IN DEFENSE OF JUDGE ALITO

 Justice Alito was recently quoted in the WSJ and NY Times as saying that when the Court is attacked, it is the tradition of the legal Bar to come to the aid of the Court, as the justices are prohibited from speaking in their own defense. And as we all know, Supreme Court justices follow the rules governing their own behavior.

Just to be sure we are correct about that, we sent an email to Justice Thomas's chambers to verify our assertion, and received the following response: 

"Thank you for your email to Justice Thomas. He is currently at a three-star Michelin restaurant dinner which is being paid for by the "friends of guns for everyone committee". Unfortunately he will be flying on a private jet to Moscow to provide legal advice to President Putin on circumventing the application of the international financial sanctions. He also is finishing an opinion on the teaching of the flat-world theory and why humans did not evolve from apes. Please feel free to email back at a time more convenient. Also check out his 'Justice Thomas Answers Your Questions on Cameo' where the suggested donation is $500 for the justice to leave the greeting message on your phone voicemail." 

Getting back to Justice natural birth Alito, here is what he was quoted as saying: 

“This type of concerted attack on the court and on individual justices” is, he said, “new during my lifetime.”

He added: “We are being hammered daily, and I think quite unfairly in a lot of instances. And nobody, practically nobody, is defending us. The idea has always been that judges are not supposed to respond to criticisms, but if the courts are being unfairly attacked, the organized bar will come to their defense.”

Of course, maybe why the unprecedented attacks on the court have not heretofore occurred during Alito's lifetime is because the Court has not often overruled sixty years of settled precedent during his lifetime. 

But be that as it may, Alito is right and we are wrong. We have not leapt to the defense of the hapless supreme court justices, who are being attacked and cannot defend themselves while floating on their friends' yachts in the Mediterranean. 

So, being the consummate defense attorney, we, dear friends, step once more into the breach and defend the undefendable with all our considerable skill.  What follows is the defense Alito and his compatriots need and are entitled to. 

Every damn word of it. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

STARE DECISIS

 Doing a little research into a complex issue as we head into the weekend, as is our wont. And we came across this impassioned defense of stare decisis and precedent and it bears repeating here: 

Stare decisis “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). Of course, it is also important to be right, especially on constitutional matters, where Congress cannot override our errors by ordinary legislation. But even in constitutional cases, a departure from precedent “demands special justification.” Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 212, 104 S.Ct. 2305, 81 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984). This means that something more than “ambiguous historical evidence” is required before we will “flatly overrule a number of major decisions of this Court.” Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 479, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987). And the strength of the case for adhering to such decisions grows in proportion to their “antiquity.” Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, 792, 129 S.Ct. 2079, 173 L.Ed.2d 955 (2009). Here, as noted, Gamble's historical arguments must overcome numerous “major decisions of this Court” spanning 170 years. In light of these factors, Gamble's historical evidence must, at a minimum, be better than middling.

Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1960, 1969 (2019)

And who is the author of this strong defense of precedent? Why none other than Justice Alito. 

Hmmmm.....he has been in the news lately for something....can't put our finger on it.