The podcast delves into the controversial actions of Justice Samuel Alito, focusing on his flag-flying wife and his opinions blending jurisprudence with support for insurrection and christian nationalism. The episode explores Alito's tendencies to bend facts in his opinions without correction, highlighting the implications on legal doctrine.
05:27
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Justice Alito cited incorrect data on racial gerrymandering, undermining the legitimacy of legal decisions.
Alito's trend of disregarding lower courts' judgments raises concerns about the accuracy of his legal interpretations.
Deep dives
Justice Alito's Misinterpretation of Data in the Alexander Case
In a recent case about racial gerrymandering in South Carolina, Justice Alito cited incorrect data from the Brennan Center to support his opinion. Alito wrongly concluded that racial data was not useful in drawing maps, leading to flawed assumptions about the case's legitimacy. The Brennan Center clarified that Alito misunderstood their work, emphasizing that racial data was crucial for understanding the demographics accurately in the context of gerrymandering.
Alito's Pattern of Substituting His Own Fact Finding in Legal Cases
Another concerning trend observed in Justice Alito's recent opinions is his tendency to substitute his own fact-finding in legal cases, disregarding established judgments by lower courts. This behavior was exemplified in a case involving a condemned individual where Alito reversed a decision based on ineffective assistance of counsel found by the Ninth Circuit. Alito's actions raise questions about the accuracy and integrity of his legal interpretations within the Supreme Court.
1.
Analysis of Errors in Justice Alito's Opinion Writing
Business as usual at the Supreme Court is the institutional response to the unusual business of Justice Samuel Alito’s letter writing about his flag-flying wife. In this bonus episode for Slate Plus members, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern knit together the yarns of jurisprudence with injudicious symbolic support for insurrection and christian nationalism - so you don’t get lost in this tangle. As the justices hand down cases and turn down congressional requests for recusal, Dahlia and Mark trace the link between bending the facts and discarding the record to suit Justice Alito’s narrative in his opinions, in his non application of the ethics code, and in his lack of humility in the flag fiasco.
This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.