Alito is delivering the keynote speech at this year’s Federalist Society convention. He’s using the occasion to defend the group, claiming its members face “harassment and retaliation for saying anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy.”
Alito attacks the Judicial Conference for attempting to forbid federal judges from being members of the Federalist Society, and praises the conservative judges who successfully fought the ban.
UHHH, Alito seems to be criticizing governors for issuing “sweeping restrictions” in response to COVID-19. Also criticizes progressives and New Dealers for putting too much faith in scientists and experts.
Alito says this rule by executive fiat is “where the law has been going for some time—in the direction of government by executive officials who are thought to implement policies by scientific expertise.” Suggests this is a dangerous trend.
Whoa, Alito is VERY critical of COVID restrictions and “rule by experts.”

Then he says: “in certain corners, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.”

He condemns “the protracted campaign against the Little Sisters of the Poor.” Calls it an “unrelenting attack.”
Alito now condemns Washington State for requiring pharmacies to carry Plan B, “which destroys an embryo after fertilization.”

He also criticizes the Colorado civil rights commissioner in Masterpiece Cakeshop who said “freedom of religion” can be used for discrimination.
Alito criticizes Harvard Law Prof. Mark Tushnet for this notorious blog post, and quotes from it extensively. Says “it’s not dark yet but it’s getting there,” quoting Bob Dylan.
balkin.blogspot.com/2016/05/abando…
Now Alito is criticizing the Nevada governor for giving casinos a higher COVID attendance cap than churches.

He moves onto criticizing the federal judge who suspended the rule that required people to pick up abortion pills in person.
Yikes. Alito condemns Obergefell, the same-sex marriage decision, and says it has led to censorship of people who believe marriage is “a union of one man and one woman.” Says freedom of speech is “falling out of favor in some circles.”
Alito brings up a brief filed with the Supreme Court by five Democratic senators in a gun case warning that the court is becoming too political. He calls the brief “an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law.” whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
Without saying the words “court-packing,” Alito warns about Democratic efforts to “bully” the court with threats to “restructure” it. Tells a story about a foreign judge threatened with death if he didn’t rule for the government.
Alito is done.

That was easily the most political speech I’ve ever seen delivered by a Supreme Court justice. Wow. Same-sex marriage, guns, abortion, contraception, persecution of the Federalist Society ... he really squeezed it all in there. Yikes.
Probably the strangest aspect of Alito’s speech, other than his attack on COVID restrictions, was his claim that people who oppose same-sex marriage get called “bigots” and this somehow threatens freedom of speech. But how?! Public criticism is not censorship! He knows this!
Here is Justice Alito complaining that the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision has crushed the free speech of anti-LGBTQ advocates.
Here’s Justice Alito complaining about this amicus brief filed by @SenWhitehouse, @SenBlumenthal, @maziehirono, @SenatorDurbin, and @SenGillibrand, and warning of Democrats’ threats to “restructure” the Supreme Court.
whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
And here is Justice Alito defending Masterpiece Cakeshop’s Jacks Phillips for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple. Alito notes that the couple was offered a free cake elsewhere, then supported by “celebrity chefs.”
As @danepps pointed out, Alito inadvertently made a very strong argument for court reform this evening. slate.com/news-and-polit… @Slate

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mjs_DC

10 Nov
Brett Kavanaugh just said “I tend to agree” that the ACA’s (zeroed out) individual mandate can be severed from the rest of the law. Unless he’s bluffing—which is possible!—that probably means the ACA is saved.
My guess at this stage: The six conservative justices find the individual mandate unconstitutional. (Which will be ridiculous, but whatever.)

Then a majority (maybe 5–4?) will just sever the individual mandate from the rest of the ACA, which will have no impact on anyone.
Here’s the full Kavanaugh quote. If he really means it, that’s the ballgame.
Read 7 tweets
10 Nov
The Supreme Court will hear arguments at 10 a.m. in a case seeking to eradicate the Affordable Care Act. The Trump administration, along with 18 Republican attorneys general, have asked the court to abolish the entire law, stripping health insurance from about 23 million people.
The Republican coalition challenging the ACA claim that Congress secretly sabotaged the law by zeroing out the penalty for those who lack health insurance in 2017.

It is a fatuous, bad-faith argument, and the lawyers who took it to SCOTUS should be ashamed of themselves.
The theory that Congress somehow destroyed the entire ACA when it *removed the penalty for uninsured people* is, in legal terms, unadulterated horse shit. But a notoriously partisan federal judge endorsed it, and the 5th Circuit refused to say he was wrong. That’s why we’re here.
Read 4 tweets
10 Nov
Republicans are helping Trump create a harrowing atmosphere of very real, deep fear that he might stage a coup. I feel it, too. But there is no substance behind his theatrics. There are no remotely plausible scenarios in which he will prevail. He will leave office on Jan. 20.
I am intensely pessimistic about everything related to Trump. But none of his lawsuits stand a chance of overturning the outcome of this election. Yes, even with THIS Supreme Court. Trump’s delegitimization of the election may have horrific consequences. But he will leave office.
And to be clear, I absolutely believe there were scenarios in which Trump could steal the election. I wrote about them! But we are not in one. We aren’t even close. The recent actions of Trump and the GOP are truly odious—banana republic stuff. But they won’t work. He will leave.
Read 4 tweets
9 Nov
They can't actually point to anything the Georgia secretary of state did wrong. They're just mad Biden won and don't want to face a free and fair election in January.
I suspect Loeffler and Perdue are trying to pressure Georgia's Republican secretary of state into imposing new voting restrictions for the January runoffs. It's the usual playbook: When GOP candidates can't win fairly, they change the rules to suppress more votes.
I really hope Loeffler and Perdue don't succeed in taking out Raffensperger (Georgia's Republican secretary of state). That would send a clear message to other red state election administrators that if they don't suppress enough Democratic votes, they will lose their jobs.
Read 4 tweets
9 Nov
After the election, Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule promoted disinformation and conspiracy theories claiming that Democrats stole the election through ballot fraud. I asked @acusgov—a federal agency to which Trump appointed Vermeule—for comment. Here is ACUS' response.
"Please also note that Mr. Vermeule is not an employee of ACUS. He was appointed to ACUS by President Trump and he receives no financial compensation from ACUS."
Here is a sampling of the wildly irresponsible disinformation promoted by Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule in the days following the election.
Read 4 tweets
9 Nov
Good morning! The Supreme Court will release orders this morning at 9:30—likely to be the first set of orders in which Amy Coney Barrett participated.
The Supreme Court will also hear arguments in a case that will decide whether federal/state task forces can violate your constitutional rights with impunity. @IJ, which represents the victim, produced a good video on the topic: ij.org/case/brownback…
(I strenuously disagree with about half the work that @IJ does, but the other half is important and commendable, and this is one of their genuinely noble cases.)
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!