Justice Alito Replies to Dem Senator's Recusal Demand with 'Devastating' Lesson on How Supreme Court Works
Last month, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts to insist that Justice Samuel Alito recuse himself from an impending court case.
On Friday, Alito responded with a refusal to recuse and a lesson on how the Supreme Court works.
Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief at The Federalist, hailed Alito’s answer to Durbin as “sober yet devastating.”
Justice Samuel Alito responds to Democrat Dick Durbin’s demand for his recusal with a sober yet devastating litany of facts. https://t.co/l07163UQHb
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 8, 2023
In an Aug. 3 letter that rates as preposterous even by his standards, Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, complained about Alito’s recent interview with The Wall Street Journal.
During that interview, Alito chafed at the idea that Congress may impose ethics rules on justices.
“No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period,” Alito said.
Durbin called this “opining” and labeled it “plainly incorrect” — a view that is itself plainly incorrect.
The Illinois senator also noted that Alito sat for an interview with David Rivkin, one of the attorneys in the case in which Durbin demanded Alito’s recusal.
“Mr. Rivkin’s access to Justice Alito and efforts to help Justice Alito air his personal grievances could cast doubt on Justice Alito’s ability to fairly discharge his duties in a case in which Mr. Rivkin represents one of the parties,” Durbin wrote.
In his response Friday, Alito made quick work of Durbin’s complaints.
“There is no valid reason for my recusal in this case,” he wrote.
Indeed, the Democrat stood on flimsy ground when he cited the Wall Street Journal interview. On that front, Alito noted that Durbin “fundamentally misunderstands the circumstances under which Supreme Court Justices must work.”
In the footnotes to his four-page reply, Alito listed six other recent instances in which current SCOTUS justices gave an interview to a news outlet and then heard a case involving said outlet.
Likewise, justices often hear cases involving acquaintances, former colleagues and former law clerks.
“If we recused in such cases, we would regularly have less than a full bench, and the Court’s work would be substantially disrupted and distorted,” Alito wrote.
Then, Alito gave Durbin his final answer: “I decline to recuse.”
Alito’s response to the meddling senator is even more brilliant than it first appears.
Recall that in his insufferable letter Durbin complained about Alito “opining” on a constitutional question. Congress, Alito had rightly observed, has no authority to impose rules of any kind on the Supreme Court.
In his reply, Alito did not address this part of Durbin’s letter. That spoke volumes.
In 1796, the House of Representatives sought information from the executive branch pertaining to the negotiation of a treaty. The Constitution does not entitle the House to such information, so President George Washington declined the request.
One hears echoes of Washington’s defense of the separation of powers in Alito’s silence.
Congressional intrusions into the judicial branch violate the Constitution. Alito’s decision to ignore Durbin’s ridiculous assertion of authority amounts to a powerful statement in its own right.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
