I’m amazed that more observers have not made the connection between the recent Alito scandals.
Scandal One was Alito receiving undisclosed gifts of travel and entertainment from a right-wing billionaire whose firm has had cases before the Court.
Scandal One was Alito receiving undisclosed gifts of travel and entertainment from a right-wing billionaire whose firm has had cases before the Court.
Scandal Two was Alito offering (on the WSJ editorial page) his opinion on a legal matter that may come before the Court. How do the two connect?
First, the WSJ “interviewer” was a lawyer opposing Senate Judiciary requests for information about the gifts to Alito.
Second, the lawyer/interviewer’s argument against our requests is the exact legal proposition propped up by Alito in the interview.
Third, the client is Leonard Leo, who organized and joined the Singer-paid undisclosed vacation, and is Alito’s friend and ally.
That makes it look like Alito was put into service (Scandal One) to prop up the opposition to an investigation looking at (Scandal Two) gifts to Alito.
These facts cast doubt on Alito’s assertions that “There was nothing out of the ordinary about the interviews” and that Rivkin “participated … as a journalist, not an advocate.”
These are fact questions that bring us back to the core of the Court’s ethics problem: there is presently no mechanism there for fair or independent fact-finding.
Loading suggestions...