When Andrew and Bill title this newsletter, "Roberts the Institutionalist, Alito the Culture Warrior", they are in fact shifting the Overton window in real time: This is how the frog gets boiled, and this is where Orwell's prescient discourse on language is highlighted.
What is described here is clear: Chief Justice Roberts models the res…
When Andrew and Bill title this newsletter, "Roberts the Institutionalist, Alito the Culture Warrior", they are in fact shifting the Overton window in real time: This is how the frog gets boiled, and this is where Orwell's prescient discourse on language is highlighted.
What is described here is clear: Chief Justice Roberts models the response of — not an institutionalist but — a judge, that is, someone who is expert in deconstructing facts, applying laws and statutes, and, when necessary, filling the gaps where existing rules cannot be decided. This is the job of a judge, and the Supreme Court justices are the most important judge positions in the country.
Chief Justice Roberts also demonstrates cognitive responsibility: He explains his state of mind, when he disagrees, he justifies his statements to motivate his belief — and this is reflective of his professional approach, which, naturally as a judge, requires explaining his thought process in every case.
Alito's response betrays that he is not a judge. This is someone who does not know how to follow causal inference properly, or how to apply deductive reasoning — which is elementary for a doctor in law. He is someone who rather than starting from our shared set of facts, is drawing from a completely different set, for instance "They really can't be compromised" in reference to "fundamental differences" (Chief Justice Roberts models what an appropriate response would look like, so I won't comment further). Furthermore he says "return our country to a place of godliness" when our country was founded on the right of each and everyone of us to experience "godliness" in their own way, and Catholics were not just a minority but one that was for a time reviled, and here is a Supreme Justice completely clueless about the history of his own country, unlike, you will notice, Chief Justice Roberts.
So from this conversation alone, one would assume: Chief Justice Roberts is a lawyer who became a judge and, Alito is... something else.
The closest one can get to describe Alito is a process mistake: He is someone who Congress mistakenly let in, because based on the ability to reason he demonstrates in this conversation, this is not someone you want as the ultimate umpire of the US legal system.
So back to the beginning: We should be calling this out! We should be describing Alito as out of his league, we should be describing Alito as incompetent in his lawyering skill and question his ability to serve effectively as the supreme authority.
Instead, a title like "Roberts the Institutionalist, Alito the Culture Warrior" makes it sound like this kind of behavior is just one variety of different kinds of Supreme Court Justices. It legitimizes Alito's incompetence by passing it as competent ideology.
Whatever Alito's partisan beliefs are, Chief Justice Roberts (whose beliefs are likely similar) models how you can have partisan beliefs, but still be professional in terms of applying rules like a judge is supposed to do.
Roberts does not have much control over associate justices. He does have control over SCOTUS ethics, which he has essentially punted on, and Alito and Thomas have thumbed their noses at that. He also could have gone and testified to Congress as requested instead of raising B.S. separation of powers arguments to avoid the conversation.
Roberts is worse. He sees what is going on and lets Alito and Thomas sully themselves as naked partisan hacks and simply shrugs his complicit shoulders. He COULD do something. He CHOOSES not to. One has to surmise he approves of the outcome. THAT is the most detrimental and diabolical. Don’t give me a pass and build his cover story for him. He owns this shit show
Whether Roberts approves or not there is little he can do. He cannot dictate ethics, he cannot remove them from the court, he cannot demand they recuse. Alito and Thomas are what they have always been, partisan hacks itching to impose their will on the people, neither have ever had any use for the law or the constitution except how it can be used and twisted to impose their will. All they needed was enough less than stellar compatriots who could be corrupted, welcome Kavanaugh, Coney and Gorsuch
When Andrew and Bill title this newsletter, "Roberts the Institutionalist, Alito the Culture Warrior", they are in fact shifting the Overton window in real time: This is how the frog gets boiled, and this is where Orwell's prescient discourse on language is highlighted.
What is described here is clear: Chief Justice Roberts models the response of — not an institutionalist but — a judge, that is, someone who is expert in deconstructing facts, applying laws and statutes, and, when necessary, filling the gaps where existing rules cannot be decided. This is the job of a judge, and the Supreme Court justices are the most important judge positions in the country.
Chief Justice Roberts also demonstrates cognitive responsibility: He explains his state of mind, when he disagrees, he justifies his statements to motivate his belief — and this is reflective of his professional approach, which, naturally as a judge, requires explaining his thought process in every case.
Alito's response betrays that he is not a judge. This is someone who does not know how to follow causal inference properly, or how to apply deductive reasoning — which is elementary for a doctor in law. He is someone who rather than starting from our shared set of facts, is drawing from a completely different set, for instance "They really can't be compromised" in reference to "fundamental differences" (Chief Justice Roberts models what an appropriate response would look like, so I won't comment further). Furthermore he says "return our country to a place of godliness" when our country was founded on the right of each and everyone of us to experience "godliness" in their own way, and Catholics were not just a minority but one that was for a time reviled, and here is a Supreme Justice completely clueless about the history of his own country, unlike, you will notice, Chief Justice Roberts.
So from this conversation alone, one would assume: Chief Justice Roberts is a lawyer who became a judge and, Alito is... something else.
The closest one can get to describe Alito is a process mistake: He is someone who Congress mistakenly let in, because based on the ability to reason he demonstrates in this conversation, this is not someone you want as the ultimate umpire of the US legal system.
So back to the beginning: We should be calling this out! We should be describing Alito as out of his league, we should be describing Alito as incompetent in his lawyering skill and question his ability to serve effectively as the supreme authority.
Instead, a title like "Roberts the Institutionalist, Alito the Culture Warrior" makes it sound like this kind of behavior is just one variety of different kinds of Supreme Court Justices. It legitimizes Alito's incompetence by passing it as competent ideology.
Whatever Alito's partisan beliefs are, Chief Justice Roberts (whose beliefs are likely similar) models how you can have partisan beliefs, but still be professional in terms of applying rules like a judge is supposed to do.
Roberts does not have much control over associate justices. He does have control over SCOTUS ethics, which he has essentially punted on, and Alito and Thomas have thumbed their noses at that. He also could have gone and testified to Congress as requested instead of raising B.S. separation of powers arguments to avoid the conversation.
Roberts is worse. He sees what is going on and lets Alito and Thomas sully themselves as naked partisan hacks and simply shrugs his complicit shoulders. He COULD do something. He CHOOSES not to. One has to surmise he approves of the outcome. THAT is the most detrimental and diabolical. Don’t give me a pass and build his cover story for him. He owns this shit show
What is within Roberts' power to do?
Whether Roberts approves or not there is little he can do. He cannot dictate ethics, he cannot remove them from the court, he cannot demand they recuse. Alito and Thomas are what they have always been, partisan hacks itching to impose their will on the people, neither have ever had any use for the law or the constitution except how it can be used and twisted to impose their will. All they needed was enough less than stellar compatriots who could be corrupted, welcome Kavanaugh, Coney and Gorsuch