https://sputnikglobe.com/20230621/justice-alito-pens-pre-emptive-reply-to-report-on-undisclosed-perks-from-scotus-petitioner-1111374049.html
Justice Alito Pens Pre-Emptive Reply to Report on Undisclosed Perks From SCOTUS Petitioner
Justice Alito Pens Pre-Emptive Reply to Report on Undisclosed Perks From SCOTUS Petitioner
Sputnik International
When a ProPublica journalist reached out for comment from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito about a story, the justice instead gave a scorching public reply in the Wall Street Journal before the original story was run.
2023-06-21T20:45+0000
2023-06-21T20:45+0000
2023-06-21T20:44+0000
americas
samuel alito
propublica
clarence thomas
supreme court
corruption
wall street journal
https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e7/06/15/1111374230_0:0:3072:1728_1920x0_80_0_0_435f241f6c01b5050d58312fcd9a27a3.jpg
The headline for Alito’s Tuesday op-ed was blunt: “ProPublica Misleads its Readers.” Alito flatly rejected the two main positions of a ProPublica article that had not yet been published: that he did not disclose a 2008 gift from a Republican “megadonor” that he should have disclosed, and that he should have recused himself when a case involving said megadonor appeared before the high court years later.ProPublica ran the story a few hours after Alito’s op-ed was published, titled: “Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court.”Also on the trip was Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalist Society, a powerful conservative legal organization of which Alito was once a member, as were all five other conservative Supreme Court Justices.The outlet further noted that then-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, made the same trip financed by Singer three years before Alito did.In the years since, cases involving Singer’s assets have come before the high court 10 times, according to the outlet, and in none of those cases did Alito recuse himself due to the 2008 trip. In one case, the court ruled in favor of Singer, which won him a $2.4 billion payout in a dispute with the Argentinian government.In his op-ed, Alito rejected the notion that his Singer-financed trip could create “an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties” - a passage lifted from the high court’s declaration of principles.He also rejected the assertion that he should have recused himself from cases involving Singer, noting he has voted on approximately 100,000 certiorari petitions and “had no good reason to be aware that Mr. Singer had an interest in any party.”The conservative justice previously courted controversy last July when during a speech in Rome, Italy, he mocked those upset by the court’s recent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned the nationwide right to an abortion. In that 6-3 ruling, Alito penned the majority’s position.Thomas has also faced demands to recuse himself from cases involving participants in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol by supporters of then-US President Donald Trump, after it was revealed the justice’s wife, Ginni Thomas, was active in Trump’s movement to overturn the results of the November 2020 US presidential election, although was was not part of the violent actions on January 6.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20230609/supreme-court-strikes-down-alabama-voting-map-that-threatened-to-disenfranchise-black-voters-1111019636.html
https://sputnikglobe.com/20220729/watch-us-supreme-court-justice-alito-mock-critics-of-abortion-rights-gutting-dobbs-ruling-1097946598.html
americas
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“
2023
News
en_EN
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“
samuel alito; paul singer; corruption; supreme court; alaska
samuel alito; paul singer; corruption; supreme court; alaska
Justice Alito Pens Pre-Emptive Reply to Report on Undisclosed Perks From SCOTUS Petitioner
When a journalist from investigative news site ProPublica reached out for comment from Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito about a forthcoming story, the conservative justice instead gave a scorching public reply in the Wall Street Journal even before the original story was run.
The headline for Alito’s Tuesday op-ed was blunt: “
ProPublica Misleads its Readers.” Alito flatly rejected the two main positions of a ProPublica article that had not yet been published: that he did not disclose a 2008 gift from a Republican “megadonor” that he should have disclosed, and that he should have recused himself when a case involving said megadonor appeared before the high court years later.
ProPublica ran the story a few hours after Alito’s op-ed was published, titled: “
Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court.”
The article details a July 2008 fishing trip to Alaska paid for by Paul Singer, a billionaire hedge fund manager who has used his fortune to bankroll myriad Republican campaigns and related libertarian projects, think tanks, and other groups.
By the outlet’s tally, the costs of the private flight and lengthy stay at an elite resort were together worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Also on the trip was Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalist Society, a powerful conservative legal organization of which Alito was once a member, as were all five other conservative Supreme Court Justices.
The outlet further noted that then-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, made the same trip financed by Singer three years before Alito did.
According to ProPublica, Alito did not include the trip in his financial disclosures for that year, and “appears to have violated a federal law that requires justices to disclose most gifts, according to ethics law experts.”
In the years since, cases involving Singer’s assets have come before the high court 10 times, according to the outlet, and in none of those cases did Alito recuse himself due to the 2008 trip. In one case, the court ruled in favor of Singer, which won him a $2.4 billion payout in a dispute with the Argentinian government.
In his op-ed, Alito rejected the notion that his Singer-financed trip could create “an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties” - a passage lifted from the high court’s
declaration of principles.
“No such person would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that standard,” Alito continued. “My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court.”
He also rejected the assertion that he should have recused himself from cases involving Singer, noting he has voted on approximately 100,000 certiorari petitions and “had no good reason to be aware that Mr. Singer had an interest in any party.”
“Mr. Singer was not listed as a party in any of the cases listed by ProPublica. Nor did his name appear in any of the corporate disclosure statements or the certiorari petitions or briefs in opposition to certiorari. In the one case in which review was granted, Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., No. 12-842, Mr. Singer’s name did not appear in either the certiorari petition, the brief in opposition, or the merits briefs. Because his name did not appear in these filings, I was unaware of his connection with any of the listed entities, and I had no good reason to be aware of that,” Alito wrote.
The conservative justice previously courted controversy last July when during a speech in Rome, Italy, he
mocked those upset by the court’s recent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned the nationwide right to an abortion. In that 6-3 ruling, Alito penned the majority’s position.
The Tuesday report on Alito comes after similar corruption allegations were levied against another Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, earlier this year.
That April report, also published by ProPublica, found Thomas had gone on trips with and accepted gifts from Harlan Crow, a major real estate developer who, like Singer, has poured millions of dollars into Republican campaigns and related institutions.
Thomas has also faced
demands to recuse himself from cases involving participants in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol by supporters of then-US President Donald Trump, after it was revealed the justice’s wife, Ginni Thomas, was
active in Trump’s movement to overturn the results of the November 2020 US presidential election, although was was not part of the violent actions on January 6.
