SCOTUS Justice Alito attempts pre-buttal WSJ Op-Ed of ProPublica corruption story

[Vermillion]

Justice Samuel Alito took to the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal to rebut ProPublica’s deep dive into alleged ethics violations over a fishing trip to Alaska with a Republican billionaire who later had cases before the Supreme Court.

 

It’s astonishing that a Supreme Court justice is writing an opinion column in response to an ethics allegation, especially given the scrutiny surrounding the highest court over recent and similar allegations involving Justice Clarence Thomas.

 

On late Tuesday night, ProPublica published an extensive report titled  “Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court.” The article summary reads “In the years after the undisclosed trip to Alaska, Republican megadonor Paul Singer’s hedge fund has repeatedly had business before the Supreme Court. Alito has never recused himself.” It opens:

In early July 2008, Samuel Alito stood on a riverbank in a remote corner of Alaska. The Supreme Court justice was on vacation at a luxury fishing lodge that charged more than $1,000 a day, and after catching a king salmon nearly the size of his leg, Alito posed for a picture. To his left, a man stood beaming: Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in high-stakes business disputes.

 

Singer was more than a fellow angler. He flew Alito to Alaska on a private jet. If the justice chartered the plane himself, the cost could have exceeded $100,000 one way.

 

In the years that followed, Singer’s hedge fund came before the court at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media. In 2014, the court agreed to resolve a key issue in a decade-long battle between Singer’s hedge fund and the nation of Argentina. Alito did not recuse himself from the case and voted with the 7-1 majority in Singer’s favor. The hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion.

What follows is a stunning bit of reporting that includes details of the trip and even images of Justice Antonin Scalia making dockside martinis with glacier ice and Gray Goose vodka, as one does on fishing trips near glaciers, apparently. Read the full story here.

 

If a ProPublica report on a Supreme Court Justice’s cozy relationship with a billionaire Republican megadonor feels like deja vu, it’s because, in April, they wrote a very similar story about fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.  That particular ProPublica report sparked a media uproar with a bombshell report detailing how Thomas accepted luxurious perks from a Republican megadonor, perks Thomas never disclosed as required by law.

 

Now cut to this new report about Alito and his Alaskan fishing excursion, which the Supreme Court Justice tried to get ahead of by rebutting the charges not to the reporter but in an essay published as an op-ed in the WSJ. Or read how Politico described the curious dynamic:

But what’s especially notable about this new SCOTUS bombshell is what preceded it: An attempt by Alito himself to front-run ProPublica’s reporting and spin the story in his favor.

The reporters requested comment on the June 2008 trip from Alito on Friday, and yesterday, according to their story, “the Supreme Court’s head spokeswoman told ProPublica that Alito would not be commenting.”

 

Hours later, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed from Alito titled “ProPublica Misleads Its Readers,” accusing the organization of leveling “false charges” about the nature of the trip and justices’ obligations to disclose gifts and recuse themselves from potential conflicts of interest.

That’s right. Instead of addressing the allegations to the reporters, Justice Alito attacked ProPublica straight from the “best defense is a good offense” playbook that may seem like a good idea at first but rarely pans out as intended. Alito opens with:

ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclosure Report. Neither charge is valid.

He then lays out reasons why he did not recuse himself from a case involving the hedge fund billionaire with whom he has gone on a fishing expedition and why he chose not to disclose the financial side of the trip, which included a seat on a private plane and a stay at what he calls a “rustic” lodge.

 

Alito argues that since an empty seat was available on the plane, his inclusion on the trip added no additional cost. Of course, this is true, but the monetary specifics appear less questionable than a week-long fishing trip with a guy who later had cases before the court.

 

Like the fish he is featured holding in the image above, the whole thing kind of stinks. Mediaite

[Anvarie]

They need to lock him and Thomas up 

[RunUpDoneUp]

Isn't it interesting how every "holy" institution ALWAYS seems to have corrupt people? I wonder what's the cause of this?

[Chemist]

The corruption. Yikes

[Vermillion]

 

[Vermillion]

 

[Vermillion]