Samuel Alito: Just another SC jurist with his hand out to moneyed litigants.

He can't say the Alaska trip is a "fishing expedition" into wrongdoing -- it literally was.

Justice Alito has prided himself on being a strict constructionist when it comes to the law, even reaching way back to 16th century English jurists in his now one-year-old decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

But when it comes to his own conduct as a jurist, suddenly he becomes all loosey-goosey — defending his actions in loophole-laced language unworthy of a member of the nation’s highest court.

Singer, who?
In response to an account of the trip written by reporters Justin Elliott and Josh Kaplan and published Wednesday by ProPublica, a lauded journalism non-profit, Alito asserted the billionaire Republican patron of the trip, Paul Singer, was merely an acquaintance in the mode of “I barely knew the guy.” Alito said he spoke with Singer “only fleetingly” during the fishing trip, and was not aware of Singer’s connection to any subsequent court matter.

As reported in yesterday’s Washington Post piece, “ProPublica asked about Alito’s travel. He responded in the Wall Street Journal,” Alito said in true “The dog ate my homework” fashion:

“Mr. Singer and others had already made arrangements to fly to Alaska when I was invited shortly before the event, and I was asked whether I would like to fly there in a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant.” A commercial flight “would have imposed costs on taxpayers, who would have had to pay for the deputy U.S. marshals” who provide security to Supreme Court justices on flights.

Alito: wasn’t impressed
Describing his stay at the resort owned by billionaire businessman Robin Arkley II, Alito said: “I stayed three nights in a modest one-room unit at the King Salmon Lodge, a comfortable but rustic facility” with “home style meals,” adding, “I cannot recall if (we were) served wine, but if there was, it was certainly not wine that
costs $1,000” — a claim made to reporters from another member of the fishing trip.

Alito: “no way to know”
About his failure to disclose the trip on financial disclosure forms, Alito’s excuses are also strained beyond credulity: “I followed what I understood to be standard practice. I was not aware and had no good reason to be aware Mr. Singer had an interest in any party…in the one case in which review was granted (his) name did not appear in either the certiorari petition, the brief in opposition, or the merit briefs.”

That’s strange, because at the time of the trip in 2008, Singer had already brought a case before the Court called NML Capital v. Republic of Argentina — a widely publicized legal battle that had come before SCOTUS the previous year and was likely, given its various legal issues, to return to the Court. Moreover, Alito or his law clerks would have had access to who was involved in the case via a simple
Google search.

The case did return — eight times. In 2014 the NML Capital case was finally adjudicated in Singer/NML Capital’s favor, earning Singer $2.5B.

And then there’s Clarence Thomas
The recent Alito disclosures join those involving two other Republican-appointed SCOTUS judges — Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — who also have benefitted financially from big moneyed Republicans. Thomas famously has been treated to lavish vacations many times over the years by Republican real estate billionaire Harlan Crow. Crow also bought and refurbished Thomas’s mother’s house, taking away the worry and financial burden of caring for the Justice’s 94-year-old mother. He also paid for Thomas’s grandnephew’s private schooling. And Crow routinely pays Thomas spouse Ginni thousands of dollars for various “consulting fees.”

And Neil Gorsuch…
Gorsuch, who was Donald Trump’s first pick to the high court in lieu of Mitch McConnell’s refusal to respect President Barack Obama’s right to appoint Merrick Garland to the bench, also failed to disclose a conflict of interest business dealing that benefitted him, courtesy of his benefactor.

In April, Politco reported Gorsuch sold a 40-acre tract in Granby, Colorado to Brian Duffy—the CEO of Greenberg Traurig, a big law firm that routinely does business before the Court.

The April 25 Politico piece, “Law firm bought Gorsuch-owned property,” revealed the deal came after two years of trying to find a buyer, and it brought Gorsuch between $250,001 and $500,000. In this case, Gorsuch did report the sale on financial disclosure forms, but did not identify the purchaser—presumably to veil the name of the firm that often represents cases that come before the Court. Gorsuch made the sale just days after his confirmation to the bench in 2017.

So Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch make up three sitting justices who either openly or not-so-openly have rich friends who treat them to expensive vacations, fatten their (and/ or their spouses’) bank accounts, or bail them out of bad financial deals.

What’s so wrong with that?

Trust in the judiciary? Look to lower federal courts.
In answer…they erode trust in the nation’s highest court. Without that trust, the structure of the American system of jurisprudence erodes. People will not believe the nation’s highest court is independent and fair.

Lower federal courts avoid such financial conflicts because of stricter disclosure requirements and codes of ethics that so far have not been made to apply to High Court justices.

According to the code of conduct for United States judges that applies to every other judge in the federal system:

“A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.”

Unlike Alito, who claims he wasn’t friends with his fishing trip sponsor, making his accepting Singer’s hospitality as “OK,” in Alito’s book, Clarence Thomas has argued the opposite: that his friendship with Harlan Crow puts him above reproach (ostensibly because his motives are pure) and that everyone, even SCOTUS justices, are entitled to have friends.

But that justification is shot down by Lisa Graves, creator of True North Research which has spearheaded investigations into the moneyed relationships that are affecting, some would claim, destroying what democracy must be—and appear to be—
to survive.
Graves said:
”Harlan Crow isn’t just a billionaire. He’s a billionaire who has spent a lot of money trying to influence law in this country and influence who wins offices, including who gets on the Supreme Court. In fact, Harlan Crow was a donor to one of the groups that helped spend money to get John Roberts and Samuel Alito onto the Supreme Court… And now he’s been spending years rewarding someone on the court.”

The same can be said of Alito benefactor Paul Singer who has close ties with billionaire Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society who was also on the fishing trip. Leo has been responsible for promoting the careers of numerous Republican-appointed federal judges, including the three High Court judges recently appointed by
Donald Trump.

Responding to the “we’re just friends” excuse, Graves added:
"They’re not just friends. Let’s look at the cases pending before the court this term. Right now, there are three cases where the Manhattan Institute has submitted amicus briefs to this Supreme Court,” and ‘best friend Crow’—is a trustee. “Has Clarence Thomas recused from the cases involving the amicus brief submitted by his best friend? No.”

A question of judgment
MSNBC host Chris Hayes believes the excuses provided by sitting justices raise questions about their judgment, and fitness to make judgments. He said: “You’re (the SCOTUS judge), the person who sits in judgment of others. You decide that if people don’t fill out their forms, they get the death penalty anyway. And you say, ‘I can take the private jet trip’— and this is your judgment? (So) I don’t know if you’re that good at this.”

Unfortunately, judges who take money and gifts from donors make decisions about Americans who are not feted by rich people, do not earn the $250,000 annual salary of the judges, or are not courted by billionaire friends.

These are decisions that take away women’s reproductive freedoms, deny equitable representation in Congress, and give free reign to state legislatures who are creating virtual autocracies within their borders. These judgments also bring economic consequences as well as personal and cultural ones. And ordinary citizens do not have rich donors to make things better—as justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch have benefited from.

A question of ethics
As solutions, Senate Democrats are calling for Chief Justice Roberts to apply the same ethics expectations that guide all federal judges.

Zephyr Teachout, author of “Corruption in America,” said the Chief Justice’s refusal to bend, so far, on the ethics issue represents a shift from the past that must be reversed for the Court to regain lost trust, as demonstrated by its historically low
poll numbers.

“We’re talking about this great move from ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ to ‘with great power comes great immunity.’ This is a moment for the public to realize we can’t go on like this. “

—trg

”