a Streisand when there's going to be 50 media outlets going after him the next day, whether or not he gets his side of the story out.

He saw what happened with Thomas, and their multiple attempts to go after him.

As for replying directly to pro-publica Alito should quote Robbie Benson:
"Shove it up your ass with a red hot poker, I can go anywhere I want."

[Reallynotbob]

But that just highlights the real issue: why won't SCOTUS adopt disclosure rules and recusal rules for themselves? They can go wherever they want with whomever... but it's harmful to the appearance of impartial justice when these extravagant trips come to light after the fact.

I really can't think of any reason other than the desire to keep going on fancy trips the rest of us can't afford (you know, for no quid pro quo or influence whatsoever).

[Gandydancer]

"I really can’t think..."

You could have just left it at that. But, no, Justices can't (and ought not) recuse the way judges can. And of course won't want to. And Alito is deep in debt to Leo for reasons far more important than all the fancy trips he can fit in. As is Ketanji Brown, to someone, although I don't know whom. Grow up or stop posing, or both, whichever applies.

[Reallynotbob]

Why oughtn't Justices recuse?

[Gandydancer]

“I am not sure why I should believe Alito over ProPublica:”

I am not sure where their stories differ so that you have to make such a choice. Luckily Alito can safely ignore you and your ilk as the standard he adopts for recusal is: "“There is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties” and the "unbiased and reasonable person" bit disqualifies you.

As to the Streisand Effect, WSJ was going to cover the story anyway, and there is anyway no reason to believe that Alito iwas interested in trying to bury it rather than answer it. Your assumptions on that matter are illustrative of my first point.

[SRG]

Oddly, you still don’t provide a reason why I – or any of us – should believe Alito over ProPublica, An unbiased and reasonable person would say that they can’t, just as they have no reason to believe ProPublica over Alito (leaving aside the consideration of who has a motive to lie, and why). And /I did say the charges were relatively minor - unlike in the case of Thomas.

Clearly, you are no such unbiased and reasonable person, though you probably believe you are.

It’s not a demo of the perfect classical Streisand effect, but it is Streisand-like in that a SC justice writing an article in his own defence becomes its own story.

Had Alito put out a press release, saying “ProPublica’s article is incorrect and misleading. I was not wined with $1,000 bottles of wine, I was offered an otherwise vacant seat on a private jet, and I’ve certainly met Paul Singer a few times, but not under any circumstances or in any situation that would later require me to recuse myself in any cases involving him or his businesses”.

As the French say, about such responses, qui s’excuse, s’accuse.

[Tom for equal rights]

SRG 1 hour ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
"Oddly, you still don’t provide a reason why I – or any of us – should believe Alito over ProPublica, "

Oddly that you would be unaware of propublica's history of dishonest and biased/partisan reporting.

[SRG]

Why would I take your word for it?

https://adfontesmedia.com/propublica-bias-and-reliability/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/propublica/

Obviously a news source can be biased - in its choice of the stories it pursues and publishes - and yet reliable.

Meanwhile, Alito has a strong motive to lie. I am not saying he did. But you have not really answered my question.

[Tom for equal rights]

SRG -

You link to a biased analysis to show that ProPublica is not biased.

As I noted above, NPR is rated as one of the least biased in that same biased rating analysis.

Just a few examples from NPR
Case in point is NPR rates as one of the most accurate and least partisan news sites, Yet it in march 2020 ran expose over a full week explaining how a covid lab leak was near impossible and a conspiracy theory. Ran constant news stories on Trumps corruption during the first impeachment, but nary a mention of the Biden ukraine corruption. The day after the kyle Rittenhouse verdict, NPR ran story with retired california trial court judge about the biased judges ruling against the prosecution, but nary a mention of the extensive prosecution misconduct during and prior to the trial.

In summary, your citation of a highly biased rating analysis to demonstrate the fairness of the propublica is not very credible.

[Sarcastr0]

Alito claims doing a complete CoI check, even just on cases with a cert grant, is impossible.

[Tom for equal rights]

Close to impossible
who is going to list every owner in a cert petition to see if you might have met one of those minority shareholders/partners, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

"Mr. Singer’s name did not appear in either the certiorari petition, the brief in opposition, or the merits briefs. Because his name did not appear in these filings, I was unaware of his connection with any of the listed entities, and I had no good reason to be aware of that."

Not just the ones not granted cert.

[Gandydancer]

Singer showing up wouldn’t indicate any need for recusal.
And Alito doesn't say that it would.
What are you suggesting Alito did for Singer, anyway?
And on what grounds?

[Tom for equal rights]

Sacastro - you have deal with reality, not what you would like reality to be

[Sarcastr0]

An odd response to my quoting from Alito's op-ed, Tom.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sacastro - your response has nothing to do with the credibility of the propublica reporting

[Sarcastr0]

If the rebuttal by the principal doesn't hold water, that's actually decent evidence of the credibility of the thing that's failing to be rebutted.

[Gandydancer]

What is this "thing" that went unrebutted?

[myself]

Yet it in march 2020 ran expose over a full week explaining how a covid lab leak was near impossible and a conspiracy theory.

Whether or not this story was an over denial there's still no evidence of a lab leak and lots against it.

Ran constant news stories on Trumps corruption during the first impeachment, but nary a mention of the Biden ukraine corruption.

Trump kids and inlaws were literally going around raising funds from foreign governments as he was in office.

Versus a Biden Ukraine conspiracy theory that never even made sense (Bursima paid Biden's son so most of the west, including the GOP, would urge Biden to get the corrupt prosecutor protecting Bursima fired??)

In summary, your citation of a highly biased rating analysis to demonstrate the fairness of the propublica is not very credible.

Ok, we get it. The independent bias rating groups and fact checkers are biased so you get to believe whatever you want.

[Vryedni]

Eugene Volokh has cited mediabiasfactcheck.com on this blog. Apparently he doesn't think they're a biased source.

[Gandydancer]

SRG: “Oddly, you still don’t provide a reason why I – or any of us – should believe Alito over ProPublica.”

Oddly, your brain farts continue unabated.

My first sentence: “I am not sure where their stories differ so that you have to make such a choice.”

What does ProPublica say that I don’t believe because I am believing Alito?

“Clearly, you are no such unbiased and reasonable person, though you probably believe you are.”

I’m quite reasonable, but unabashedly biased. I’ve seen Alito’s work product and can anticipate what the work product of a Biden replacement would be and would not care to make that exchange even if I thought Alito had been unethical. So, no, I am as irrelevant to Alito’s test as you are.

Streisand wanted to avoid attention to her mansion on the beach.
It is not in evidence that Alito desires to avoid attention to his rebuttal.
(A press release would be superior to a WSJ op-ed how?)
I’ve already said this, but you are being determinedly slow on the uptake.

[SRG]

1. ProPublica's take is that entertainment was lavish - $1000 bottles of wine, and that Alito should have recused himself because that, and the free flight on a private jet meant that when a Singer case came before SC, Alito should have recused.

Alito claims that the entertainment was not lavish and that he couldn't have recused himself because he couldn't have known that NML was a Singer company.

Which take to believe?

2. As far as the Streisand thing, I already said it was not a classical Streisand but was nonetheless Streisand-like in that Alito's action gave more publicity to the case - at least, IMO. You may think a boring press release would result in more publicity than a long op-ed in the WSJ. But a justice writing an op-ed in the WSJ in defence is itself a story. A press release isn't. Alito may have concluded that publicity is what he wanted, hence the WSJ, but that is questionable on two possible grounds, first, the press release would not have left himself open the way his op-ed did - an unwonted touch of arrogance, no doubt - - and second, that the publicity may not have been favourable, contrary to his expectations.

That I had to explain all this to you while meanwhile you explained back to me is of course my fault in thinking that by saying a Mishnaic "Streisand", the rest of the argument would have been obvious. My apologies. Next time, I'll spell it out in greater detail for you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Luckily Alito can safely ignore you and your ilk

If the conservatives who currently control the Supreme Court do not arrange sensible, effective ethics standards for the Court, better Americans will do it for them.

Whether that occurs before or after enlargement of the Court is uncertain.

[Gandydancer]

After we replace Dementia Joe with a better America filling the ranks of robed lawyers with better Americans too is certainly something to consider.

[myself]

Recusal. I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites. First, even if I had been aware of Mr. Singer’s connection to the entities involved in those cases, recusal would not have been required or appropriate. ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect. “There is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties”

A weak rebuttal consider SCOTUS judges are never actually required to recuse. As for the appearance of impropriety that a very subjective matter. From the ProPublica timeline it looks like Singer had an unsuccessful appeal to the court, and so embarked on a multi-year quest to start woo justices (successful or not).

• Reporting. Until a few months ago, the instructions for completing a Financial Disclosure Report told judges that “[p]ersonal hospitality need not be reported,” and “hospitality” was defined to include “hospitality extended for a non-business purpose by one, not a corporation or organization, . . . on property or facilities owned by [a] person . . .” Section
[..,]

When I joined the Court and until the recent amendment of the filing instructions, justices commonly interpreted this discussion of “hospitality” to mean that accommodations and transportation for social events were not reportable gifts.

So a private flight to a luxury resort is transportation to "property or facilities owned by [a] person"?

Gochta.

The flight to Alaska was the only occasion when I have accepted transportation for a purely social event

Ooooh, I love testable claims.

Since my visit 15 years ago, the lodge has been sold and, I believe, renovated, but an examination of the photos and information on the lodge’s website shows that ProPublica’s portrayal is misleading.

Because Billionaires are renowned for entertaining folks at shabby lodges.

As for the flight, Mr. Singer and others had already made arrangements to fly to Alaska when I was invited shortly before the event, and I was asked whether I would like to fly there in a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant. It was my understanding that this would not impose any extra cost on Mr. Singer.

Indeed, I wonder if Singer communicated these facts before or after Alito expressed some concerns about the ethics.

Either way, after reading Alito's "rebuttal" this isn't as bad as Thomas, but is still a clear example of a Conservative billionaire trying to buy influence with the court and being met with something other than a clear refusal.

The charges against Alito seem relatively minor – but I think he’s done a Streisand – not sure that ProPublica has the same level of influential readership as WSJ.

The real test, is this a one-off or do the revelations keep coming?

[Gandydancer]

I'm sure the walls will come closing in if you just keep repeating that claim.

So... we're agreed that the private flight part was on "facilities" owned by one person and ok?

[myself]

I’m sure the walls will come closing in if you just keep repeating that claim.

So… we’re agreed that the private flight part was on “facilities” owned by one person and ok?

Ok,

#1 It sounds like Mr. Singer didn't own the plane, so your weird interpretation there doesn't hold.

#2 Even if Mr. Singer did own the plane the hospitality exception only applies if you're going to Mr. Singer's property. But he didn't own the lodge, so that doesn't work either.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

These justices are monkeys that dance when their handlers order them to dance…the notion liberals would have “won” anything had they tanked Kavanaugh’s nomination is absurd. In fact the opposing party shouldn’t even participate in Supreme Court confirmation hearings because they should want someone on the Supreme Court that could potentially be impeached when they are in power…if I were a Supreme Court justice I would be extremely unethical and corrupt because I know I would be untouchable and so Thomas’ corruption is pretty weak in comparison to how I would behave.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So you'd act just like any Federal then.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I've lost count of the number of times that wild accusations against Justice Thomas have fallen apart."

Zero. The allegations of his improper relationship with Harlan Crow have not fallen apart, and neither has his deliberate failure to report the various gifts and luxuries he's received over the years.

I hear they're letting anyone be a professor these days. Lucky you, Josh!

[Kazinski]

Tell us how it changed your perception of Justice Thomas.

They've been after Thomas since I was in college, and Im.retired now, but Thomas isn't and won't be until We Santos is ready to appoint his replacement.

[Kazinski]

Hel! of a spellcheck, ok DeSantis to "We Santos". Not the worst I've seen Microsoft Word used to correct my last name to "Brilliant", and they say AI wasn't available in the 90's.

[Aunt Teefah]

Santos, DeSantis, what's the difference? Both equally likely to be making supreme court appointments.

[Gandydancer]

You wish.

[Aunt Teefah]

Nobody - not even Republicans - wants your revolting pipsqueak candidate. He's done. Trump could go to prison and he'll still win the primary by 40%+.

[Randal]

I myself had no idea Thomas was so brazenly corrupt prior to the ProPublica bombshells. Somehow I had convinced myself that he just had a corrupt wife but no, ProPublica revealed that they’re a corrupt couple.

Then his response revealed that he, like Alito and Barrett, has no sense of propriety.

But at least he's not, like you, a wannabe domestic terrorist. At least, not to my knowledge!

Here's a riddle for you: what's the one thing more pathetic than a domestic terrorist?

[Bob from Ohio]

"what’s the one thing more pathetic than a domestic terrorist?"

You

[Gandydancer]

But, but, but.... he says he's list his faith in Clarence Thomas!
Shouldn't we believe him?

[Randal]

Are you guys trying to hurt my feelings? That's precious! Ok, let's see what you've got. Gimme your worst!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Associate professor. After more than a decade at one of the worst law schools in America.

[Gandydancer]

Haven't you been whining obsessively here for more than a decade?
How does your income from that compare with his?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I make more in some months than Josh Blackman earns at South Texas College of Law Houston in a year.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The amount of money sluicing in the direction of the SCOTUS, via the Federalist Society and other conduits, is many times larger than the amounts so far disclosed to have been spent specifically on behalf of individual justices. Presumably methods which worked to corrupt justices such as Thomas and Alito will have been tried as well at other levels of the federal judiciary. It would be an incautious wager to put money on anything less than a massive bribery scandal—albeit similarly oblique, like the Thomas and Alito examples—encompassing right wing judges throughout the nation. Why knows, maybe the left wing judges are similarly corrupt.

If would-be plutocrats have bought influence in courts throughout the land, what corrective measures ought to happen?

[Kazinski]

Oh come on, like.the Federalist Society is a consortium of corporate lobbyists, its more like an nerd fest version of the ABA.

To quote Elena Kagen:
“I LOVE the Federalist Society. I LOVE the Federalist Society!”

https://volokh.com/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-i-love-the-federalist-society-i-love-the-federalist-society/

[Martinned]

That's what I would say too if I was trying to get confirmed for a Supreme Court seat.

[Gandydancer]

Or, if (D)s are in the majority, "I live Planned Parenthood and Black Lives Matter!"

What's your point, exactly?

[Kazinski]

Well Kagen didn't say that when she was trying to get confirmed for anything.

She said it when she was dean of an insular law school and the federalist society was putting on programs that made her students think.

And its not like she agreed with their positions, its the fact agree or not some thought would have to be put into the process.

[Caphon]

Archive link for WSJ piece: https://archive.is/uujeU
Archive link for ProPublica piece: https://archive.is/DZMIG

[Caphon]

Wayback machine archive of King Salmon Lodge from July 2008.https://web.archive.org/web/20080820091136/http://www.kingsalmonlodge.com/TheLodge.aspx

Note that the pictures of the rooms look nearly identical to how they’re appointed today (and probably are). I feel this is relevant because ProPublica seems to imply that the lodge was more “upscale” in past, but in this regard you can be the judge by comparing it then to now.

I can tell you from personal experience that KSL is very typical of lodges in bush Alaska that are open to public reservations (i.e. not corporate-owned). They are rustic like this, but solid. These aren’t Swiss ski lodges.

[Randal]

I feel this is relevant because ProPublica seems to imply that the lodge was more “upscale” in past...

Does it? That's funny because Alito implies that it's been improved since his little junket.

[Randal]

Alito is by far the biggest political hack on the current court! So yes, in that sense I guess he is the heart of it.

[Kazinski]

Say what you will about Alito, but we will always have Dobbs and McDonald.

Play it, play it Sam

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Dobbs won’t last half as long as Roe did. Even a disaffected misfit holed up in his Unabomber shack off the grid should be able to recognize that.

Carry on, clinger. Just so far as your betters allow, though.

[Kazinski]

We will see.

As Time Goes By.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, as long as Dobbs lasts, it will be numbered among the most politically costly victories in American history. It manages to rack up both direct costs and opportunity costs continuously, and will do so as long as Ds can campaign against it.

Meanwhile, the only way the Rs can think of to make any political hay off Dobbs is to try to make it worse. At one stroke the Rs lost their best turnout driver, and exposed themselves as a continuing threat to do crazy stuff. All Ds have to do now is say, “Even if you have a moderate Republican you like running for congress, remember that a vote for any Republican, however reasonable, empowers a right-wing crazy caucus which won’t stop until it gets rid of contraception."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why did you leave off "... while we trans and groom your children."

[SRG]

Because that tends to be the province of priests and GOP politicians?

[Randal]

Don't forget the rednecks! https://d3p7mn7jyeu9ms.cloudfront.net/3dfd3bf8d1b8cff7a70c3025c4ef805e%2F565x0xwidth_preview%2F15%2Fhttp%2Fblog.uloop.com%2Fuloop%2Fr%3D307%2Fjpg%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2Fpageant%21p%21girl-296x300.jpg

[Theendoftheleft]

Your 'substantive due process' lies are done. So is your Supreme Court. So is your country.

Even you, AIDS, an ideologue and halfwit with zero understanding of either basic logic or the world, should be able to see that.

Carry on, AIDS, till your betters Breivik your grandkids.

[Sarcastr0]

Dobbs if written by less of a tool would be more resilient as a precedent in the future. Alito's 'fuck all the past let's gooooo' choice is not a very smart one.

But who cares about that, or Alito's integrity, or anything else. Outcomes are all that matter. When has that thinking ever gone wrong?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Alito is by far the biggest political hack on the current court! "

Wise Latina resign?

[Tom for equal rights]

Alito is by far the biggest political hack on the current court! ”

Wise Latina resign? Unfortunately Not but, the other political hack died and was replaced by ABC. Far too many of her opinions and dissents were based on how she would have written the law (encino motors, ledbetter v goodyear, shuette ) Though I have to give her credit for her dissent in Gamble which was correct.

[Thomas L. Knapp]

Lately I've adopted something I think of as "the Thomas heuristic":

Any writer who tries to handwave away Clarence Thomas getting caught cold in an at least high six, and more likely seven, figure bribery operation deserves to have any subsequent claims he or makes vis a vis judicial ethics or integrity preemptively dismissed (and prior such claims treated skeptically).

[Michael P]

Now do the entire Clinton Crime Cartel.

[Sarcastr0]

You're smart enough to know this deflection is a bad argument.

[Michael P]

You're not smart enough to know that we can see through your attempt to whine "whataboutism".

[Sarcastr0]

OK, be lazy then.

[Thomas L. Knapp]

I have in fact taken a similar approach over the years to people who've attempted to magically wish away Hillary's felonious handling of classified information, Bill's perjury, etc. They're basically tattooing the words "NOT CREDIBLE" on their own foreheads.

[Randal]

So you agree Thomas and Alito are as bad as Bill and Hillary! Oh frabjous day, something we can agree on.

Lock Them Up!

[ReaderY]

The op-ed indicates, and clearly, that Alito has no clue there is a problem. That is itself a problem.

There’s something of a “let them eat cake” element to Alito’s characterizing a seat on a private jet as merely being given a lift, or a $1000+-a-night hunting and fishing vacation lodge for the rich as merely rustic accommodations and no big deal. It reads like the way Marie Antoinette characterized things. She is famous for thinking her servant-filled “rustic” “peasant” vacation home was the way peasants lived. Alito’s op-ed suggests, in all candor. a similar attitude, and a similar out-of-touchness with ordinary people.

Monsieur Deficit.

Maybe the Wall Street Journal wasn’t the best way to reach out to ordinary Americans, either.

[Michael P]

So you concede all the substance, while hypocritically ranting about plutocrats yet ignoring tens of millions of bribes to the president's family.

[Reallynotbob]

Something something Bush something....

[David Nieporent]

…that never happened.

[SimonP]

Choosing the WSJ shows exactly who Alito wanted to reach - which is, no, not "ordinary Americans," for whom he has unending contempt, but rather a certain segment of the coastal elite, which he expects to run defense for him.

Josh is not competent enough to be able to count himself as among the "coastal elite." But he is tremendously jealous of them. Hence, the OP.

[Ed Grinberg]

If WSJ's target audience is "the coastal elite," what's the target audience of the New York Times? "Ordinary Americans"? You're full of shit and you know it.

[Randal]

That was an amazing… I don’t even know what you call it. Falsestrawaboutismchoice?

It’s quite possible for both WSJ and NYT to target different segments of the coastal elite.

You do realize that the WSJ is also named after New York City, don’t you?

[SimonP]

The NYTimes is also... targeting the liberal coastal elite? Isn't that understood?

Am I missing something?

[Sarcastr0]

As for the flight, Mr. Singer and others had already made arrangements to fly to Alaska when I was invited shortly before the event, and I was asked whether I would like to fly there in a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant. It was my understanding that this would not impose any extra cost on Mr. Singer. Had I taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me.

MASTERSTROKE.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He did the “masterful gambit sir” meme in real life.

[Michael P]

Leftist doesn't understand a meme. Film at 11.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Uh yeah I do. Alito clearly slammed his dick in the car door here because his explanation makes him look even dumber than the ProPublica piece would have. I mean: “if I didn’t take that private jet seat that the billionaire I’m not actually friends with offered me, it would have been empty” is a stunningly stupid framing.

And Blackman, ever obsequious, calls this a masterstroke.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Perhaps Justice Alito’s framing reflects an understanding that the target audience does not consist of better (modern, educated, reasoning, mainstream) Americans.

[Paladin_44]

Why would he not require US marshals on a private flight as well? Is private aviation any more secure than public?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Justice Alito is just flailing.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, yes? That's kind of a silly question. Do you think the 10 easily-identified rich people on the private plane pose the same security risk as the hundreds of random people on a commercial flight?

[ThePublius]

Many commenters seem to believe that Alito, Thomas, et.al. on the conservative side of the court are corrupt, that they are taking favors, no, bribes, from people who have business before the court, or who desire particular outcomes. Yet, I haven't seen or heard of any specific accusation of an actual quid pro quo.

I don't think what Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Ginsburg, and others have done is wrong. I have wealthy friends who have taken me on their yachts, lent me their guest houses, subsidized activities and trips, and it was just so that I could accompany them, or spend time with or near them, because we enjoyed each others' company.

Yes, this may sound very naive regarding justices of the supreme court, but what do you suggest? Should they live like monks, take a vow of poverty, eschew friendships or associations with people of means? I don't.

Also, I don't care for the attacks on Prof. Blackman. He posts a lot and works hard, and I appreciate that. Many commenters' insults are not at all civil or called for; and remember the editor's note for this blog regarding comments: "We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. " Let's keep it civil!

[raspberrydinners]

Yes, we need definitive proof. It's perfectly fine that they're taking lavish vacations on other people's dimes, houses being bought, etc. but we need a signed affidavit saying there is corruption otherwise how can we tell?

[Michael P]

They made small talk at some third-party event in the past that both attended. What more evidence do you need that they are conspiring to subvert justice, democracy, and the uniparty way?

[Sarcastr0]

They made small talk at some third-party event in the past that both attended

Should tell you something how much you need to leave out in your defense here.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Michael P's comments have less substance and worth than Drackman's.

I don't know why you're surprised.

[Sarcastr0]

He made a really good quantitative analysis a couple of weeks ago IIRC. (Don't recall what it was regarding, but I did make a note he's one to watch).

Alas, he's another who isn't dumb but chooses not to engage with more than the shittiest part of his brain.

[SRG]

Yet, I haven’t seen or heard of any specific accusation of an actual quid pro quo.

That's the classic Roberts line - no explicit quid pro quo, no bribery nor corruption.

You don't need to entertain a judge or a politician and say, "oh, can you rule this way or pass this legislation?" You just keep entertaining them and then when the occasion arises, they'll know what to do - without any explicit quid pro quo. This is of course completely obvious to anyone who has not just fallen off the turnip truck.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Yet, I haven’t seen or heard of any specific accusation of an actual quid pro quo."

I hereby specifically accuse them of actual quid pro quo. There you go.

"Should they live like monks, take a vow of poverty, eschew friendships or associations with people of means?"

At very least, they should recuse themselves when those "people of means" (lmao) have cases before them.

[Randal]

First, it would've helped of they'd been tranparent about it. Why try to hide it if it's all above-board?

Second, and much more importantly, in the case of Thomas, he's really got the relationship of a serf to his benefactor. His case isn't just a couple of social visits, it's a lifestyle subsidy for him and his extended family. That's even worse than an explicit quid-pro-quo! At least a quid-pro-quo is just a one-time thing. A benefactor applies a constant corrupting pressure across everything Thomas does.

[EscherEnigma]

but what do you suggest?

That they report it and stop pretending "we don't need watchers, we watch ourselves!" is a good excuse for anyone.

[Reallynotbob]

Well, Blackman posts a lot, that's true. The bit about the Left trying to "obliterate" the Court is a bit facile. The Left loves the Court in concept. Their problem is with the rising tide of politics and money affecting it.

I know, I'm not blind. Politics and money have been in the Court for a long time. But for much of the 20th century, you could predict the Court's decisions reasonably well by understanding the legal doctrines and philosophies of the judges. Textualists are not friends of the Left, but they should be more or less predictable. For a long time, Scalia and Thomas were known as intellectual purists. But then they started bending their own philosophies to suit other aims. That's regrettable, but even so, forgivable. Now that reporting is showing grift and less defensible variances from norm (Thomas' Trump decision; Alito's apparent Dobbs leak; Alito's barbed public speeches) it becomes harder to excuse these Justices as merely acolytes of an opposing philosophy. They start to look like political operatives unmoored from the jurisprudence.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's bad that they are political hacks.

It is worse that their hackery promotes bigotry at the expense of inclusiveness; ignorance; backwardness; and superstition at the expense of reason.

Fortunately, this is no problem that the culture war will not solve.

[EscherEnigma]

But for much of the 20th century [...]

I won't speak to the 20th century, but the first thing I ever read about/by Blackman (and I had to go back and verify it was the same Blackman) was a sort of "Fantasy SCOTUS Football" thing they set up years and years ago. Basically, people --using whatever method they liked-- would make their predictions for how the court would rule on different cases.

And as Blackman noted, the most successful people weren't the lawyers or legal analysts, it was people looking at ideaology and partisanship.

So I won't speak to the 20th century. But for the 21st century, this has never been true. And Blackman knew this back before it became politically expedient to forget it.

[raspberrydinners]

"Let me translate "moral force" for you: ambushing conservatives with misleading accounts of dated accusations that, at worst, concerned good faith attempts to comply with the rules. "

Let me translate this for you- "I'm a hack and hate when people rightfully call me out on my bullshit."

Cry more you fucking snowflakes.

[ReaderY]

You don’t think people don’t even unconsciously feel more favorably disposed to people who give them expensive things?

The combativeness here is telling. Like Professor Somin’s post, it strongly indicates the facts don’t matter. It’s an attitude of our side can do no wrong, and will be defended against the enemy at all costs no matter what it does. That attitude itself speaks volumes. Throughout history, throughout the world, supporters of corrupt regimes speak exactly like you, while non-corrupt regime supporters tend to speak differently, showing concern when their own leaders do something unseemly.

The way you talk shows the folks you support that they can count on you and people like you to support them no matter what they do, and no matter how corrupt they are. Your comment is itself a temptation to corruption, a whitewashing, that makes corruption more likely to occur. Frankly supporters like you makes it more probable that it has occurred.

Corrupt regimes tend to have supporters who talk like you. Non-corrupt regimes tend not to.

[Sarcastr0]

The combativeness here is telling

As someone who below has a less combative view than most on the left, I disagree with your take here.

I'd say the heat more comes from Blackman doing his usual awful job. ('ambushing conservatives with misleading accounts' is coming in hot without the fuel to back it up.)

And there is a good reason for this asymmetry as well - the judicial right 1) has the power now, and 2) is into ideological billionaires more than law schools atm.

And law schools are more accepted and a LOT less lavish, though I am waiting for a story to drop there (if the right cares to report it versus defensive crouch and whine). But a conflict is a conflict regardless of size, and there is politics there. But come on, the narrative force of the billionaire patron of a Justice is hard to deny regardless of your partisanship.

Unless you suck like Blackman.

[ReaderY]

An additional point worth making is Alito’s comment that he cannot possibly be expected to know whether an entity with a case before the Court is connected to someone they personally know or who has been attempting to influence them.

It is the Justices’ business to know this. If they need a staff to track this down, then Congress needs to apropriate money for a staff to track them down. We cannot have a society where possible bribery can be so easily disguised.

Alito’s comment reminds me of the “trefa banquet” incident in the 19th Century that led to the split between Conservative and Reform in Judaism, where in the aftermath the head of Hebrew Union College attempted to assert that the banquet organizers couldn’t possibly be expected to know and couldn’t possibly have has any say in what food would be served at it. Justice Alito’s assertion here is similar. It is his business to know whether what is going on in his shop and in his name is kosher or not.

Alito also blames a staff member for giving very poor advice about what should be reported. If Alito’s statements are true, and self-serving statements need to be taken with a grain of salt even when made by Supreme Court Justices, then frankly this person should be fired and replaced with someone less willing to bend rules and give Justices the answers they want to hear.

[ReaderY]

That is, one way to interpret Alito’s response is that he is being disingenuous. But another is that he is genuinely ingenuous, with a naïveté towards attempts to influence him that is practically inviting clever billionaires to take advantage of him. That’s not good either.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't believe Prof. Alito knows or cares much about what clever billionaires or the general public think. He is on a Mission From God.

A doomed, bigoted, disgusting mission from a paltry, illusory god.

[Magister]

While taking gifts from billionaires looks bad, not reporting the gifts is likely illegal* and makes it difficult for anyone else to point out the conflict of interest that could warrant recusal. If the gifts were reported and Singer were a party in a case before the court, the opposing side could point out the conflict of interest -- not that Alito would ever recuse himself, of course.

* at least with regard to some of the gifts. Thomas's case is clearly worse, as he reported gifts at one time and then quit reporting them when the LA Times had a story about it.

[David Nieporent]

It is the Justices’ business to know this.

No, it isn't.

[Reallynotbob]

Shouldn't it be?

[Sarcastr0]

So Justices do this all the time. The liberal ones more for schools than individuals, but they get paid by folks with an ideological bent nonetheless.

So while I want the system reformed, I actually can't get too exercised about Alito's conflicts in particular.

But this op-ed is just the dumbest way to handle the situation, and in and of itself makes Alito look ridiculous and will do no favors for his legitimacy.

[CommentMonkey]

How would you have him respond then? If he engages with ProPublica, he's essentially feeding the troll, elevating its status, and running the risk that his response is edited or accompanied by additional misleading context. If he points out, as you do, that other Justices regularly receive comparable gifts, he risks his relationships with them and may be seen as diminishing the institution. If he says nothing at all, the story is picked up by all the usual suspects, complete with a note that he refused to comment. That is taken as proof that he knows the allegations have merit.

It seems to me he picked the best possible option - respond immediately in a forum in which he can control his own message and ensure his side of the story is as widely distributed as the original smear. Now everyone who picks up the story, and is at all bound by the dictates of intellectual honesty, has to include his response. And he refrained from saying "we all do this" or some similar explanation that might be seen as aiding attacks on the legitimacy of the court as a whole.

[Bob from Ohio]

"at all bound by the dictates of intellectual honesty"

That describes no current publication.

[Sarcastr0]

Bias exists, but bias is not the same as dishonesty.

You're a nihilist; the rest of the world is not.

[Bob from Ohio]

You spelled "realist" incorrectly.

[Sarcastr0]

Your hyper-cynical amoral view of other people is a reflection of you, not other people.

One way to tell is how often you wish politicians on your side would become MORE amoral.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These clingers come by their disaffectedness the old-fashioned way . . . by losing at the marketplace of ideas, getting stomped in the culture war for the entirety of their deplorable lives, and recognizing that their right-wing cause is doomed in modern, improving America.

[Bob from Ohio]

"hyper-cynical amoral"

Again, its spelled "realist"

[Sarcastr0]

Humans don't work like you think they do.

Heck, you are so performative I don't even think you work like that.

[Nige]

Cynical nihilism - the lazy man's method for defending the indefensible!

[Tom for equal rights]

As noted frequently with many news sites and publications, such as ProPublica, NPR, NYT, the dishonesty is reflected in their bias, most often in choosing not to report the complete facts. (NPR with the lab leak dishonesty, Trump impeachment while omitting the biden corruption, the "pro defense judge in the Rittenhouse trial with no mention of the prosecution misconduct, etc)

[Sarcastr0]

Of course, the right wing fever swamp is where the real truth lies; it's just covered up by the evil media.

You choose to believe what you want to, not what's established.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sacastro - proves again that he cant address the merits of the statement -

try to point to any statement that is not true

[Sarcastr0]

You pointed to some grievances based on misunderstandings of science, right-wing Biden bullshittery, and a charge about the Rittenhouse prosecution that I've not heard before, but I'm sure us bullshit and ignorance once again.

You're 0 for 3. No merits to address. This is what happens when you turn off critical thinking in favor of partisan alternate facts.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 16 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"You pointed to some grievances based on misunderstandings of science, right-wing Biden bullshittery, and a charge about the Rittenhouse prosecution that I’ve not heard before, "

Again you demonstrate complete ignorance of actual facts. You havent heard it before because you having actual knowledge is against your beliefs.

The statements I made are well documented

[Toranth]

He has heard it before; I've given him dozens of research papers showing how sources are biased in their reporting. Sarcastro just plugs his ears and screams "NA NA NA" when the truth is presented.

He'd rather engage in his conspiracy theories than admit he might be wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

How would you have him respond then?

Well, Justices taking out an op-ed is a helluva move to begin with. Thomas just clammed up, and it wasn't fun, but I think it minimized the mess. Thomas was well served by the Justices coming together across party lines to defend the Court as an institution.

If you gotta get an op ed out there, do a moment of work to make it do more harm than good! Don't take a tone of partisanship, entitlement, paranoia, and grievance. Talk about reform, and make a nod at legitimate concerns. But naw, GOP persecution is the water in which Alito swims. It's pretty unjudicial, and putting it out in writing is absolutely doing him and the Court no favors.

[CommentMonkey]

Maybe. It seems like Thomas took a lot of bullets though, and his side of the story wasn't part of very much of the reporting. When I read Alito's piece, it seems to me it is long on factual detail and discussion of the relevant ethics rules and short on attacks against his accusers. I don't see a lot of "paranoia," entitlement," "grievance," etc.

I will say the defense that the seat on the plane would have gone unused probably should have been left on the cutting room floor. If you get an expensive gift, you get an expensive gift. Doesn't really matter what might have happened if you turned it down.

[Sarcastr0]

Charges, it is impossible to do conflicts checks, the billionaire just had a spare plane.

Maybe less grievance and more being really defensive and coming in hot.

[OtisAH]

Partisan, entitled, paranoid and aggrieved is just Alito being Alito.

[Randal]

I think Thomas's case is different in kind. He's been given a whole lifestyle along with a promise of even better things to come by his benefactor. He's practically on the payroll! That's quite different from the occasional junket, whether social or academic.

[OtisAH]

There is nothing obviously and shamelessly self-serving in that op-Ed or Blackman’s article and everybody knows it, too.

[crimsonblueku]

Created an account specifically to say that Josh Blackman is one of the stupidest assholes I’ve ever encountered. Stop sucking off Alito!

[SRG]

Stop sucking off Alito!

He will, only to replace Alito's member with Thomas's.

[SimonP]

Josh, you have repeatedly opined that the Court should not concern itself with questions of its legitimacy, when issuing rulings. The justices' say-so is all that matters, you have claimed; whether the public generally views them as abiding by the rule of law or serving the oath they have made is completely beside the point of true power.

That being the case, it's hard to understand why critics of the Court could be said to be trying to "destroy" it by merely pointing out its myriad conflicts of interest and apparent indifference to following even the most basic standards. As you have framed the question, none of these criticisms should be any particular threat. If they undermine the Court's "legitimacy," well, so what? Alito, et al., still sit on the bench, and will continue to disregard the law whenever it suits them.

Your constant need to play the craven apologist, Josh, paints you into these inconsistencies. You really ought to split your CV into different judicial philosophies and schools of thought, because if anyone were to take it as a whole, as expressing a single point of view, they would discover only inconsistency and incoherence.

[LawTalkingGuy]

His CV is like a hundred pages. No one is reading that thing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"No one is reading that thing."

Judiciary committee staffers will in a few years before the confirmation vote.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. A convenient list of error-ridden post and a few thirst posts about Barrett before she turned into a lib by occasionally disagreeing with him will certainly help him get confirmed.

This clown is going nowhere. Why do you think Cruz and Cornyn never put him forward for EDTX despite all the vacancies from 2019-2020?

[Bob from Ohio]

We will see. He's pretty connected in conservative political/legal circles.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Sometimes that's not a good thing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

We will see.

We also will see better Americans continue to figurative stomp the everlasting, bigoted shit out of right-wingers in the modern American culture war.

Clingers have been getting their asses kicked by better Americans at the marketplace of ideas for more than half a century, as the liberal-libertarian mainstream has shaped our national progress against the efforts and preferences of conservatives. In a nation that becomes less bigoted, less rural, less religious, less backward, and less white every day, what would incline an expectation that conservative could slow -- let alone stop, or reverse -- the tide of that modern American progress?

[David Nieporent]

This clown is going nowhere. Why do you think Cruz and Cornyn never put him forward for EDTX despite all the vacancies from 2019-2020?

I mean, Bob's idea that Blackman's a well respected guy sitting in the on-deck circle waiting for the next nomination is ludicrous, but I doubt Blackman would be interested in a district court judgeship anyway. It's not really his putative skill set.

[Sarcastr0]

Is he wise enough to realize that? I'm not sure he is!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He is mired at one of America's worst law schools. He has not been promoted to professor, after more than a decade, at a school that isn't near the major leagues.

Plus, he's on the wrong side of history and the losing side of the culture war. His lack of judgment and character have been vividly recorded for years at this disaffected blog.

Where do people think this guy is going?

His career trajectory seems predictable.

[Drewski]

Good to see that ProPublica's excellent investigative reporting is passing off the Federalist Society and has Blackman so apoplectic that he's reverted to grade-school sarcasm and scare quotes. Remember that they operate from donations and now - while they're fresh in your mind - is a good time to help them out. We need a lot more of this kind of reporting.

[bernard11]

Yes. The WSJ is the perfect vehicle for reaching the public.

[txtolawschool]

Isn’t it funny how Josh’s opinions always perfectly toe the Republican party line on every single topic? Does it ever get tiring for him to be a transparently partisan hack 24/7, I wonder?

But really, I feel sorry for the students at South Texas who deserve better…

[Sarcastr0]

I was looking for that piece Blackman wrote about how he's dedicated to re-reading what he wrote to make sure there's no extraneous words and makes a sufficiently robust point.

Couldn't find it. Did find this:
https://joshblackman.com/blog/2012/05/21/professor-eugene-volokh-the-advocate/

"The Times has a lengthy piece on Eugene Volokh, who was recently commissioned by Google to write a white paper that argues that search results are protected speech."
...
"Paul Horwtiz is likely cooking up a devilish post on point here, to which Orin Kerr will swoop in to defend Eugene. Randy Barnett will take some hits in the process.

I wonder if Eugene had written his views on the topic of First Amendment protection for search results, without Google’s commission, would it have been any different? If there would be no difference, why did he have to do it on Google’s dime, (other than to get Google’s dime?) If his view would have been different without writing it on Google’s dime, how so? And at that point, it starts to trouble me a bit more."

Yoy.

[whey_standard]

I don't think there are all that many "hit pieces" on you, people dunking on you on twitter aren't that. But to the extent there are, given your stated policy of front-running, why would anyone give you the courtesy of an opportunity to comment?

Why should anyone give Alito that going forward?

[wolfefan]

As usual, Orin Kerr has a good view, particularly contrasted with the overheated rhetoric in the OP. https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1671528833625776128

[Sarcastr0]

"For a Justice, putting out a statement in response to press inquiries seems fine. But I'd think the way to do it is to make it entirely non-defensive, and to post it as a statement on the Court's website in their press section."

[bernard11]

I'll write more on this issue when I finally see the ProPublica allegations. One point to flag. Justice Alito offered a factual rebuttal to ProPublica's "investigative journalism." Apparently, ProPublica alleged that Alito was served wine that cost more than $1,000 at some luxury resort. Alito claims that accusation is "misleading." And who are you going to believe?

IOW, you are angry about something you haven't read.

And Alito weasels around about the wine, which means the story is true but he has some sort of weak excuse.