Said Justice Alito, quoted in "Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America 'Can’t Be Compromised'" (Rolling Stone).
Alito made these remarks in conversation at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner on June 3.... His comments were recorded by Lauren Windsor, a liberal documentary filmmaker.... She asked questions of the justice as though she were a religious conservative....
The recording... captures Windsor approaching Alito at the event and reminding him that they spoke at the same function the year before, when she asked him a question about political polarization. In the intervening year, she tells the justice, her views on the matter had changed. “I don’t know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end,” Windsor says. “I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.”
Alito responded "I think you're probably right" and then said the lines quoted above. I consider his remarks anodyne. When people are ideologically polarized, they don't go in for compromises. They keep fighting. Just like Rolling Stone is keeping fighting with this article and its inflammatory headline. Alito doesn't use the word "battle" or say anything about a "Battle for America." He just responds to the instigator Windsor by observing that ideologues are not compromisers.
Alito talks about sides without putting himself on one of the sides. He doesn't join Windsor in the use of the pronoun "we." His words are neutral: "one side or the other," "there can be a way," "it’s difficult," "there are differences," "They" (meaning the "differences"). It must have been frustrating to Windsor. And yet, here's Rolling Stone serving them up as if Alito had declared himself a bitter ender battling for Christian Nationalism. Ludicrous!
Posts
63 comments:
A liberal misrepresenting herself to get a story.
Nothing to see here...
Sad sack of a liberal.
Rolling Stone. Duke. Same Old, Same Old.
Even before A Rape On Campus, Rolling Stone was already toilet paper.
So, the Progressive Liberal Establishment has seen the effectiveness of the Veritas model, and is emulating it. But the problem is, the material is not nearly as incendiary. So Alito reflets on the problem of conflict within the American experiment. 'Can't compromise ! ! " OhMyGod. Shall we compare it to some of Veritas' scoops on Bureaucrats Breaking Bad? Let's do.
Lauren Windsor, LIncoln Project, most recently tried to pretend she was a Desantis fan, try harder next time
Oh no! Supreme Court Justice perceives the obvious.
These people thirst for vengeance. He wrote the majority opinion returning abortion decisions to the State, and for that he must be destroyed. They feel the same way about Trump for defeating Hillary.
Doesn’t Alito know there can’t be good people on both sides anymore? That’s why “Rolling Stones” considers it a “Battle for America”.
They are always going to lie. They are always going to cheat. The only way to not be misrepresented by the left is to be a useless sponge who may as well not be a candidate. The people who curse out Trump don't realize this, and that's why their preferred candidates crashed their national careers.
If only we could make liberal reporters wear badges out in public. Ah well.
Just wait until 40% inflation arrives. And that’s what the Destroy America Gang has arranged for us. Gotta please the Soros boys or else the big cash stops.
It is ludicrous, but you know all the media outlets will repeat it and repeat it with the ludicrous slant until people believe Alito is a threat. And it will be effective.
I agree, Althouse, that these Alito remarks seem mostly "anodyne." I like that application of the term.
But I also feel like Alito's ongoing explanation of the two flag appearances (one, the upside down American flag and two, the "Pine Tree" or "An Appeal to Heaven" flag) have so far beggared belief. All that I am going to add to that particular debate at this time is this wonderful essay on the recent history of the Pine Tree flag that has just appeared today at The Bulwark. I'm aware of no better, more concise, more up-to-date discussion of that flag. It's a great essay.
You don't need evidence (or compromise) when the approved narrative is on your side, and you're just trying to win. As with Trump, the goal is to make the target's life as unlivable as possible until they go away.
Conservatives can try to exercise power, but at the price of death by a thousand cuts. They always let targets know when they have been found troublesome.
Nice court you've got there, hate to see anything happen to it.
Lauren Windsor was the organizer of this deception.
"Just wait until 40% inflation arrives."
In every major city throughout this country and in many across the world, 70% of everyone living in them lives hand-to-mouth. Not only do they have little to no net worth now, with inflation and the rising cost of rent most of them have negative net worth.
40% inflation, or more, and the devaluation and divesting from the dollar will set every major city on fire. Their populations will explode. They don't have anything to lose now, and will have even less to lose in the future. The cities have become financialization centers almost exclusively filled with service industry jobs. They produce nothing tangible.
The. Cities. Will. Explode. We got a taste in 2020. An appetizer if you will. The main course will destroy the concept of being a political independent. There will be no flip-flopping. Everyone will have to pick a side.
Isn’t flying a flag one of the most quintessential exercises of free speech rights?
Whether it’s old glory, or the rainbow flag, or “Don’t Tread on Me” or any of a zillion other things …
Why then, Chuck, do you give a shit about the flag or flags flown or not flown at Alito’s home?
"I'm aware of no better, more concise, more up-to-date discussion of that flag. It's a great essay."
Here is a pull from that "great essay. The flag"...it has taken on a whole raft of new connotations...".
Funny how things change when a liberal determines it can be weaponized. The dog whistle has sounded! Rally, I say RALLY boys.
Of course that dog whistle is only heard by the loony left as they clutch their pearls and cover their ears simultaneously.
New connotations. Just like white power fanatics that flashed the "OK" sign but REALLY meant white power! (All racists, of course. Except NBA sharpshooters Obama and the on-insane.)
The war on the Supreme Court continues apace from the left.
Like the LA Times, for example.
The well-documented ethical failings of Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas are all the more troubling because the Supreme Court has become seriously disconnected from democratic accountability.
They forgot the Capital D.
Progressive processes (PP) with a liberal foundation coexist in a democratic/dictatorial duality.
Rolling Stone? Wondering if the NYT passed on this "story."
"Anodyne." Ann, 95% of Americans don't know what that word means.
If it wasn't already clear, we've reached the point where all Americans need to assume all of their actions are being videotaped and their words are being recorded.
Big Brother is real and he is watching.
Social credit scores coming next.
Rolling Stone... paint it black.
AlbertAnonymous said...
Isn’t flying a flag one of the most quintessential exercises of free speech rights?
Whether it’s old glory, or the rainbow flag, or “Don’t Tread on Me” or any of a zillion other things …
Why then, Chuck, do you give a shit about the flag or flags flown or not flown at Alito’s home?
Yes; flag-flying is quintessential speech. Alito would have a free-speech right to fly any sort of flag, or make an endorsement of Trump in the next election, or to author an op-ed on how he really wants to overturn Griswold or Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission or even Brown v Board of Education of Topeka. As soon as somebody brings it to the Court. Alito even has the free association right to accept a gift of a yacht ride offered by someone who has an interest in pending cases before the Court. How about THAT?
Alito has all of those rights. But they conflict with his duty as a federal judge. He needs to choose. Do what he pleases, or be a federal judge. Or at least recuse, when and if it appears to a reasonable person that he is conflicted in a given case.
You ask why do I care? Because it might just be, that by making a written statement to Congress saying that he will not recuse on Trump-related cases, and by making assertions as to the nature of his reasons for refusal, Alito might just have made false statements to Congress that put him in criminal jeopardy under 18 USC Sec 1001.
"And yet, here's Rolling Stone serving them up as if Alito had declared himself a bitter ender battling for Christian Nationalism. Ludicrous!"
Yes, but therefore no. Progs doing their prog thing. Triple-whammy: rally the troops, confirm their bias, smear Alito just a bit more.
Chuck said:
> Yes; flag-flying is quintessential speech. Alito would have a free-speech right to fly any sort of flag, or make an endorsement of Trump in the next election, or to author an op-ed on how he really wants to overturn Griswold or Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission or even Brown v Board of Education of Topeka. As soon as somebody brings it to the Court. Alito even has the free association right to accept a gift of a yacht ride offered by someone who has an interest in pending cases before the Court. How about THAT?
I like this sleight-of-hand here. Let's compare flying a flag with accepting gifts (bribes?). They can both be shoved under the too-broad category of free speech. That comparison is ludicrous and does nothing to illuminate or clarify the problem. It serves to confuse the stupid or biased into thinking they are exactly alike.
They are not.
She apparently feels that putting up with her blather is itself disqualifying.
if he dug any further he would dig to China, where he would meet Xi,
OK, Althouse in her reasonableness says ludicrous. Then there's the prog take. Here's Norman Ornstein:
"Utterly unethical, corrupt, a serial liar, and a radical lacking every element of judicial temperament. This monster does not belong in civil society, much less on any court, much much less on the Supreme Court."
"You ask why do I care? Because it might just be, that by making a written statement to Congress saying that he will not recuse on Trump-related cases, and by making assertions as to the nature of his reasons for refusal, Alito might just have made false statements to Congress that put him in criminal jeopardy under 18 USC Sec 1001."
Thanks for the "concern" Chuckster. Perhaps you could intercede on Alito's behalf with Garland, you being a lawyer and all.
Let's take the abortion issue again. Apparently Roberts would have preferred that the Court uphold the state law at issue--Missouri's?--at 13 weeks or 15 weeks. Then offer some general language: The Roe/Casey cases have been law for 50 years, generations of women have grown up with them. Surely there is substantial public sentiment in favour of abortion up to a certain number of weeks, well short of "term," so that there is clear separation between permissible abortion and infanticide. It should go without saying that doctors can make professional decisions, subject to their own disciplinary bodies. So: without pretending that the Constitution is clear on this, let's encourage states to do something like Missouri. That I think is also Trump's preference.
Instead Alito persuaded the Dodds majority to say states can vote abortion up or down. The extremists on both sides are still in place, going for broke. Stephen Douglas said states could vote slavery up or down; Lincoln said no. In this case is there not something to be said for the Roberts/Trump position?
Justice Alito gave the sort of answer I give when someone that isn't close to me asks me about politics. Very bland, stating the obvious, and so on.
Chuck said...
Nobody here cares about your opinion.
Go away, creep.
Amazing how the MSM goes after the true conservative justices: ALito and Thomas but leaves fakes like Roberts alone.
That a liberal Democrat would lie and pose as a "Life Long republican" and then ask a loaded question doesn't suprise me. BTW, reporters were constantly doing this to Trump in 2016, asking questions like
"Hey, Hitler was great. Don't you agree?" or
"Y'know Trump, things have gone wrong in the USA and we need change. We have so many problems, high taxes, deficit spending, corruption in high places, Negroes. Dont you agree?"
The other trick was demand some group he'd never heard and then when trump said "I don't know who they are" - the headline would be "Trump refuses to denounce Neo-nazi group X"
The recording is mostly a dud giving rise to a non-story. Rolling Stone and its 'source' don't have the talent for this kind of gotcha undercover stuff that outfits like Project Veritas have shown. But the effort by Rolling Stone (and the NYTimes) to manufacture grounds for an attack against Justice Alito ought to give the other Eight (and really all other judges) pause -- it could happen to them just as easily. The Trump cases show how easy it is -- Judge Cannon and Justice Merchan are both pilloried as partisan hacks, because one side or the other thinks they have a heavy thumb on the scale. I was at last week's Second Circuit conference at which Justice Sotomayor (our circuit justice) spoke. Before she did, the judge introducing her cautioned everyone to turn off the phones -- no recording, please, the justice was not giving any on-the-record remarks. No way to know whether everyone complied but in their public (and not-so-public) remarks, I think most judges have learned to keep to platitudes and bromides. Everyone is the loser in that world.
The part of the article excerpted in this post doesn't say whether Justice Alito knew he was being recorded, but the description suggests that it was surreptitious. Given the careful way in which Alito responded, I think he just assumes that everything he says in any setting is probably being recorded, for good or ill. Like him, I think they've all learned the lesson that anything they say can and will be used against them, no matter how carefully they speak (or whether they speak at all, as the Alito 'flag' silliness shows).
In the trial scene in Man for All Seasons, Thomas More explained that it was inconceivable he would have opened his mind to someone like Richard on the very issue he had always refused to address, but that was no protection against the perjury: “For Wales? Why Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. . . but for Wales!” Today, it's not even fro Wales -- just the chance to attack, perchance to destroy, an ideological enemy.
A. Flying the Stars and Stripes upside-down is a signal of distress. On 1/6/01, didn't BOTH sides think the nation was in distress? I didn't support Trump's effort to interfere with or protest the Congressional ceremony of counting the electoral votes, but I certainly thought our Nation was in distress.
B. Supreme Court Justices are NOT required to have no opinions about the interpretation of the Constitution. Far from it. They are supposed to be experts on that subject, which is why they are chosen. Is anyone fool enough to think that Alito or Thomas or Sotomayor or Brown Jackson have no views on major Constitutional issues until they read the parties' briefs? Where cases come before the Court that involve the interests of particular individuals or entities, the Justices are not supposed to participate if they have connections with those individuals or entities that would prejudice their decisions. The cases that the Left is exercised about, involving abortion for example, or Presidential immunity, don't involve those kinds of private interests, but the application of legal principles FOR WHICH the Justices were selected.
Ann exposes her far-right bias. "And yet, here's Rolling Stone serving them up as if Alito had declared himself a bitter ender battling for Christian Nationalism. Ludicrous!"
Many expect judges, especially Supreme Court justices, to maintain impartiality, including when weighing in on issues of faith and morality. The U.S. Constitution itself states justices serve for life if they remain on “good behavior.”
“The key part of the Alito tape is his concession that compromise on fundamental issues is probably impossible. A horrific quality for a judge or human being” declared constitutional law scholar and professor of law Eric Segall.
“Sam Alito is a Christian Nationalist,” said attorney and author Andrew L. Seidel, a vice president at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Anyone familiar with his opinions on religious freedom and church-state separation (or who has read American Crusade) has known this for some time. Then there’s his admission with the flags. Now this confession.”
Professor of law, MSNBC legal analyst, and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance shared several concerns. “If Justice Alito is making comments like this to a random person at a get-together, what is he saying to his close confidants? How is this impartial justice, especially when his votes/rationale on cases are considered?” she asked. “This is a Justice who believes the correct way to determine the law is via a strict appeal to ‘history & tradition’ even though both of those things assume a legal system where Black people & women have no rights.” . . . Vance also remarked, “A statistic that stuck with me about Alito’s jurisprudence is that ‘An empirical analysis of the Court’s ‘standing’ decisions…found that Alito rules in favor of conservative litigants 100% of the time & against liberal litigants in every single case.’ ”
Atlantic writer Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and emeritus scholar, responded to Justice Alito's remarks: “Utterly unethical, corrupt, a serial liar, and a radical lacking every element of judicial temperament. This monster does not belong in civil society, much less on any court, and 'much much' less on the Supreme Court.”
Professor of history and an expert on authoritarianism and fascism, Ruth Ben-Ghiat wrote: “Mr ‘Look at My Insurrectionist Flag!’ has signaled loudly which side he thinks will win and he is doing everything he can to aid that outcome. He is a far-right activist using his position to help take down our democracy.”
oh noes anyways,
I mean thats an eighteen wheeler of clownshow
gadfly says "Ann exposes her far-right bias.", reinforcing the comments about the EU elections that anything not totally in line with the leftists current point of view (but be careful, it could change tomorrow)is "far-right". And then to prove his point quotes numerous people from the far-left.
That's a big nothing burger, but only if you read the article.
Many times partisan sites will only publish an article to get the headline out there. They know that most people will only read the headline and form their opinions that way.
Gadfly. Listen up. Those far-left wackos you list are the enemies of all normal Americans. They are Communist scum who would gladly put Alito and me in a gulag, as witness Ornstein's comment about how Alito "does not belong in a civil society". They are to the left of 99% of Americans. I would not compromise with them about anything beyond whether they'd prefer that I spat in their face or pissed on their shoes.
These people are absolutely disgusting, so vested in destroying their perceived ideological enemies that they can’t even parse basic English language without contorting it into some evil present only in their heads.
Asked a question on ideological polarization by someone purporting to be giving up on rational engagement, Alito still hopes for engagement while acknowledging that on questions of fundamental values, compromise is not always possible. For example, how you compromise with the leftist position that two completely different sets of standards must apply to themselves versus their political opponents? These leftists will accuse their political opponents of being biased by just the insistence that one standard of law and ethics should apply. Why? Not because they can articulate some principle, but because their passion and hatred requires otherwise.
(To be sure, this not strictly a leftist thing. There are those who purport to be on the right who have an analogous worldview. They just happen to be on the fringes, not controlling the mainstream discourse.)
And people like Norm Ornstein help demonstrate that Alito may be only too naive. Engagement requires an ability and willingness to reason and appreciate that people can disagree. But it’s far easier, and lazier, to purvey hate, even if it only leads to the further fracturing of society. Norm Ornstein others like him are the actual monsters.
Maybe he should have said that if you try really hard you can compromise and get 3/5 of what you want.
Shahid Q. Public,
This is exactly right. Alito did what any Justice with sense would do, which is to frame the question in fairly abstract terms and never himself take a side. The reporter-posing-as-a-right-winger must have been awfully disappointed that Alito didn't come across with some good red meat.
There are traps set everywhere now for the judiciary, and most especially for SCOTUS, of course. I'd bet anything that all of them are watching their tongues.
And dinky dau appears to demonstrate why people keep to bland and nonconfrontational statements in public.
Soros paid $13 Million to attack the court, why? To destroy another pillar of American Government.
You need a big majority to remove a justice, perhaps they are just trying to make them afraid for their lives, so they will vote for their attackers in self defense.
Reportedly, Soros has put millions into discrediting Alito and destabilizing the SCOTUS. Meanwhile, Dems cheer the effort while bleating about Trump jeopardizing America by dumping on sleazy Bragg and sleazy Merchan.
The left are all liars.
Want to know how we know the Left is going to try and steal the presidential election? They’re trying to destroy and remove two of the Justices they believe would try and stop the steal. This is battle space preparation. The left wants Alito and Thomas out of office. Neither of them should budge an inch.
Ann exposes her far-right bias.
Don't kid.
"And yet, here's Rolling Stone serving them up as if Alito had declared himself a bitter ender battling for Christian Nationalism. Ludicrous!"
Anyone who has the gall to disagree with liberals is automatically, irredeemably evil about everything.
The problem is that Mrs Alito spoke at length at the same dinner with the reporter.
We heard all about Merchan's daughters work and how he should recuse for months now because if it ... those low info voters have been teed up by the right for this very article. What a shame when your talking points get turned back on ya
If family if judges doesn't matter, perhaps you shouldn't have beating that dead horse so often.
Should Supreme Court justices entertain "compromise" about the First Amendment? The Second? The Fifth?
Isn't it their Constitutional duty not to compromise about the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?
Please show me the Liberal jurists calling for compromise, or even voicing the idea that compromise is possible with The Right.
This is why you don't trust AEI, Lincoln, Club for Growth, or Americans for Prosperity.
They're all front groups pretending to be conservatives in order to destroy the real conservative movement. They hate us and love open borders. And they use personal threats, public disruption, intimidation, and lawfare to get what they want. I've had to silence or throw AfP Ken Doll agitators out of meetings I ran or was asked to headline, after they tried to talk over me from the audience. Snot-nosed dirty tricks liars, all of them. AEI purged all the real conservatives from think tanks in DC.
Why then, *****, do you give a shit about the flag or flags flown or not flown at Alito’s home?
He wants to violently restrain Justice Alito's wife from her free speech rights because he has a special animus towards women, and the more conservative or less crazy, the more he wants to shut their mouths for them. Trump speculated with Billy Bush about what women will "let you do" but ***** actually expresses his desire to put hands on the women he can't control. It's a distinct difference. Wanting to control what flags a woman is permitted to fly is just his latest expression of his misogynistic personality disorder.
Don't even get him started on bumper stickers or what clothing he permits women to wear. These Bulwark guys all seem to have that controlling impulse. It's no coincidence he loves George "my wife talks too much" Conway. For laughs, ask him about Gertrude Himmelfarb sometime. Whew!
Let's compare flying a flag with accepting gifts (bribes?).
What about Ketanji Brown Jackson "earning $2 million" over the last year? Is that bigger than a yacht ride but smaller than a Thomas vacation?
I note that Gadfly's Rule for Justices did not exist and was never applied to RBG. She opined on all sorts of things including cases she had not yet heard. But at least she knew what a woman is.
Mark said...
"The problem is that Mrs Alito spoke at length at the same dinner with the reporter."
So what? She not a Supreme Court Justice.
You're the one beating , what? A horse costume?
Hard to believe Mark really is a lawyer. Now we get the completely airtight take that raising money to prosecute Trump and working for the sitting VP and Adam Schiff when your father is the judge in Trump's trials (plural) is exactly the same as a SCOTUS justice's family member flying the flag that the City of San Francisco and the State of Massachusetts fly.
I suspect Alito is a Constitutionalist. Which means he really cannot coexist with the left. Anyone who believes in the Constitution has been unable to coexist with the left since 1932. Maybe it is time to give the left what they think they want.
anodyne
Ludicrous!
Ditto.
Kudos, Mike. A Gertrude Himmelfarb reference!
Pro-abortion judges are so far in bed with pro-abortionists and taking so many speaking fees from them that they should recuse themselves from all related cases.
Ann, I thought you might enjoy this piece I wrote about Alito's statement. I actually agree with you that the negative reactions are out of proportion to what he said. For one thing, I think often off-the-cuff statemnts are rather rough and unclear; it's entirely possible Alito may have meant to communicate "on some issues, one side will mostly win" as opposed to a more warlike "one side versus the other on all issues" framing.
Anyway, here's my piece: https://thefulcrum.us/bridging-common-ground/one-side-will-win.
Post a Comment