Samuel Alito – Official Government Headshot
My heart bleeds for Samuel Alito, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He must be a very unhappy man.
You see, everybody has been picking on him lately, and he has not received the support he feels he is due, either from his fellow justices or from the public at large. He has been criticized for flying an American flag upside down on one of his houses—a symbol of his adherence to the preposterous (and potentially treasonous) view that Joe Biden did not fairly win the presidential election of 2020. Later, it was discovered that he flew an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at his residence—this one symbolizing (even more treasonously) support for Christian nationalism, or the forcible enshrinement of Christianity upon the nation. Alito immediately claimed that it was all his wife’s doing, then went on to say that the latter flag was just a historical artifact he happened to like. It would seem that gaslighting could not be employed more brazenly by a figure with immense legal authority.
Amusingly, this “blame the wife” excuse might actually suggest the triumph of feminism. After so many centuries in which (thanks to the heavy hand of Christianity) wives were regarded as the property of their husbands, we now see that these uppity women have some initiative of their own, leaving their poor husbands to lament their own weakness.
Then there was the awkward incident in June when filmmaker Lauren Windsor, posing as a conservative Catholic, approached both Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito at a private function, stating that “people in this country who believe in God have got to keep on fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.” Roberts demurred, but Alito was in emphatic agreement. Outrage immediately ensued on all sides, some directed at Windsor herself. The idea of this woman playing “gotcha” with two august members of the Supreme Court! (Those making this claim appear indifferent to the numerous instances where conservative activists have played the same trick on their perceived opponents.)
But in this case, at least one commentator came to the beleaguered justice’s defense. Marc O. DeGirolami, a law professor at the Catholic University of America (note well his affiliation), in an utterly disingenuous op-ed piece in the New York Times, essentially said, “Nothing to see here, folks. Just move along.” What DeGirolami actually said was, “What did he say that was wrong?” After all, “many people in this country do believe in God and godliness. … They think religion contributes to a kinder and more moral society. And many of these people—including Justice Alito, to judge from his brief assent on the recording—also think that greater godliness might help the nation today.” Let it pass that, whether in the United States or anywhere else in the world, religion does not seem to have had this beneficent effect. DeGirolami adds, “Of course, those who do not believe in God may argue instead that godlessness or secularism is the surest path to becoming a better nation.” How charitable of him!
But what this learned scholar completely (and deliberately) fails to point out is that it is not the mere expression of this view on Alito’s part that is the problem. Aside from the obvious point that it blatantly contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (which guarantees freedom of—and freedom from—religion for all residents of the United States), Alito has repeatedly placed his hand on the scale to ensure that his version of godliness makes a comeback against the horrible secularists he clearly despises. Most notorious is his majority opinion in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022—a decision that openly endorsed a Christian (and, specifically, Catholic and/or extreme Protestant) doctrine upon the populace. It must be dismaying to Alito that this decision (to no one’s surprise but his, apparently) has resulted in more abortions occurring than before and a succession of electoral victories by pro-choice advocates in state after state.
Alito has long expressed resentment that his troglodyte views on contemporary society have been branded as prejudice or intolerance. He has publicly whined—from the bench of the Supreme Court, no less—that those who opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage “will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.” I am not sure how the government will do that, but that is a small point. Alito’s wife, incidentally, shares his sentiments, as she has expressed outrage about someone flying a rainbow flag (symbolizing support for the LGBTQ community) near her house. I feel her pain: I suppose I should get all hot and bothered about the existence of so many churches in my neighborhood (despite the fact that I live in a state with one of the lowest levels of church attendance in the nation), but in fact I don’t. Christianity is dying anyway, and it probably doesn’t need much of a push from me to plunge it over the cliff.
Alito may well have been right when he told that filmmaker that “one side or the other is going to win,” and he clearly relishes the fight. But what he fails to recognize is that this contest is not merely a contest of two equal but contending perspectives. Take the issue of abortion. In pro-choice states, the government does not compel anyone to have an abortion, whereas in anti-abortion states, everyone is prevented from having an abortion. That, my friends, is fascism, just as much as forcing people to attend a church.
What to do about all this? Well, it’s pretty clear that Alito doesn’t plan to go anywhere: he’ll leave the Supreme Court feet first. The best we can hope for is that, in cases involving religion, the rest of the justices aren’t quite as enraged and fanatical as he. That may be a forlorn hope.
My heart bleeds for Samuel Alito, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He must be a very unhappy man. You see, everybody has been picking on him lately, and he has not received the support he feels he is due, either from his fellow justices or from the public at large. He has been …