The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
About The Former Alito Clerk Who Attacked Him In The Philadelphia Inquirer
Professor Susan Sullivan doesn't even list Alito's name on her biography, and clerked for Judge Alito when Casey was argued.
Susan Sullivan wrote an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, titled "I was a law clerk for Justice Alito. He must recuse himself from hearing cases involving Donald Trump." The subheadline is, "Flying the U.S. flag upside down, once a signal of distress, has become a symbol of those who reject the results of the 2020 presidential election. When Alito did so, it was indeed a distress call."
The op-ed introduces nothing new or original. She cites the New York Times reporting as gospel, and spends paragraphs talking about Dobbs, which has nothing to do with the flag. Let's be clear. The only reason why Sullivan placed this op-ed is that she is a former law clerk for Justice Alito. The only thing the press loves more than a conservative who criticizes conservatives is someone who worked for a conservative who criticizes her former conservative boss. Look no further than the endless stream of former people in Trump world who attack Trump.
Who is Susan Sullivan? I had never heard of her. She is an Assistant Professor in the Temple University College of Liberal Arts. She teaches classes in criminal procedure, constitutional law, and the Supreme Court. Her biography includes these lines:
Professor Sullivan graduated from Rutgers Law School, Order of the Coif in 1990. Following law school, she clerked for a federal Judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (now a US Supreme Court Justice), and then practiced law as a litigator for in excess of ten years in New York and in San Francisco.
She can't even bring herself to say the name Samuel Alito in her biography. Say his name! She is willing to take the credit for the clerkship, but then throws her boss under the bus.
She describes herself this way in the Inquirer:
As a former law clerk to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., I often admired him as a person for his integrity and honesty. As a progressive liberal, however, I vehemently disagreed with the approach he takes to reading the Constitution, the narrow interpretation he adopts, and his reverence for the framers 'restrictive intent.'
Is it normal to say you "often" admire a judge you clerked for? When did you not?
Professor Sullivan has a special connection to Justice Alito and abortion. She graduated Rutgers in 1990, and began her Third Circuit clerkship in the fall of 1990, and finished in the summer of 1991. Planned Parenthood v. Casey was argued before the Third Circuit in February 1991, which was smack dab in the middle of Sullivan's clerkship. As all know, then-Judge Alito would have upheld the spousal notification privilege that the Casey plurality deemed unconstitutional.
In 2006, when Alito was nominated, Sullivan offered some faint praise for Alito:
Susan Sullivan of San Francisco clerked for Alito during the year he wrote his controversial Casey opinion, upholding portions of a Pennsylvania statute restricting abortion, a decision later overturned by the Supreme Court. Sullivan, who describes herself as "a social progressive who is pro-choice and anti-death penalty," says, "In general I would react with suspicion to any nominee of this administration. But having worked with him, I know he does not work toward a specific result. He is not intent on advancing his own agenda. He approaches cases in a very impartial way."
Indeed, Sullivan met her husband, Jim Goneia while they were both clerking for Judge Alito.
Jim Goneia and Susan Sullivan met while clerking for Judge Alito in 1990-91. They are now married, with two children. Their 9-year-old son says, "I like Judge Alito. If it weren't for him, I wouldn't exist."
Both Jim and Susan describe themselves as "social progressives" and they are both "pro-choice." But they adamantly support Judge Alito. And it's not just because of their son's existence, as good a reason as that might be. . . .
They both served with Alito during the Casey decision. And Susan replied that she would feel the same way if Roe is overturned that she did when she read Alito's dissent in Casey: she didn't agree, but she respected the process he went through to arrive at his decision.
She added that while on the 3rd Circuit, Judge Alito has both affirmed and applied Roe. . . so she doesn't believe anyone knows how he will rule in a specific case. And the fact that he has written opinions that are popular with some, and decisions that are popular with others shows his impartiality.
But things have changed. The clerk reunion will be a bit awkward.
There is a reason why conservative judges, in particular, have to screen out law clerks--progressive students will take the job, and the prestige, then proceed to attack their former boss to media plaudits.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Blackman...embarrassing
He sure does attract some parasitic commenters, doesn't he? So addicted to scorning him that they can't keep from reading what they hate. I know people who go to horror movies and tell you how much they hate them.
Look no further than the endless stream of former people in Trump world who attack Trump.
[...]
There is a reason why conservative judges, in particular, have to screen out law clerks–progressive students will take the job, and the prestige, then proceed to attack their former boss to media plaudits.
The obvious implication is if Trump wins the election he must be sure to screen out people with spines.
A screening which Josh will evidently survive, for a position he's been angling for for a year at least.
Blackman v Calabrese...
She's never heard of you, either.
Harry Potter and the Justice who Must Not be Named
Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz, the Justice who *cannot* be named.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grzegorz_Brz%C4%99czyszczykiewicz&redirect=no
Nonsense. Spelled just like it sounds.
""a social progressive who is pro-choice and anti-death penalty"
Based on what the Freakonomics guy said, we could just execute a future criminal when he's in the womb. Not only would this protect his potential future victims, you won't have to execute him later. Because executing someone who's out of the womb would be wrong.
its okay to kill the innocent
But you cant execute the guilty.
Baze - the social progressive argues you cant execute the guilty - its cruel and unusual punishment due to the extremely remote possibility the guilty might experience pain - not withstanding the immense pain incurred by the victim.
On the other hand - its okay to kill the innocent regardless of the level of pain experienced by the innocent.
"She can't even bring herself to say the name Samuel Alito in her biography. Say his name!"
Josh? Get a grip.
Look no further than the endless stream of former people in Trump world who attack Trump.
Indeed. Contrary to MAGA-world folklore, Trump's NY trial did not amount to a left-wing attack. No left-wing witnesses were needed. All the most damning evidence came from close Trump associates.
“Jurist of the Year”
You know you don't HAVE to post, right? Like if you can't refute any of the arguments you're allowed to just ignore it and move on.
Look who HAS to post without refuting any of the arguments.
You guys sure are funny that way.
Living by that sword seems a dangerous game…
“There is a reason why conservative judges, in particular, have to screen out law clerks–progressive students will take the job, and the prestige, then proceed to attack their former boss to media plaudits.”
That’s ok, that’s why they have lifetime tenure.
The best conservative judges will pick some liberal clerks, and the best liberal judges will pick some conservative clerks to check their own biases.
I actually have to feel a little for Prof. Sullivan that she has to resort to this, and erasing Alito a former mentor, from her CV in order to assure her students and colleagues she is a good progressive and has learned her lesson. That will hopefully stop the whisper campaign for a while before she becomes a target again.
If you want judges and justices to be willing to pick ideoloically-opposed clerks, then the ideoloically-opposed clerks cannot pull shit like this. The more this happens, the less judges will be willing to take the risk.
I regularly see wingnuts scrub the names of their associates (a right-wing judge for whom they clerked, for example, or a right-wing organization for which they worked) from their biographies at legitimate law firms.
Trying to pass as a legitimate member of mainstream society can be difficult for the bigoted, superstitious, and backward.
"Flying the U.S. flag upside down, once a signal of distress, has become a symbol of those who reject the results of the 2020 presidential election. When Alito did so, it was indeed a distress call."
Is anybody going to point out that she's ascribing Alito's wife's actions to Alito himself? I can't prove there is disingenuous intent behind this, but because it advances the op-ed writer's desired end state the starting position should be suspicion.
Mrs Alito is not a trans-woman, so she doesn't count and may as well be treated as a contemptible slave of her husband.
How do you know? Have you seen her private parts?
That hairstyle does nothing to dispel rumors.
Yes, she's obviously ascribing the flag-flying actions to Alito himself. Possibly because ascribing them to Mrs. Alito makes no sense.
"My wife is fond of flying flags."
Wow. This is embarrassingly stupid even for Josh.
Sure hope EV got paid a healthy amount for including him on the blog.
Who's next? Aileen Cannon?
Probably best if you move on and find another blog to hangout at Bernard, if you actually believe that.
In fact your integrity seems to me to be suspect if you keep frequenting a blog that you think is taking dark money to feature paid stealth propaganda.
Put up or shut up, walk away or retract the accusation.
"Put up or shut up, walk away or retract the accusation."
Or what? What badge do you think you carry? LOL.
He has the Off-The-Grid Hermit Shack, Mail Order Bride, Disaffected Clinger, and Trump Voter badges, for starters. With a Ted Kaczynski Fan ribbon.
I sense Mr. Volokh has been paid handsomely by his right-wing sponsors. He's being paid even more handsomely by them now, after moving from mainstream academia to a Republican Party mouthpiece farm.
Josh. Josh. Listen....
YOU'RE AN IDIOT
thank you for listening
The Josh haters have gotten so predictable that half the fun on this blog is the number of Josh haters who hate Josh so much and hate everything he writes so much that they have to come here to virtue signal to each other how much they hate him and hate having read what he wrote. But how many just post blindly without ever having read what he wrote?
Hate him or be a terminal contrarian who must defend him, Blackman made a bad post.
I’m sorry you had to hear it this way.
We're not hating him, we're ridiculing him! It's fun, try it!
If you can't mock right-wingers, shun culture war casualties, ridicule Federalist Societeers, disparage superstitious hayseeds, deride racists and misogynists, insult antisemites and Islamophobes, needle Republicans, exhibit contempt for gay-bashers and transphobes, and scorn immigrant-hating conservatives . . . you're doing it wrong.
Seems more often that the defenders, if that's the right word, who haven't read what he wrote and, often as not, seem to no have even read the more substantive critical comments.
Can’t stop
Won’t stop.
Alito did nothing wrong flagposting forever and ever.
Even after WaPo confirmed Alito's version of events? Dang dude, admit when you're wrong.
That's not what the WaPo did, but my post is about Blackman's inability to not post.
The Washington Post demonstrated that Alito's (current) version conflicted with available evidence.
Again.
Was that the version of events Alito told Fox News, or the other one?
You're a gutless bully, Josh. Susan Sullivan probably never heard of you, either, and nothing she wrote had anything to do with you. Here's an idea: Challenge her to a debate rather than take cheap shots at her from the comfort of your safe perch on the VC. (My money says the professor from Temple will make the professor from South Texas look like a bad joke.)
The Sullivan op-ed does not accuse Alito of being biased. Instead it says: "As a progressive liberal, ... I became increasingly distressed with the results of his decisions."
That is, she just has a political disagreement with the outcomes.
Then she says: "Now more than ever, there is no place for politics on the court." She is the one who wants to inject politics.
Blackman is trying to target Susan Sullivan for a furious MAGA-world attack. I hope EV has simply been too distracted by his move to notice, and take this thread down, as he ought to.
So how is Josh trying to target Sullivan for a furious MAGA-world atrack?
By criticising her op-ed?
Josh get worse on every thread than what he gave her here.
Beside criticism from Josh will do nothing more than help her career.
Come out of your bunker Lathrop (why did that try to autocorrect to "Bathroom" glad I caught that. Must have been the context), breath the fresh air of open debate.
"The op-ed introduces nothing new or original. She cites the New York Times reporting as gospel, "
As opposed to Josh, who has written several op-eds on the topic that introduce nothing new or original and cite Alito's self-serving statements as gospel.
When Josh Blackman shoves his nose up Samuel Alito's ass, which of them likes it better?
Isn’t this approximately his fifth VC post on the flag controversy, which he had previously claimed was not worth discussing even once?
I was going to say, “this fucking guy,” but I think that mantle’s been appropriated by Calabresi. Poor Josh.
“There is a reason why conservative judges, in particular, have to screen out law clerks–progressive students will take the job, and the prestige, then proceed to attack their former boss to media plaudits.”
Kind of an implicit assumption here that conservative judges are entitled to be beloved by their employees forever. Which is weird.
And generally federal clerks are weirdos. And the higher the court the weirder and more servile they get. They think they owe them undying loyalty and silence. It’s weird and off-putting. It’s just a job people.
FWIW I think Sullivan comes off as a little weird too. She could have said nothing but it sounds like she was highly complimentary and supportive of Alito (at least from the standpoint of a liberal clerk) and now she isn't. What changed? She should probably say. (And BTW, I can think of several reasonable answers to the "what changed?" question. But it's pertinent.)
"Kind of an implicit assumption here that conservative judges are entitled to be beloved by their employees forever."
Right-wingers seem to see it that way. Look at how Mr. Volokh went to the mat (still does) for disgraced former federal judge Alex Kozinski.
Meh. I guess it's sort of a code you buy into. Like being an attorney (generally) means you have an obligation to help others and defend the justice system.
Therefore, I will never shit-talk my judge (by name, anyway), though s/he would probably deserve it. In any case, it would just confirm what everyone who knew them [haha, a rarely useful ambiguity] already suspected.
This is a terrible post. Ugh.
Look, if you are a clerk, you should not discuss what happened in chambers. Since she wasn't doing that, JB has to accuse of her of, um, basing her opinions on what has been reported.
There is no "lifetime loyalty" requirement for a clerk, other than not disclosing the private communications and deliberations. JB's hyperbolic post is ... sad.
Where does this leave your post, which is even less thought out and less devoid of consideration?
loki provided specific arguments to outline how he got to his opinion.
Your rejoinder is just 'i know u are but what is Blackman?' It's night and day.
“who describes herself as “a social progressive who is pro-choice and anti-death penalty,” ”
Translation: I believe it is permissible to engage in private violence against the most vulnerable, defenseless, and dependent members of the human community; but Hitler must never be executed for committing mass murder after being afforded due process, unless he's a fetus.
'Believers in personal freedom draw the line at women.'
Do you rage at the illusory god you claim to believe in when a miscarriage (murder or manslaughter, in your formulation) occurs?
If not, your asserted position is silly. Like most supersititon.