Op-ed officio

Another dynamite column from Sam Alito!

Once again I, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Samuel Alito Jr., must take to the popular press to defend my dignity and the dignity of the Court.

When James Taranto was kind enough to interview me for Journal’s Opinion section in April, so that I might notify the American people that criticism of my Dobbs decision was actually a cleverly-disguised assassination threat, I hoped my extraordinary foray into the world of journalism would so shock the conscience of the nation that a return would be unnecessary.

But shortly thereafter two scurrilous reporters smeared me because of my relationship with a man who happened to be very rich and (in my case) very generous and who had, quite coincidentally, business before the Court. It then became necessary for me to return to the Journal, under my own “byline” as I believe it is called. I thank the Journal’s Opinion editor Paul Gigot for allowing me to do so on very short notice, so that it would appear before that biased story could even be published.

My friends will tell you that I shun the limelight even when it does not involve fishing trips with appellants. But the enemies of this Court have so shamefully damaged its reputation that I felt I must ask Mr. Gigot to make space for me again, and he has been good enough to oblige. (Next winter in the Caymans I hope to show my appreciation, Paul!)

Regrettably the attacks against the integrity of the Court now come not only from vindictive journalists and political activists, but also from among my own colleagues. One of my younger fellow Justices, installed despite her facially evident lack of qualifications (if you know what I mean!), has made a habit of intemperate language in her dissents, for which the Chief has had to admonish her, and this language feeds the public’s mistaken impression of the motivations of the majority.

It was bad enough when this young lady impugned our decision in Students for Fair Admissions v President and Fellows of Harvard College, and joined her fellow lady Justices’ equally groundless dissent in 303 Creative v Elenis. Now she has taken the ludicrous charge in that 303 Creative dissent — that because the plaintiff did not suffer an actual injury as she had claimed, the plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit – and applied it, willy-nilly, to our recent ruling in Galligash v Harrison, N.J. Public Library.

No doubt you have heard her infamous dissent in that case, in which we found 6-3 for the plaintiff, who claimed his children had been turned transgender by exposure to the library’s copies of Harper’s Bazaar. The Justice derided the decision in offensive and indeed provocative language, calling it a “travesty” and a “joke,” making much of the fact that Mr. Galligash does not in fact have any children, and was heard telling reporters afterward “I done it to own the libs.”

That Mr. Galligash’s injury was speculative is not significant because, as the Chief wrote in his decision, the threat to a parent’s control of the sexual destiny of his children that Mr. Galligash described was real and frightening enough to attract hundreds of amicus briefs from civic organizations such as Moms for Liberty, Fagkillers United, et alia, and the Court could not allow this threat to be entertained even as a possibility.

Now I must tell you — I suppose this is what people in the business call a “scoop” — about a decision the Court has made but not yet released. I take this extraordinary step in the same spirit that motivated my previous editorial, in hopes that I may beat the Court’s enemies to the punch and thus reduce the negative effect of their biased response.  

In the case of Shammany v. Oakhead, I can reveal, we have found 6-3 that the plaintiff was improperly convicted of murder despite a vigorous defense based on Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws. You will recall Shammany was convicted on eyewitness testimony that his victim, FedEx driver Fred Smith, had not approached Mr. Shammany’s house but was merely walking down the street when Mr. Shammany, shouting racial slurs, shot at him repeatedly and chased him into a gully where he delivered the coup de grace.

Our finding is based on what we feel is the legally unassailable position that, since the Stand Your Ground defense is based on the assailant’s reasonable fear of imminent death, and since (as the plaintiff’s lawyers, sponsored by the White Citizens’ League, had argued) black crime is rampant in Democrat cities and well-publicized on Fox News, which Mr. Shammany watches eight hours a day, he had every reason to fear Smith and could not be convicted for acting on that fear.

I must warn you that this new Justice’s dissent in this case is full of the kind of reckless accusations of racism that have so strained the unity of our great nation. (I need hardly remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas, who concurs with our decision, is black.) I must also inform you that this young woman addressed me with a vile anti-white slur when I tried to lighten the mood in conference by rubbing her shoulders. It is ironic that so many activists and journalists have called for Justice Thomas and myself to be removed from the Court when this woman committed what is certainly impeachable behavior, as I have reported to the Chief and the Marshal of the Court.

I expect the same activists and journalists who attacked me before will attempt to twist my appearances in these pages as yet another deviation from what they portray as the more decorous and even-handed behavior of a previous Court. This is a remarkable claim to make in favor of a Court that once gave so-called equal rights to homosexuals and permitted women to slaughter the unborn, and against the present Court which is reversing these decisions as fast as it can. In any event it hardly matters what they or, frankly, what most of you think; if you don’t care for what I’m saying, rest assured there are men who have paid a lot more than the price of a subscription who find it very interesting indeed.