The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito Secretly Recorded at the Supreme Court Historical Society
I have been a member of the Supreme Court Historical Society for more than a decade. I very much enjoy reading the Journal of Supreme Court History. Also, when I am in town, I try to attend various events, especially the re-enactment of famous cases. One of my favorites was seeing Justice Ginsburg preside over a re-enactment of Muller v. Oregon. I nearly burst out laughing when she cited favorably the precedent of Lochner v. New York.
Every year, the Society holds an annual meeting at the Supreme Court. (During the pandemic, the meeting was held online). I attended the recent meeting on June 3, 2024. The session began with a tour of the Court, followed by a screening of Holmes - The Film. (The Society recorded the one-man show about Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes preparing for his 90th Birthday address). The society then held a business meeting, where we voted on a new slate of officers and a few other matters. The meeting was open to the press. (Josh Gerstein from Politico was taking notes!) After the meeting, there was a cocktail reception on the ground floor. The reception and the dinner were not open to the press, but anyone who purchased a ticket could attend. This is not a secret cabal.
As is the custom, there is usually a Justice present at the Society's meetings. Justice Alito was there at the cocktail hour. You can imagine how these sorts of events proceed. There are a throng of people who wish to meet the Justice. So people sort of mill around, and wait for an opening. They exchange a few words with the Justice. And when the time is right, they move on. Justice Alito was very gracious, and spoke with many people that evening.
After the cocktail hour concluded, we went upstairs to the great hall for a banquet dinner. Chief Justice Roberts was at one table, Justice Alito at a second table, and Justice Jackson at a third. Again, people would often go up to the Justices, introduce themselves, say a few things, and move on. This sort of exchange is quite common at banquet dinners. Roberts, Jackson, and Alito, all interacted with the guests in attendance.
There was a tasty dinner (I had the fish). Chief Justice Roberts gave the traditional toast ("To the President of the United States"). And there was a delicious dessert. Yes, I took a picture.
That's it! It was a fun evening, and I was quite glad to attend the Society's 50th Anniversary dinner.
But not everyone was there to have fun. Lauren Windsor, who identifies herself as a "Journalist," secretly recorded her conversations with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. You can listen to them here.
EXCLUSIVE UNDERCOVER AUDIO:
Sam Alito x John Roberts x The Undercurrent ????1/ Justice Alito admits lack of impartiality with the Left, says: "One side or the other is going to win." pic.twitter.com/b5nmxToZ9z
— Lauren Windsor (@lawindsor) June 10, 2024
Ms. Windsor gave the exclusive to Rolling Stone, which describes the gathering as a "function that is known to right-wing activists as an opportunity to buttonhole Supreme Court justices." As I looked around the room, I did not see "right-wing activists." Indeed, I counted only a handful of Federalist Society members that I recognized in a gathering of about 200 guests. Carter Phillips, who does not wear a MAGA hat, was just elected as President of the society. These were people who were interested in the Supreme Court and its history, not ideologues.
I listened to the recording. Justice Alito did not say anything inappropriate. Indeed, I suspect he was mostly being polite and trying to make conversation with someone who was (pretending to be) genuinely interested in talking about our nation. Chief Justice Roberts said about what you would expect him to say--that elected officials and not judges should be in charge of making policy. There is no news here, other than the fact that the Justices are being privately recorded at the Supreme Court.
Ms. Windsor did not record any conversation with Justice Jackson, who was also in attendance. Maybe she could have asked about the Beyonce concert? Again, no one has ever protested outside of Justice Jackson's home. She is safe.
While officers will screen for recording devices when the Court is in session, there were no such checks for the cocktail hour. And who would even think that was necessary? I fear that Justice Alito will no longer participate in Society events. Why would he risk having his private conversations being blasted on the internet? More and more, Justice Alito can only whisper his thoughts in the recesses of his home.
Update: I agree entirely with Jim Duff:
James Duff, the executive director of the Supreme Court Historical Society, lamented the recordings in a statement.
"We condemn the surreptitious recording of Justices at the event, which is inconsistent with the entire spirit of the evening," Duff said.
In his statement, Duff, the society's executive director, said: "Attendees are advised that discussion of current cases, cases decided by current sitting Justices, or a Justice's jurisprudence is strictly prohibited and may result in forfeiture of membership in the Society."
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
Justice Alito did not say anything appropriate.
Not what Josh meant to type, I suspect.
Already fixed.
Not what Josh meant to type, I suspect.
But the truest thing he's ever written!
DC is a one-party consent jurisdiction. DC Code § 23–542. I would have expected even a 1L to have at least mentioned.
We’re not talking about a 1L though. We’re talking about Josh Blackman.
"at least mentioned"
Why? He didn't discus legality, just the breach of decorum.
Because it's probably the first thing a lawyer thinks of when the topic of "secret recordings" comes up?
I'm pretty sure the classic 1L move is bringing up an irrelevant topic in a pathetic attempt to look smart.
How is a legal issue irrelevant on a legal blog?
What’s the issue? No one is suggesting it was illegal. How many examples of laws that the conduct didn’t violate would you like to see?
I’m all for a good Blackman-bashing but this criticism seems pretty off base.
One side won already. Alito’s side didn’t care for the result and got busy rewriting the rules and insisting the game wasn’t over.
The real issue here isn’t the lack of juicy gossip; it’s the breach of privacy and the potential threat to judicial independence. You see, justices should be able to attend these fancy schmancy events without worrying that their private conversations will end up on Twitter or some damn liberal blog. It’s like having a private conversation in a public restroom—you expect a damn modicum of privacy!
Now, one might expect these recordings to reveal some damning evidence of ideological bias or inappropriate behavior. But, alas, they amount to little more than polite small talk, with the justices simply being gracious and engaging with attendees. Justice Alito, ever the gentleman, patiently endured the prying of Ms. Windsor, who pretended to be genuinely interested in his thoughts.
What a sad little woman.
The real issue here isn’t the lack of juicy gossip; it’s the breach of privacy and the potential threat to judicial independence.
Yes, it was rude, and a breach of privacy.
OTOH, "threat to judicial independence" is a silly, wild stretch.
I remain pretty sure that LL is doing a bit.
This one was the most clearly sarcastic. Largely due to “schmancy.” The previous ones were really well-calibrated.
"Maybe she could have asked about the Beyonce concert?"
Oh Lord. Stop trying to make fetch happen. This is worse than "Blue June."
Look, as to the actual substance, I happen to agree. As a matter of ethics, this was a terrible thing to do. If an event is recorded, great. If not, don't do it surreptitiously.
And this is before getting into the issue of whether the jurisdiction is one- or two-party consent. That said, while the one-on-one conversations might be an issue, the recording of the public remarks wouldn't (or shouldn't be) given they were made in public. But regardless of the law, it's still poor form.
Agreed, poor form.
People should think about the reaction now. We want SCOTUS justices to be available and accessible. These acts guarantee that SCOTUS justices will be neither accessible or available in the future. It is a terrible breach of etiquette.
Trust is the coin of the realm, and it has just been thrown away.
These people have a paparazzi mindset. Asking them to think is futile.
10 mins of righteous social media fame is the motive.
Agreed, very poor form. There should be consequences.
Perhaps the Society should revoke Ms. Windsor's membership and not allow her to return.
I assume that's a price she's more than willing to pay for her 15 minutes of fame. So not much of a consequence. That said, I don't know what else they can do.
Well...they're accessible if there's a free flight, vacation, or motorhome on the offer...
Okay, then. It's strictly flag flying from now on!
Anyone have a transcript? Or, barring that, the most damning quotes that Alito made? I lack the patience to listen to 6 1/2 mins of polite drivel.
The Twitter (excuse me, X) page says: Justice Alito admits lack of impartiality with the Left, says: “One side or the other is going to win.”
Count me underwhelmed by this evidence.
I skimmed the rolling stone article. It requires a lot of projection and inference to be outraged by what he actually said.
"One side or the other is going to win" seems intended to be a statement of fact, not endorsement.
In reality, it's probably wrong.
If you click through to the Rolling Stone link, they excerpt the bits that they believe are the most damning. But, you know, excerpts and all that.
I will again say that while I don't much like the excerpts (I skimmed) from Alito, I don't care either. You shouldn't be recording, and people say all sorts of things that can be taken out of context, or that they are saying to be polite to the person they are talking to.
I dislike Alito as much as the next person (if not more) but this isn't acceptable.
"If you click through to the Rolling Stone link"
Sorry, it’s behind a paywall, and I don’t intend to pay.
What? I don't pay for Rolling Stone, and it wasn't behind a paywall for me.
First time I clicked, it was open.
Went back later and it was behind a paywall.
I think "it depends"
There really are no damning quotes. It's a woman rambling about polarization and Alito gives polite agreement. He doesn't actually say anything interesting, and so instead, people are harping on how Alito says "you're probably right" and "I agree" at a cocktail party, which obviously means that he believes in every single thing the woman just said.
Then, it skips to June 2023 and the same woman tries to get Alito to talk about the leaker and he doesn't say anything interesting (obviously, because she didn't release the audio in June 2023).
It's a perfectly reasonable observation: Where there are fundamental conflicts, eventually one side or the other will win.
There are only two types of people in the world.
1. Those who agree with me.
2. Those who don't agree with me.
3. Those who divide people into arbitrary groups.
'Windsor goes on to tell Alito: “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that — to return our country to a place of godliness.”
“I agree with you. I agree with you,” replies Alito,'
Contrasted with Roberts:
'Pressed on whether the court has an obligation to put the country on a more “moral path,” Roberts turns the tables on his questioner: “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” He argues instead: “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.” Presented with the claim that America is a “Christian nation” and that the Supreme Court should be “guiding us in that path,” Roberts again disagrees, citing the perspectives of “Jewish and Muslim friends,” before asserting, “It’s not our job to do that. It’s our job to decide the cases the best we can.” '
I disagree with a lot of Roberts's rulings, but he does actually seem the proper perspective about his role on the court.
Heartened (and more than a little surprised) to see this little exchange...
Let’s go to the tape:
Windsor: “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that — to return our country to a place of godliness.”
Alito: “I agree with you. I agree with you.”
That weirds me out.
That's the only thing she said? Nothing before or after that could conceivably affect the meaning?
Before you get weirded out, remember that this is from a woman who is deliberately trying to get Alito to say horrible things and the best she could get is "you're probably right" and "I agree" in response to rambling statements.
It weird me out that it weirds you out. Godliness means kindness, charity, morally upright, love of country, love of family, and generosity to the vulnerable and friendless.
So you have to believe in your God, or in any god, to embrace those virtues?
Why does godliness mean love of country? And do you consider Trump godly?
The head of the Nevada GOP seems to:
“Thank God we’re here in Sunset Park to worship and bring back the greatest president we’ve ever known in our generation!”
Godliness means kindness, charity, morally upright, love of country, love of family, and generosity to the vulnerable and friendless.
That might be nice, but according to Alito himself, it means hating gays and women. Nancy Reagan, wherever you are, help us to Just Say No (to a hateful God).
To people who aren't religious those are just qualities of a good person regardless of their religion. Instead non religious people think of godliness as school prayer, no sex till marriage, no conception, no abortion, discomfort/disgust in the presence of gay and trans who don't hide it well enough (groups ostensibly vulnerable and friendless in godly communities, yet do not receive the generosity/love)
And love of family leads to book bans, sodomy laws, mandatory school prayer, and other forms of oppression on people that don't share the government's particular variety of Christianity. Nothing says "love" like losing your job after the police raid a gay bar and arrest you for "crimes against nature."
I do really appreciate knowing that Blackman ordered fish, but come on, Josh. More detail please.
What kind of fish? How was it prepared? What wine was served with it. We are just dying to learn more about your dinner.
For that you need to buy his next book. 😉
More pics!
I can’t remember who it was, but IIRC it was an English footballer, who said that after a while he realised that when people would talk to him about some high point in his career, almost invariably they would actually be talking about themselves, e.g., “I’ll never forget that goal against Arsenal, I was at the pub with my mates, and we’d just had two pints, and I was about to go to the bog when I thought, no, I’ll wait, and then you…”
Call it “Blackmanism”.
Blackman teases us all by telling us that he had “the fish” without telling us the type of fish or what else he could have chosen had he not had the fish. There had to be other courses to this meal, or at least a dessert. What dessert does blackman think is good to wash down fish? Now we may never know.
After watching blackman eat mostly pizza during the classes he held over zoom during the pandemic, I would have bet good money that blackman was not a big fish eater. Now he just throws this fish line out there, and leaves us all hanging about the details.
Just trying to bait us, I suspect.
Shhh! If you encourage him, we'll get a 12-part series on it.
Blackman is really invested in the notion that Alito and Thomas aren’t partisan actors…I would think he would be happy that his side managed to get two partisan actors onto the Supreme Court!?! The alternative is a Souter situation!
Fascists are always going to do fascism.
Secret police, secret recordings, that sort of thing - - - - - - - - - - - -
How much did you bitch about Project Veritas, you bigoted, worthless wingnut?
"More and more, Justice Alito can only whisper his thoughts in the recesses of his home."
Or he could fly a flag. National Review has made some with his face on it. If he flew one he could just claim a healthy amount of self esteem.
"More and more, Justice Alito can only whisper his thoughts in the recesses of his home."
Or he could write an opinion in a case that sets public policy for the nation as a whole. That's also an option.
He should be knitting sweaters for all of the embryos in cryogenic storage…they are so cold. Btw, when I would bring this issue up over the years the Republican posters here would laugh it off…now it’s a real issue!
So, it's agreed: what Project Veritas does is terrible!
"Why then, the case is altered!"
Alito sucks. He is the only justice I know to seem to be driven not by ideological alignment but personal alignment with a faction.
But a tossed of ‘I agree’ does not a theocrat make.
I mean, I think he is probably a theocrat since he is full MAGA but this looks like a brush off based on shallow agreement with a pestering person than anything more.
I think Robert’s response (see report above, haven’t listened myself) was a good one.
Alito? Meh. This doesn’t change my opinion either for better or for worse. But if he was trying for a non-commital & polite brush-off, variants on “that’s interesting” are always a better option than bland agreement.
My main take-away here is “yet another nothingburger from Josh”.
Well yeah, Roberts is thoughtful, even if I think he's wrong a lot.
Uhhhh...
He said more than "I agree."
“I think you’re probably right,” Alito replied. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”
I don't have the full transcript & this alone is fairly bland on some level. But, he has publicly made clear multiple times what side he's on.
this alone is fairly bland on some level. But, he has publicly made clear multiple times what side he’s on.
Aye, this is my take as well.
Maybe Josh's real objection is that nobody bothered to record him.
Thread winner!
More and more, Justice Alito can only whisper his thoughts in the recesses of his home.
It's nobody's fault but Alito's that his thoughts are so toxic as to only be appropriate within the recesses of his home. Roberts managed not to say anything seditionist, just as an example of what's possible.
One of the greatest achievements of the liberal-libertarian mainstream has been that American's remaining bigots no longer wish to be known as bigots, at least not in public.
When I was young, the bigotry was common, open, loud . . . even casual. The bigots -- gay-bashers, old-timey racists and misogynists, people who called Japanese cars "rice burners" and keyed them, antisemites, people who blackballed Italians at country clubs -- wanted everyone to know that they were bigots, and that their way was the way it was going to be. (Islam was so foreign it hadn't reached the conservative bigotry portfolio yet; same with respect to transgender issues.)
Today's bigots are more defensive and cautious. They try to hide behind euphemisms in public -- "traditional values," "religious values," "family values," "colorblind," "heartland," "conservative values" -- and reveal their genuine opinions on race, gays, women, Muslims, Jews, immigrants, and the like solely in areas they consider safe spaces (private homes, online message boards, Republican committee meetings, militia gatherings, Federalist Society events, etc.)
Today, even a prominent, pampered, and secure superstitious gay-basher such as Justice Alito (or, if he were still alive, former Justice Scalia) must be more guarded.
Most Americans consider this progress. Some people seem to think it's a shame.
Did anybody really learn anything new about Alito's approach to jurisprudence from this? It's certainly nothing new to me.
Does the content of this post indicate that Josh Blackman disdains Project Veritas and James O'Keefe . . . or is Josh Blackman the kind of guy who writes this but also tweets favorably about Project Veritas and James O'Keefe?
Carry on, clingers.
He'd absolutely denounce Keefe if he were to record Alito saying something right-wingy. Otherwise, no.
He'd welcome Keefe trying to seduce Jackson.
I admit I was not expecting this level of Alito hatred in these comments, but also the unnecessarily mean posts demeaning Prof. Blackman.
What I was expecting was someone noticing that this "Journalist" (and the quotes are apt) seems to work under the auspices of Act Blue, per her X account, but was representing herself to the Justice on both occasions when she spoke to him as conservative, pro-Dobbs and anti-abortion. That is not something respectable journalists would do.
More to the point, she was asking Justice Alito questions about the current politics in the nation, and trying to draw him into that political conversation in her head. For the most part he didn't, though some of his comments uncomfortably edged in that direction.
This confusion of politics and the one branch of government that is -- intentionally, constitutionally -- not directly accountable to the electorate, seems to color too many of the comments here. Justice Alito clearly made his position known, that the Court is not one of the political branches, but that seems to mean nothing to our friend from Act Blue. Hit jobs like this are fair in politics, but this whole project of secretly recording Supreme Court justices in conversations that are only fishing for gotcha moments is ugly and deceitful.
the Court is not one of the political branches
I recall Mark Twain's description of an acquaintance, "he'd been kicked in the head by a horse when young, and believed everything he read in the Sunday papers".
Josh and Jimmy indulging in cancel-culture.
I wondered & it seems that Josh Blackman saw the bat signal. Alito gets any criticism, he's on the case. It's nice on a steady hack basis.
From the tapes, John Roberts is better at being diplomatic. This isn't exactly news, though it's helpful to give the general public a specific example of it. As with these entries, never can have enough, right?
The person who taped the material is a veteran of this sort of thing, including acting like a fellow traveler to get people on tape.
On her X account, Lauren Windsor provides audio of Roberts, Sam, and Martha-Ann Alito, with a transcript. She talked to Alito last year as well. She uses her real name.
This has a stink about it I typically identify with Project Veritas. Odious tribalists, bereft of principle, racing to the bottom. May they all crash and burn.
Lol. As I'm typing this, Lauren Windsor is on Joy Reed.
What a surprise.
Asshole.
The funding practices of the society have received some criticism, including how donations would get you (purely social, I'm sure) face time with justices.
"One way the society attracts such corporate largess is by courting top corporate lawyers with deep attachments to the court."
"In one email exchange with Jay Sekulow, a society trustee who as chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law & Justice argued cases involving religious liberty and abortion before the court, Mr. Schenck wrote that Mr. Pride would make sure Mr. Sekulow was seated at a justice’s table at the annual dinner. “Maybe CJ’s table,” he added, referring to Chief Justice Roberts."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/30/us/politics/supreme-court-historical-society-donors-justices.html
Proper discussion topics: "How about those Phillies?"
I would have been offended that someone made a secret recording, and unlike Josh I sure as hell would not have sought it out and listened to it.
A person like her should be publicly shamed, not lauded as a hero.
Just a sad story.
Sounded to be that Alito was just being agreeable to a not very intelligent partisan who wasn't capable of an in-depth conversation.
And it may well of been an act on her part. But she does seem like she's really thinking, like, how, like, we can all come together, like, when everyone is really like really partisan like.
So, a Justice is out in public, talking about his job as a government employee and the implications of cases and decisions he makes while at work.
Somebody quotes an answer spoken by a Justice, word for word, and the person asking the question gets lambasted for repeating what a government employee said in public about his job.
If one is concerned that their political allies are being quoted correctly in public, maybe such concern is misplaced. I suggest that We the People should be most concerned about the actual answers being provided by the ruling elite.
I'm not really seeing how the quote is problematic. It really is true that not all differences can be split. Sometimes one side or the other DOES have to win in the end. This is just a common sense observation.
For instance, we couldn't forever split the difference on slavery. Not all issues are like this, but unavoidably, some are.
The problem is, what conservatives really want is for liberals to like them. That’s the actual reason Reagan gets so much praise, there was such a thing as Reagan Democrats. It’s not going to happen again any time soon. You’ve gone stark MAGA mad.
So yeah, one side is going to win, and it’s not the side trying to turn America into an angry cult. Democrats aren't going to go along with that.
"what conservatives really want is for liberals to like them."
I think you're projecting here. Most conservatives I know don't give a damn if liberals like them, they just want liberals to leave them and theirs the heck alone. To stop insisting on dominating every institution, to stop insisting that we be complicit in what you do. (Like demanding that nobody can photograph weddings without doing SS ones.)
Sure, there are no compromise issues like abortion and child mutilation, where one side must win. But mostly we'd be content to let you go to hell, if you'd just stop insisting we join you.
Nobody's been forced to photograph any same-sex weddings, which proves my point. You're not worried about that, because it's not happening. You're just upset that we call you bigoted assholes when you pull that shit.
Also, if you think abortion is a no-compromise issue, you've lost that one. It's pretty clear that a complete ban on abortion isn't politically viable in probably any state, especially when you include IVF, which... you sort of have to include. Excluding it is a compromise. Life of the mother is a compromise. Health of the mother is a compromise. Plan B is a compromise. Rape and incest are compromises. Mifepristone is a compromise. Six weeks / heartbeat is a compromise. Twelve weeks is a compromise. Twenty weeks is a compromise. There are tons of compromises with abortion. I think the same is true of probably all the issues you feel like you've got some principle of purity around. You just don't want to compromise, not because you care all that much about the actual issues, but just because you're embarrassed and ashamed to be giving any ground to people who don't like you. Because you want us to like you.
Here's a hint: if you want us to like you, don't troll and demonize us. You're like 12-year-old boys who don't know how to get girls' attention other than by teasing them.
"Nobody’s been forced to photograph any same-sex weddings,"
The attempt was certainly made, wasn't it?
"ere’s a hint: if you want us to like you, don’t troll and demonize us."
I've already said that I don't give a damn if you like me. I doubt I could respect myself if I did what THAT would require.
But you fear liberal institutions (that is literally all of them) will not just impose upon you but ignore you or even deplatform you.
Luckily for you the Fifth Circuit says we need to play with you and treat you like you are cool.
Deplatforming me is hardly ignoring me, now, is it?
And, why do (Orwellianly labeled) 'liberals' demand the right to control every last platform, to the point where if a platform originates as or become non-'liberal' they move Heaven and Earth to destroy it?
Could it be that you don't think you could win the debate if both sides were free to speak?
Deplatforming you is ignoring you. This is exactly what I’m talking about. Go hang out with each other on Reason and Truth Social. We don’t control those platforms. Why are you trying to get up in our biz and intentionally annoy us?
Because you want us to like you. You want us to think that the things you say are normal and acceptable. We don’t. You’ve lost your minds. Since when is compromise impossible? It’s always been possible before. We still want to do compromises, just look at the border bill. It’s you and Alito who’ve gone bonkers.
I mean, nobody held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to start clicking the camera shutter. But Elane Willock was punished after the fact for refusing to do so.
Elane Willock, the gullible, obsolete bigot?
Hush. The grownups are talking.
Most conservatives I know don’t give a damn if liberals like them, they just want liberals to leave them and theirs the heck alone. To stop insisting on dominating every institution,
You mean, like trying to control what books can be placed in a public library? Like ordering Bible study in public schools? Like proclaiming the country a "Christian nation?"
You complain about the photography deal, but it was conservatives who fought hard to keep gays from getting married. That's hardly leaving people alone.
Come out of your self-created fog, Brett.
.
That's just the disaffected, bigoted, uninformed, disingenuous autism talking.
Immigration. Abortion. Commandeering campuses. Contraception. Ten Commandments mandates. Vegan meat bans. Transgender bans and mandates. Fake electors. Same-sex marriage. Book banning. Public funding of superstition-soaked, nonsense-based education. Insurrection. Pornography bans. "Dictator for a day." Voter suppression. Drag queen bans. Partisan antitrust enforcement.
"Conservatives just want to be left alone."
What conservatives are you talking to? I enjoy people (of any persuasion) NOT liking me, it's the whole "Short Man" (5'8" but it's shorter than I wanted) Left Handed (eliminates you from 1/2 of the field positions in MLB) Jewish, Southern (HT Revolting Arthur)(and I'm only Southern by birth, didn't grow up there, so I get shit from the Yankees AND the Red Necks)
What I do enjoy? When a Surgeon says, "Drackman's an Asshole, but when I need a Gas Passer for a big case, He Da Man!"
Frank
Wow, not only is Cowboy Astronaut Millionaire piece of shit a doctor, but he’s also an anesthesiologist!
Subjects implicated here include bribery-adjacent conduct by a Supreme Court Justice—a Justice who has already been caught benefiting from largesse bestowed mysteriously by sources which get legal protection to operate secretly, without any hint or expectation that they will fully identify. I think it may be taking scruples too far to insist in that lopsided context on full and open disclosure by an investigator trying to illuminate how that works, and what results.
That said, in my own journalistic practice I insisted that everyone who reported to me identify themselves fully at the outset of every interview. To avoidably provoke indignation can be bad for business.
OK, I admit, a Surpreme Court Justice took Bribes, but can’t we let Judge Ginsburg rest in peace?? I kid The Notorious RBG, but seriously folks, she should be the 5th face on Mount Rushmore, thanks to her, thousands of Afro-Amurican babies will be born today instead of ending up in a suction cannister/toilet.
Frank
I have no problem with surreptitious recording. Think carefully about what you say. It's better to have a recording for accuracy than to simply be repeated, possibly incorrectly. If she didn't have a recording device, she could still have made all the same claims.
But I agree with Josh that Alito didn't say anything bad. He certainly didn't admit a "lack of impartiality" by simply noting that one side or the other of the culture war is likely going to win. The reporting tells you more about her than it does about Alito.
tkamenick — Someone empowered to decide key issues served up by the culture war need not be troubled by any impression among others that one side or the other is, "likely going to win." Nor is there anything in Justice Alito's Manichean world view to suggest impartial consideration of cases on the basis of legal merits. He is more about adjusting the law to give the wins to the right parties.
Flags and bland, polite comments?
Knickers get twisted for this?
Smells desperate. And of course, it is.
The quiet lesbian and the Wise Latina aren't going to be stepping down for Wandering Joe to appoint their replacements.
He very well may still get to, but not before this coming election.
Can you imagine Trump getting to do it?
I can.
Can you imagine Trump dying in prison, a ranting, flabby, bankrupt old blowhard with what looks like a dead squirrel (grey, disheveled) atop a pale, sickly face (no bronzer), trading a few hundred dollars a month from the Kushners for packets of tuna, mackerel, and ramen?
It is plausible to me that Alito was being polite. I would not categorize Alito’s remarks as appropriate though. Windsor is the idiot who orchestrated the mock white nationalist at the Youngkin event and then insinuated they were real white nationalists supporting Youngkin before that narrative fell apart. I don’t think she is a very wise political operative, but that doesn’t excuse Alito for making bad remarks in response to a person playing the role of a crazy.
I sense (current) Supreme Court fanboys did not much like this recounting of the dollars-for-access transactions promoted by the Supreme Court Historical Society.
"We’d never know how Supreme Court Justices really felt if it weren’t for secret recordings and every single other thing they do.”
What a beautiful illustration of class consciousness. It's not so much about ideology as it is about the legal cartel and the wealth that accrues to those who are members of it, even if their views are hosted by a "libertarian" publication.
Gosh, wasn't it the American Federation of Teachers that complained bitterly about making secret recordings of conversations at events where alcohol was served? Of course, those recordings were made by Project Veritas.
Whoever brought this person as their guest should be permanently removed from the society.
Listened to an interview with her on NPR. She is proud of what she did. If we were in a sane society, she would be shunned and embarrassed.
A sane society would recognize the value of knowing how extreme someone like Alito is or is not when the façade isn't in place.
You're just afraid that his extreme bias will be exposed in ways that you people can't refute or ignore.
Hypocrites in Congress.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4716684-alito-recording-supreme-court/
The downward spiral of our society makes me want to get off this mad carousel.