Seems it’s financial disclosure time for the Supremes. Seven of nine (salacious image here JERI RYAN IN "STAR TREK: VOYAGER" SEVEN OF NINE - 8X10 PUBLICITY PHOTO (AB-559) | eBay) justices promptly reported. Two, Thomas and Alito, asked for extensions. Now I’m not prone to leaping to conclusions or wild conjecture actually that’s Steve’s middle name but my guess is some serious backdating of checks, revised gift tax filings are being performed in the background.
Also included in the cite is a rehash of Harlan Crow’s attorney’s blathering to the Senate committee looking into Crow’s “gifts”.
Perhaps it’s no surprise, but Justice Alito also has high dollar friends whose hedge fund companies have remarkable success in the Supreme Court, by complete coincidence.
Unlike Justice Thomas, Justice Alito managed to get published (as an op-ed in Wall Street Journal) an attempt to justify the bribes benefits derived from the relationship, using time-honored tropes like “no money changed hands” (curiously neglecting the idea of “equivalent value”). I can’t read the justification for not recusing, since it’s only in the WSJ posting and that’s paywalled, but I’m sure it’s equally convincing.
Breathtaking sense of entitlement. In a European country, his equivalent would have resigned immediately.
The Supremes should be exemplifying highest conduct, not appearances of impropriety (at best!) that would get any low-level college lecturer (etc. etc.) fired instantly.
And his excuse is “I took a seat that, presumably, would have been otherwise empty”? HA!! Any seven-year-old has already outgrown such blatant horseshit.
I’m about to board a long, trans-Pacific flight, in an economy-class seat. I think I’ll just grab a first-class seat instead, and if the attendants object, I’ll
say “Sue me! The highest court in the land just said it’s okay.”
One commenter to The NY Times article said this: “Let’s have the Supremes cover their robes with their sponsors’ logos, just like NASCAR drivers!”
Justice Alito said he was not required to disclose the trip on Mr. Singer’s private jet in “a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant.”
So, nothing to see here. No matter there was business before the court since this had been disclosed somewhere. In an unrelated note, adorable puppies!!
So, reading Alito’s screed, we see this about recusal:
Recusal. I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites. First, even if I had been aware of Mr. Singer’s connection to the entities involved in those cases, recusal would not have been required or appropriate. ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect.
So, the defense is literally “this is not the apprarance of impropriety you’re looking for.”
Or, to paraphrase it in the words of an old acquaintance of mine, “It’s not inappropriate because STFU.”
OpEds are where despicable people get to try to seem reasonable, get their side of the story out, and in the end display how despicable they are.
So it’s not a bad thing WSJ published that. As @wolfpup says, it’s making the corruption blatantly obvious by the feebleness and silliness of the justification.
It would have been more honest if Alito had just said “it’s not bad because it’s good for me and your stupid rules don’t apply to me and shut up, you peasants” but at least we can draw the inference from what he actually did say.
