Tag Archives: Alito

Religious War, Modern Version…

As weird as it seems–this is, after all, the twenty-first century– America seems to be in the throes of a religious war. Whatever the actual motives of the self-identified “righteous religious,” today’s culture warriors increasingly hide behind assumed doctrinal pieties.

And they’re suddenly everywhere.

The media is filled with stories about fissures in state-level Republican parties, fights between the GOP’s extreme Rightwingers and its flat-out nutcase “Christian warriors.” Here in Indiana, that schism is illustrated by the GOP’s internal fight over the Lieutenant Governor nomination. Mike Braun, who won the nasty race for the gubernatorial nomination, has picked a no-name, relatively inoffensive Rightwing female, but his choice is being challenged by religious warrior Micah Beckwith.

Noblesville pastor Micah Beckwith’s unconventional campaign for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor appears to be surging. Several GOP insiders I spoke with believe he will upset Mike Braun’s hand-picked candidate Julie McGuire at the state convention this Saturday.

Braun evidently recognizes that a Beckwith victory will make his already far-Right campaign more difficult, since Beckwith is a proud member of the Christian Taliban. The linked article reported his remarks at gatherings of GOP insiders.

Beckwith told the delegates in both Fort Wayne and Nappanee that it was his belief that America was straying from its Christian principles that motivated him to get into politics.

“I started recognizing something very concerning to me, that the church in America was dropping the ball on stewarding our nation,” he said in Nappanee. “When [the church] started shutting our mouths, the silent majority did a huge disservice to this nation. We became quiet. No wonder we’ve gone off the rails.”

Beckwith blamed America’s problems on a list of issues for which, according to him, the Bible has already provided guidance.

“Isn’t it interesting that all of the political things that are destroying our nation right now are things like marriage, things like abortion, things like parental rights, things like the sovereignty of our borders, things like taxes. But wouldn’t you know, God has said something about all of those issues.”

Evidently, God also told Beckwith to attack Governor Holcomb’s attempt to protect Hoosiers from COVID.

“It was March 15, 2020. I called out COVID exactly what it turned out to be,” he told the delegates in Nappanee. On that day, he said he broadcast a Facebook live video telling people “don’t shut down, don’t lock down, don’t mask up. And I called it out.”

As the linked article notes, 22,450 Hoosiers died from COVID after Beckwith made that video, including 616 residents in his home of Hamilton County. But evidently, that was God’s plan–after all, Beckwith is certain he knows what his God wants…

Unfortunately, the growth of Christian Nationalism isn’t a phenomenon limited to state-level politics. Not only does a rabid (and distinctly unChristian) cohort consistently prevent Congress from functioning, it has infected the nation’s highest court. That infection is most apparent in the person of Justice Alito, who–as Robert Hubbell recently reported–has now “said the quiet part out loud—i.e., that the reactionary majority on the Supreme Court is engaged in a religious battle to return the country to a place of godliness.”

It seems that an enterprising reporter has obtained evidence of what most observers have long surmised.

Lauren Windsor, a progressive filmmaker and political activist, bought a ticket in her own name to the Supreme Court Historical Society dinner that was held on June 3 and carried her cell phone so she could record conversations she held with Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts.  She’s done it before, posing as a fellow conservative as she recorded conversations with right-wing politicians at public events.  This time, Windsor appears to have been posing as a Christian Nationalist Catholic when she got close enough to Alito at the dinner to ask him a few questions.

While condemning the tactic employed, the New York Times reported the taped conversation,  and Alito’s view that that the nation should return to a “place of godliness.” Several other reports included anti-gay remarks made by his wife. (The taped conversations have since been uploaded to YouTube.)

The utter lack of humility that characterizes these smug “warriors for God” always reminds me of that FaceBook meme–something to the effect that “it’s interesting that God hates the same people they do.”

Historians and legal scholars can rebut these efforts to rewrite American history and undermine the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and theologians can contest the simplistic, dishonest and oh-so convenient approach to belief, but it will be up to voters to reject Christian Nationalists’ drive to deliver social and legal control to White Christian fundamentalists.

Vote Blue. Religious liberty depends on it.

Comments

Alito

Donald Trump– now a convicted felon–will undoubtedly still get millions of votes. (Hopefully, not enough to win back the Presidency.) And then, there’s the Supreme Court, where Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito– both manifestly unfit to serve on any court, let alone the highest court– thumb their noses at their critics.

Let’s talk about Alito.

The New Republic recently reminded us of the multiple bases for original opposition to Alito’s nomination. There was the legal memo he’d authored in 1985 articulating his opposition to legal abortion–contrasted with his assurances to Senator Ted Kennedy that he would never vote to overturn Roe; his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, an organization that opposed increasing admission of women and racial minorities; and later, his refusal to recuse himself in two cases involving companies in which he had financial interest, even after he pledged to do so.

Kennedy gave a thunderous address on behalf of the people that the “liberal coalition” aimed to represent, warning on the Senate floor of the dangers of Alito’s extreme ideology: “If you are concerned and you want a justice that’s going to stand for the working men and women in this country—it’s not going to be Judge Alito. If you are concerned about women’s privacy rights, about the opportunity for women to gain fair employment in America—it’s not Judge Alito. If you care about the disabled … the Disability Act that we have passed to bring all of the disabled into our society, if you are looking for someone that is going to be a friend of the disabled—it’s not going to be Judge Alito. 

Despite ample evidence of his dishonesty and rigid ideology, Alito was confirmed, and he has proved to be every bit as unethical and reactionary as Kennedy warned.

In the wake of the recent flag controversy–all of which this self-appointed arbiter of righteousness gallantly blames on his wife and most of which he has lied about–Alito is refusing demands that he recuse himself from cases involving January 6th and Trump.

As Robert Hubbell recently pointed out, the argument for recusal is painfully obvious.  If  Alito’s wife had flown a flag with a Swastika over their house, could Alito credibly claim that he had asked his wife to remove the flag but that she had refused because she “liked flags?” Could he credibly claim he didn’t understand the antisemitic meaning of a Nazi flag, and that there was thus no reason to recuse himself from a pending case about antisemitic speech?

Of course not.

Despite Alito’s breathtaking arrogance and dishonesty, the decision to recuse or not is not his to make. As Congressman Jamie Raskin has written in a New York Times op-ed, a constitutional provision and judicial precedents require both Alito and Thomas to recuse in these matters.

The Constitution, and the federal laws under it, is the “supreme law of the land,” and the recusal statute explicitly treats Supreme Court justices like other judges: “Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The only justices in the federal judiciary are the ones on the Supreme Court.

This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. Ignoring it would trespass on the constitutional separation of powers because the justices would essentially be saying that they have the power to override a congressional command…

Courts generally have found that any reasonable doubts about a judge’s partiality must be resolved in favor of recusal. A judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” While recognizing that the “challenged judge enjoys a margin of discretion,” the courts have repeatedly held that “doubts ordinarily ought to be resolved in favor of recusal.” After all, the reputation of the whole tribunal and public confidence in the judiciary are both on the line….

Chief Justice Roberts assured America that “Judges are like umpires.”

But professional baseball would never allow an umpire to continue to officiate the World Series after learning that the pennant of one of the two teams competing was flying in the front yard of the umpire’s home. Nor would an umpire be allowed to call balls and strikes in a World Series game after the umpire’s wife tried to get the official score of a prior game in the series overthrown and canceled out to benefit the losing team. If judges are like umpires, then they should be treated like umpires, not team owners, team fans or players.

Alito and Thomas are a disgrace to the bench. They should be impeached. That undoubtedly won’t happen unless the Democrats win a trifecta in November.



Comments

As The Legal World Turns….

The news that a symbol supporting the January 6th insurrection had hung outside Justice Alito’s home was stunning. It was so outside everything lawyers have been taught about proper judicial behavior and ethics that anyone who has ever studied the law, or the role of the courts, was incredulous. If there was any doubt about its significance, or the dishonesty of Alito’s attempt to blame his wife, a subsequent report–with photos–shows that Christian Nationalist “Appeal to Heaven” flag, used by January 6th insurrectionists, flew for two months at Alito’s beach house.

As Robert Hubbell writes, “Alito is signaling his partisan allegiance and Christian nationalism. As I wrote yesterday, we should take him at his word. If we do not, he will continue to vote for outcomes and write opinions that are antithetical to the liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.”

It doesn’t really require legal training to understand how profoundly Alito violated norms of appropriate judicial behavior. If a local judge flew a flag supporting one side of a case over which he was currently presiding, ordinary citizens–not to mention the local bar association–would immediately demand removal of both the case and the judge.

I may feel this incredible impropriety more strongly because I approached the teaching of my policy classes through a constitutional lens. I taught my students that the Constitution and Bill of Rights constrain policy choices–that legal precedents determine the boundaries of legitimate government action. I’ve previously explained that Alito’s Dobbs decision threatened far more than reproductive rights–that it undermines a longstanding legal doctrine that draws a line between permissible and forbidden government interventions.

I’m no longer teaching, and I really don’t know how I would handle the reality that “settled” constitutional interpretations are being routinely ignored by Justices on America’s highest court, so I sympathized with the law school professors interviewed on that issue by The New York Times. As one said,

One of the primary challenges when one is teaching constitutional law is to impress upon the students that it is not simply politics by other means,” he said. “And the degree of difficulty of that proposition has never been higher.”

That difficulty was addressed by the professors interviewed by the Times. As several noted, teaching constitutional law has for many years been based on an underlying premise: 

That the Supreme Court is a legitimate institution of governance, and the nine justices, whatever their political backgrounds, care about getting the law right. They are more interested in upholding fundamental democratic principles and, perhaps most important, preserving the court’s integrity, than in imposing a partisan agenda.

The premise no longer holds today. Many in the legal world still believed in the old virtues even after Bush v. Gore, the 5-to-4 ruling that effectively decided the 2000 presidential election on what appeared to many Americans to be partisan grounds. But now, the court’s hard-right supermajority, installed in recent years through a combination of hypocrisy and sheer partisan muscle, has eviscerated any consensus.

Under the pretense of practicing so-called originalism, which claims to interpret the Constitution in line with how it was understood at the nation’s founding, these justices have moved quickly to upend decades of established precedent — from political spending to gun laws to voting rights to labor unions to abortion rights to affirmative action to the separation of church and state. Whatever rationale or methodology the justices apply in a given case, the result virtually always aligns with the policy priorities of the modern Republican Party.

And that has made it impossible for many professors to teach in the familiar way. 

The mounting concerns of legal scholars are shared on both the political left and right. Michael McConnell is an extremely conservative legal scholar who has criticized the analyses of even the cases that reach his preferred conclusions. He worries that the dishonesty and hypocrisy of these justices is undermining the respect required by the rule of law.

Professor McConnell recalled a recent exchange in one of his classes. “I said something to the effect of, ‘It’s important to assume that the people you disagree with are speaking in good faith.’ And a student raises his hand, and he asks: ‘Why? Why should we assume that people on the other side are acting in good faith?’ This was not a crazy person; this was a perfectly sober-minded, rational student. And I think the question was sincere. And I think that’s kind of shocking. I do think that some of the underlying assumptions of how a civil society operates can no longer be assumed.”

As Maya Angelou told us: When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

Alito’s breathtaking breaches of judicial behavior leave no doubt about who he is. He should be impeached.

Comments

And Then There’s The Court…

Equal Justice Under Law. That motto is both aspirational and descriptive; in four words, it summarizes the whole point of the rule of law–the founding premise of America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. Well-paid lobbyists may influence legislation to give Group A an advantage over Group B, elected officials may listen more carefully to people who wrote big checks to their campaigns, but citizens are supposed to be able to appeal for justice to the nation’s courts, and those courts are supposed to  administer equal justice under the law.

Granted, it has never worked that seamlessly. Judges are human, with human biases and foibles. Laws are often opaque. Access to the nation’s courts requires resources–either substantial funds or representation by one of the country’s public interest law firms, like the ACLU or Lambda Legal. But for a long time, America’s courts–especially its federal courts–have been there to redress inequality and corruption and instances of fundamental unfairness.

Now, thanks in large part to Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, the Supreme Court itself has been corrupted. Any doubts on that score were laid to rest during the Court’s eye-opening and frequently chilling hearing on Trump’s ridiculous “immunity” claims. Those claims had been summarily and properly dismissed by the lower courts, and I fully expected the Supreme Court to follow suit. After all, the Court’s unnecessary delay in addressing the claim had given Trump what most observers knew he really wanted: a delay. The appeal was a transparent effort to postpone Jack Smith’s case until after the election, and most of us who were following the case expected the Court–having given him that delay– would rule on the merits by affirming that no one is above the law.

I will leave further discussion and analysis of that oral argument to the multitude of observers who found it appalling, because I want to address other aspects of the high court’s corruption that are relevant to the widespread loss of respect for that body and to the growing calls to expand its membership.

Over the past few years, Americans have learned about the truly gob-smacking conflicts of interest, money-grubbing and pious dishonesty of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The head of the Alliance for Justice pulled no punches:

Today, our republic is buckling under the weight of those misdeeds, as Americans no longer trust their Supreme Court to be a citadel of democracy and justice. Quite the opposite — they have come to expect the worst from our pay-for-performance judiciary. Are we really going to stand idly by and do nothing about this corruption?”

A recent article from The Intercept pointed to a lesser-known but no less troubling influence of money on the Court. The article focused on a case challenging two states’ efforts to limit social media moderation of user-posted content (which Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton equated to “censorship) then turned to the broader issue of influence.

After the Supreme Court wraps up arguments for the current term next week, it will turn to finalizing decisions in dozens of pending matters, including these social media cases plus high-stakes cases about abortion, guns, the limits of presidential immunity, and how the federal regulatory apparatus itself functions. In doing so, the justices will have a chance to review hundreds of amicus briefs.

Like the money spent on elections, the money spent on the deluge of amicus briefs each term is incredibly difficult to track. The Supreme Court’s disclosure rule for amicus briefs is quite narrow, requiring only a footnote that indicates whether there were any outside monetary contributions “intended to fund the preparation or submission” of that specific brief.

The article quoted Sarah Lipton-Lubet, president of Take Back the Court,

“It’s no secret that the many of the rich benefactors cozying up to the conservative justices are the same people who fund right-wing organizations with business before the court. But too often, stories about the Supreme Court don’t connect these dots — and as a result, they leave us with an incomplete picture.”

A reform bill authored by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse–described in the Intercept article– would be a good first step, but it is past time to consider enlarging the Court and imposing 18-year term limits on Justices, among other measures that are being considered. (When lifetime tenure was established, people didn’t live as long as they do today. Eighteen years is sufficient to accomplish the goal of lifetime terms, which was to insulate the Justices from political pressure.)

The Court has never been the unblemished guardian of liberty that we like to think, but its current, shameful partisanship and outright corruption are a new low. It’s time for a change.

Comments

What Is The Comstock Act?

During the recent Supreme Court argument over Mifepristone, Justices Alito and Thomas both raised the possibility that a case brought under the Comstock Act would be stronger than the one being argued. (Legal scholars have noted the multiple deficiencies in the current case, which–had Trump not appointed an intellectually-dishonest extremist to a Texas federal judgeship–would never have reached the Supreme Court.)

What, you may ask, is the Comstock Act?

Back in 1999, I edited “Free Expression in America: A Documentary History” for Greenwood Press. Producing the book required me to identify, reprint and explain documents that told the evolving story of America’s free speech jurisprudence. I began with “Foundations of Liberty”–the Magna Carta, Areopagitica and Cato’s Letters–proceeded through Common Sense, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the First Amendment and several others, and on through America’s various battles with censorship to the late 1990s.

In a section titled “1900-1950: A Half-Century of Paternalism” I included “Birth Control and Public Morals: An Interview with Anthony Comstock.” I introduced the interview by noting that contemporary readers might come away considering Comstock a caricature. (Even at his most influential, he was widely ridiculed.) Comstock founded the Society for the Suppression of Vice, and he saw vice pretty much everywhere he looked. He campaigned against the publication of “vile books,” which he argued were responsible for “debauching” young men, and it isn’t an exaggeration to say that he considered any publication dealing in any way with sex to be “vile.” He was particularly offended by then-current efforts to provide women with birth control information.

The Act reads as follows:

Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or from whom, or by what means any of such mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed, or how or by what means abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and

Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing—

Is declared to be non-mailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier.” 

The Comstock Act was passed in 1873, and although it hasn’t been explicitly repealed, most lawyers believe that intervening case law has rendered it unenforceable. 

Justices Alito and Thomas are so intent upon banning abortion they have evidently overlooked the sweep of the Act, which would go far, far beyond preventing abortifacients from being mailed. Comstock was intent upon preventing the dissemination of anything and everything he found “vile,” including, in his own words “intemperance, gambling and evil reading.” He classed contraceptives with pornography, and when questioned about that, replied that “If you open the door to anything, the filth will pour in and the degradation of youth will follow.”

Even during his lifetime, Comstock was widely regarded as an unbalanced anti-sex zealot; his Society for the Suppression of Vice was intent upon censoring books, magazines or other materials describing or touching on sex, very much including medical information and information about contraception. (The Comstock Act at one time prevented the mailing of anatomy textbooks to medical students.)

In Comstock’s fanatic view, “Any indecent or immoral use” covered a lot of ground, much of it misogynistic. There’s a reason a recent biography of him is titled “The Man Who Hated Women.”

Trying to resuscitate Comstock’s “zombie law” will raise some interesting legal questions. Can the anti-abortion provisions be severed from the clearly unconstitutional censorship provisions of the Act? Does the prohibition against use of the U.S. mail extend to Federal Express and other private carriers? 

Are Alito and Thomas so desperate to control the lives and reproductive liberties of American women–so desperate to take us back to a time when women were breeding property– that they’re willing to revive Comstockery? 

Comments