Samuel Alito’s Resentment Goes Full Tilt on a Black Day for the Court

Authored by newrepublic.com and submitted by Quirkie

But think about what it says about both where Trump has delivered this country, and about Alito’s assumptions about democracy. On the former point: Have we now reached a place where challenges to election results are going to be the norm? Where an opposition party can be counted on to find some legal technicality on which to prosecute a former president, rather than leaving him or her in peace as we have throughout our history?

This is another twisting of reality. Trump, his defenders would protest, is the one former president who has not been left in peace. Well, that is true, I confess. But maybe there’s a reason for it! Actually, there are two. Trump has not been left in peace because a) it was always obvious he was not retired, and b) he’s the only ex-president who tried to foment a coup against the United States of America and who declassified sensitive national security documents with his beautiful brain.

And on the latter point: When George W. Bush named him to the court in 2005, experts told us—of course—that Alito was conservative, yes, but not an extremist (interestingly, Maryanne Trump Barry, Donald’s sister under whom Alito had worked as a prosecutor, was among those recommending Alito’s nomination). As The New Yorker reported in a 2022 profile, Alito was asked in 2014 to name a character trait that hadn’t served him well. His answer? A tendency to hold his tongue. Well, that problem’s been solved, eh? As writer Margaret Talbot noted of the justice, who ignored Chief Justice John Roberts’s importunings to strike a balance in the Dobbs decision, which he wrote: “He’s holding his tongue no longer. Indeed, Alito now seems to be saying whatever he wants in public, often with a snide pugnaciousness that suggests his past decorum was suppressing considerable resentment.”

Melindafla on April 26th, 2024 at 17:23 UTC »

The man literally walked into the court under the words, “Equal justice under the law” etched into marble. I didn’t see any asterisks for that not applying to Republican presidents.

postsshortcomments on April 26th, 2024 at 16:28 UTC »

So let me get this straight. Some are appealing to "original intent" to argue that; the determining factor as to whether or not the President can go on a legal crime spree [who can also pardon those enabling these actions] is whether or not they have a 1-vote majority in a single legislative branch to impeach? Which, mind you, is held to a lesser regard than the 2/3rds majority required for cloture?

That-Object6749 on April 26th, 2024 at 16:11 UTC »

Yeah... Law schools and any history course need to start teaching the next generation about the morally bankrupt, corrupt crap we have now... Be fully honest. There is no reason to pretend that these folks should be respected at this point. They are a laughing stock in the face of history.