Judge Samuel Alito sought to regain control of the narrative surrounding his ethical behavior, which was previously exposed by ProPublica in relation to Clarence Thomas. In response to ProPublica’s request for comment on an upcoming story, Alito preemptively addressed the issue by publishing an extensive defense in The Wall Street Journal. However, rather than improving the situation, his defense actually confirmed the most severe allegations, acknowledged the casual nature of his personal conflicts, and potentially hinted at being the source of a leak to Lou Dobbs.
It can be seen as a hasty attempt at damage control, reminiscent of O.J. Simpson’s book “If I Did It.” Additionally, Alito’s decision to cooperate with ProPublica seems reckless, given the ongoing scandals involving Clarence Thomas and the revelation of undisclosed gifts from Harlan Crow. ProPublica wasted no time and promptly published their story, complete with counterarguments to Alito’s justifications.
Alito claims to have had minimal acquaintance with Paul Singer, the billionaire investor under scrutiny in ProPublica’s investigation. However, this assertion is met with skepticism, as evidence suggests a closer relationship, including Singer introducing Alito at events and even photos of Alito making martinis with glacial ice for Singer and others. Alito’s attempt to downplay their connection is unconvincing.
Furthermore, Alito’s defense of his actions regarding a flight to Alaska raises eyebrows. He explains that Singer had already arranged the trip and offered him a vacant seat. Alito argues that this arrangement incurred no additional costs for Singer, which supposedly justifies his acceptance. However, this reasoning fails to hold up, as it could justify any luxury air travel as long as it conveniently aligns with the judge’s itinerary. Alito’s defense of the “personal hospitality” exception, similar to Thomas’ argument, raises concerns about the Supreme Court’s tolerance for unethical activities.
Alito’s explanation regarding his failure to recuse himself from Singer-related court cases is equally problematic. He claims that he did not know Singer was involved, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Alito’s lackadaisical approach to verifying potential conflicts of interest undermines the integrity of his decision-making. The public, unlike Alito, was able to uncover the connections between Singer and the cases Alito presided over, creating doubts about his ability to impartially perform his duties.
Lastly, there is the issue of a leak related to the Dobbs case. While Alito denies any involvement, his behavior and interactions with The Wall Street Journal raise suspicions. By openly communicating with the editors of the WSJ, who have been extensively covering the Dobbs leaks, Alito inadvertently adds fuel to the speculation surrounding his potential role in the leak. This clumsy article serves as an incriminating piece of evidence in itself.
To conclude, while it is not definitive that Alito was the source of the leak, his actions and justifications contribute to a growing belief that he played a part. This seems more convincing than his argument that private jet travel does not warrant disclosure or recusal. The public scrutiny surrounding Judge Samuel Alito’s ethical conduct raises serious concerns about the Supreme Court’s system and the potential for ethical violations, both in practice and perception.
