However, even if the information about the relationship had been public knowledge, can anyone honestly argue that no reasonable person would question the impartiality of a justice when they vote in favor of someone who has given them a valuable gift? Isn’t there, at the very least, the perception that something other than strict adherence to the rule of law is at play? The Supreme Court, as the ultimate arbiter of critical issues in American life, places great importance on appearances.
Justice Alito is not the only member of the current court who has faced accusations of ethical misconduct. Practically all the justices, regardless of their political leanings, have accepted free travel and other gifts over the years. However, these instances rarely involve such a clear connection to cases before the court. Justice Clarence Thomas has faced criticism for failing to recuse himself from cases related to the January 6 Capitol insurrection despite his wife’s communication with the Trump White House in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Recently, ProPublica reported on Justice Thomas’s relationship with Harlan Crow, a conservative billionaire who has showered him and his wife with gifts and has had connections to at least one case before the court.
While Justice Thomas has mostly remained silent on these matters, Justice Alito chose to speak out extensively in a friendly and prominent forum, effectively projecting his opinion into public view. In doing so, he demonstrated how flimsy the reasoning of even a Supreme Court justice can be when they attempt to rule on their own interests.
For example, Justice Alito defended his decision not to report the free gift from Mr. Singer as “personal hospitality” and insisted that, like Justice Thomas, it did not require reporting. Yet, he also claimed to have little knowledge of Mr. Singer. So, which is it? “If you were good friends, what were you doing ruling on his case?” questioned one legal-ethics expert. “And if you weren’t good friends, why did you accept the gift?”
Rather than acknowledging his ethical misstep and potential illegality, Justice Alito resorted to laughable attempts to justify his actions. He argued that the seat he occupied on the private jet to Alaska would have otherwise been empty, implying that the gift had no value. Imagine trying that argument the next time you walk past an empty first-class seat on a Delta flight. Seriously, do these justices even listen to themselves?
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
