'Very inconvenient truths': Legal scholar who 'once defended' Alito blasts his 'panicky' defense

27 June 2023

On June 20, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who vigorously defended his relationship with Republican billionaire Paul Singer. Alito, in the op-ed, insisted that he did nothing wrong when he went on a fishing trip to Alaska in Singer's private jet.

For Alito, the op-ed was a preemptive strike, as the George W. Bush-appointed justice knew that ProPublica would be publishing a report on his interactions with Singer. ProPublica had already published a series of bombshell reports on Justice Clarence Thomas' alliance with another Republican billionaire: Harlan Crow.

In a scathing article published by The American Prospect on June 27, law professor Steven Lubet is highly critical of Alito's WSJ op-ed — which he slams as "frantic" and "panicky" as well as a clumsy effort to overlook some "very inconvenient truths."

Lubet argues that Justice Amy Coney Barrett acted with much greater professionalism when CNN contacted her about a house she sold in Indiana.

"There was no connection between the purchase, which was reported in the local press at market price, and the Supreme Court," Lubet explains. "The sale of a justice's 'personal residence' is not subject to financial disclosure reporting. Barrett trusted the public to recognize a non-event, and indeed, the story had no legs. Compare that with Justice Samuel Alito's frantic reaction when he learned that ProPublica had obtained information about his 2008 Alaska vacation with a group of Republican donors and activists."

Lubet continues, "As the CNN reporters had done in Barrett's case, the ProPublica reporters contacted Alito for comment ahead of publication, sharing with him the details they had discovered. Rather than answer or ignore them, however, Alito took advantage of his connections at The Wall Street Journal editorial page to publish a lengthy prebuttal, beating the ProPublica article into print by a matter of hours."

The law professor goes on to describe Alito's "defense of taking billionaire largesse" in the Journal as deeply flawed.

"Alito's panicky attempt to preempt the ProPublica story stands in sharp contrast to Barrett's calm silence, revealing, at the very least, his unspoken recognition that the reporters have unearthed some very inconvenient truths," Lubet laments. "I once defended Alito's handling of ethics issues, but not this time."

Find The New Republic's full article at this link.

From Your Site Articles