Snapshot: Alito Refuses to Recuse Himself, Of Course

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito responds to Congressional Democrats

Sam knows best. (Photo by Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)

Once again, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito blames his wife. Once again, he refuses to take responsibility for the anti-government flags that flew over his family’s Virginia house and New Jersey vacation home. This is in response to the growing pressure to recuse himself from upcoming cases involving the Jan. 6 insurrection, including the presidential immunity ruling.

“My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not,” Alito flippantly wrote today in his letter to Democratic members of Congress. “She was solely responsible for having flagpoles put up at our residence and our vacation home and has flown a wide variety of flags over the years.”

Alito’s written response underscores his arrogant refusal to acknowledge that an upside-down American flag and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag—both anti-government, pro-insurrection expressions—communicate extreme partisanship. His letter further displays his refusal to take seriously an ethical code of conduct and the duty of a justice to maintain impartiality in service to justice.

Alito justified the flag-raising by hiding behind the prerogatives of marriage and his wife Martha-Ann’s free speech rights. He called her an “independently minded private citizen,” thumbing his nose at his public duty.

“My wife and I own our Virginia home jointly,” he wrote. “She therefore has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit, and there were no additional steps that I could have taken to have the flag taken down more promptly.”

And what of the recently adopted code of conduct for justices as the reason why he should recuse himself? One provision notes that “a justice is presumed impartial and has an obligation to sit unless disqualified.” Another says that “a justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.”

Well, Alito is sure he knows best what an “unbiased and reasonable person” would conclude about his ability to “fairly” do his job. And so, he wrote, “I therefore have an obligation to sit.”

What an appalling example of what I called last week “the scourge of arrogance.”

Do we need any better reminder of the dangers of this Supreme Court expanding its power if the Republicans take back the Senate and Donald Trump returns to the White House? Do we need a better example of why Joe Biden needs to expand the court?

---

Note: This short “Snapshot” is the first of an occasional series of short essays commenting on breaking news. Let me know what you think.

If you’re not already, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for $50 a year or just $5 a month. This helps sustain and expand the work of America, America, keep nearly all the content free for everyone and give you full access to the comments sections.