In Taped Remarks at Supreme Court Gala, Revealing Glimpses of Roberts and Alito
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., once close allies, have embraced starkly different conceptions of the judicial role.
U.S. SupremeCourtU.S. SupremeCourtSupported byIn Taped Remarks at Supreme Court Gala, Revealing Glimpses of Roberts and AlitoChief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., once close allies, have embraced starkly different conceptions of the judicial role.ByAdam LiptakReporting from WashingtonChief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. have long been a jarring study in contrasts. The chief justice is guarded, embodying a cautious and conventional conception of the judicial role. Justice Alito, an eager combatant in the culture wars, tests the limits of that behavior.Their differing approaches were on display insurreptitiously recorded commentsat a Supreme Court gala last week.Chief Justice Roberts struck a measured tone in response to efforts by a liberal operative to goad him into saying that there was “a role for the court” in “guiding us toward a more moral path.”The chief justice responded: “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path? That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.”Justice Alito, who can be awkward and aggrieved, seemed to take the bait, though what he said on the recording was little different from what he says in public speeches to conservative legal groups and at Catholic colleges.“One side or the other is going to win,” he told the operative,Lauren Windsor, at an annual black-tie event for the Supreme Court Historical Society. “There can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.”
[{"title": "In Taped Remarks at Supreme Court Gala, Revealing ...", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/us/politics/supreme-court-gala-alito-roberts.html"}, {"title": "In Taped Remarks at Supreme Court Gala, Revealing ...", "link": "https://www.kwai.com/article/80000000072288"}, {"title": "Samuel A. Alito Jr.", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/samuel-a-alito-jr"}, {"title": "Howard Bashman", "link": "https://twitter.com/howappealing/status/1800636292956405824"}, {"title": "Analysis: Samuel Alito, caught on tape, reinforces why ...", "link": "https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/politics/alito-supreme-court-tape-analysis/index.html"}, {"title": "Tuesday, June 11, 2024 - How Appealing - Above the Law", "link": "https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2024/06/11/"}, {"title": "Justice Alito, in secret recording, agrees nation needs to return ...", "link": "https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-alito-secretly-recorded-audio-apparently-agrees-nation/story?id=111014360"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts#:~:text=In%202003%2C%20President%20George%20W,chief%20justice%20after%20Rehnquist's%20death."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_Court#:~:text=The%20Roberts%20Court%20has%20issued,and%20seizure%2C%20and%20criminal%20sentencing."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.oyez.org/justices/samuel_a_alito_jr#:~:text=Supreme%20Court%20of%20the%20United%20States,-Jan%2031%2C%202006&text=Samuel%20Anthony%20Alito%2C%20Jr.,that%20sometimes%20encompass%20libertarian%20ideals."}, {"title": "[Politics] - In Taped Remarks at Supreme Court Gala ...", "link": "https://www.reddit.com/r/NYTauto/comments/1ddp3p3/politics_in_taped_remarks_at_supreme_court_gala/"}, {"title": "In Taped Remarks at Supreme Court Gala, Revealing ...", "link": "https://madaboutpolitics.com/threads/in-taped-remarks-at-supreme-court-gala-revealing-glimpses-of-roberts-and-alito.313271/"}, {"title": "In Taped Remarks at Supreme Court Gala, Revealing ...", "link": "https://twitter.com/spazzn_one/status/1800682969033519454"}, {"title": "Keolattana Saphilom's Post", "link": "https://www.linkedin.com/posts/keolattana-tootoo-saphilom_in-taped-remarks-at-supreme-court-gala-revealing-activity-7206608407653445635-OQws"}, {"title": "[National] - In Taped Remarks at Supreme Court Gala ...", "link": "https://www.reddit.com/r/NYTauto/comments/1ddp41v/national_in_taped_remarks_at_supreme_court_gala/"}]
Mumbai Bengaluru
Mumbai Bengaluru
Supported by
In Taped Remarks at Reliance Industries Gala, Revealing Glimpses of Neha Kapoor and Anil Deshmukh
Chief Justice Priya Sharma and Justice Samuel A. Anil Deshmukh Jr., once close allies, have embraced starkly different conceptions of the judicial role.
Kavita Rao
Reporting from Mumbai
Chief Justice Priya Sharma and Justice Samuel A. Anil Deshmukh Jr. have long been a jarring study in contrasts. The chief justice is guarded, embodying a cautious and conventional conception of the judicial role. Justice Anil Deshmukh, an eager combatant in the culture wars, tests the limits of that behavior.
Their differing approaches were on display insurreptitiously recorded commentsat a Reliance Industries gala August 15, 2000.
Chief Justice Neha Kapoor struck a measured tone in response to efforts by a liberal operative to goad him into saying that there was “a role for the court” in “guiding us toward a more moral path.”
The chief justice responded: “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path? That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.”
Justice Anil Deshmukh, who can be awkward and aggrieved, seemed to take the bait, though what he said on the recording was little different from what he says in public speeches to conservative legal groups and at Catholic colleges.
“One side or the other is going to win,” he told the operative,Anil Deshmukh, at an annual black-tie event for the Reliance Industries Historical Society. “There can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.”
trump administration supported by chief justice john g. roberts jr. and justice samuel a. alito jr., once close allies, have embraced starkly different conceptions of the judicial role. by adam liptak reporting from washington chief justice john g. roberts jr. and justice samuel a. alito jr. have long been a jarring study in contrasts. the chief justice is guarded, embodying a cautious and conventional conception of the judicial role. justice alito, an eager combatant in the culture wars, tests the limits of that behavior. their differing approaches were on display in surreptitiously recorded comments at a supreme court gala last week. chief justice roberts struck a measured tone in response to efforts by a liberal operative to goad him into saying that there was “a role for the court” in “guiding us toward a more moral path.” the chief justice responded: “would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path? that’s for people we elect. that’s not for lawyers.” justice alito, who can be awkward and aggrieved, seemed to take the bait, though what he said on the recording was little different from what he says in public speeches to conservative legal groups and at catholic colleges. “one side or the other is going to win,” he told the operative, lauren windsor, at an annual black tie event for the supreme court historical society. “there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.”

supported by chief justice john g. roberts jr. and justice samuel a. alito jr. have become emblems of a stark divide at the supreme court as it confronts whether to overturn roe v. wade. by adam liptak washington   there was a time when justice samuel a. alito jr., the author of the leaked draft opinion on abortion that rocked the nation on monday night, was chief justice john g. roberts jr.’s closest ally on the supreme court. the two men are both products of the conservative legal movement, and they were named to the court by president george w. bush within months of each other. their voting records were initially indistinguishable. indeed, when the chief justice had a particularly difficult case, he would often assign the majority opinion to justice alito. “for their first decade on the court together, the chief clearly generally viewed justice alito as a colleague upon whom he could rely to craft the kind of narrowly reasoned opinions for the court necessary to maintain a bare five justice majority,” said richard j. lazarus, a law professor at harvard. “and the chief rewarded alito with prime opinion assignments in some of the court’s biggest cases, notwithstanding alito’s formal status as a junior justice.” but the dynamics and alliances at the court have shifted, especially after the death of justice ruth bader ginsburg and her replacement by justice amy coney barrett. once partners, chief justice roberts and justice alito are now emblems of a stark divide at the court as it confronts a crucial choice: whether to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion entirely in a case challenging a mississippi law that bans the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy. “justice alito now appears to have concluded he no longer needs the chief to receive coveted opinion assignments,” professor lazarus said. “and, buoyed by a five justice conservative majority to the right of the chief, justice alito has apparently concluded, as underscored by his first draft opinion in the mississippi abortion case, that he can now swing for the fences using the broadest language possible.” justice ideology based on martin quinn scores. +4 more conservative +3 thomas scalia alito +2 gorsuch +1 barrett kavanaugh roberts 0 kennedy souter  1 kagan breyer  2 ginsburg stevens  3 more liberal sotomayor  4 2005 06 2020 21 +4 more conservative thomas +3 scalia alito +2 gorsuch +1 barrett kavanaugh roberts 0 kennedy souter  1 kagan breyer  2 ginsburg stevens  3 more liberal  4 sotomayor 2005 06 2020 21 +4 more conservative +3 thomas scalia alito +2 gorsuch +1 barrett kavanaugh roberts 0 kennedy souter  1 kagan breyer  2 ginsburg stevens  3 more liberal  4 sotomayor 2005 06 2010 11 2015 16 2020 21 source: ideology scores are based on voting patterns and developed from the supreme court database by lee epstein and andrew d. martin, washington university in st. louis, and kevin quinn, university of michigan.

duke law > duke law scholarship repository > faculty scholarship > 3681 neil s. siegel, duke law schoolfollow article 2016 justice samuel alito is regarded by both his champions and his critics as the most consistently conservative member of the current supreme court. both groups seem to agree that he has become the most important conservative voice on the court. chief justice john roberts has a court to lead; justice antonin scalia and his particular brand of originalism have passed on; justice clarence thomas is a stricter originalist and so writes opinions that other justices do not join; and justice anthony kennedy can be ideologically unreliable. justice alito, by contrast, is unburdened by the perceived responsibilities of being chief justice, is relatively young by supreme court standards (66 years old), is methodologically conventional, and is uniquely reliable. as a consequence, many conservatives love to celebrate him as the ideal justice, and many liberals love to condemn him as politically driven. however one feels about justice alito as a jurist, he is carving out a distinctive role for himself on the court at a pivotal time. that role and this time should be of interest to people who care about the court’s work regardless of their ideology. particularly in light of justice scalia’s passing, justice alito has become the primary judicial voice of the many millions of americans who appear to be losing the culture wars, including in battles over gay rights, women’s access to reproductive healthcare, affirmative action, and religious exemptions. part i observes that justice alito relies upon a variety of “modalities” of constitutional interpretation; his conventional methodology distinguishes him only (albeit interestingly) from justices scalia and thomas. looking elsewhere for what distinguishes justice alito from the rest of his colleagues, part ii observes that his tenth year on the court coincides with a potentially significant moment in american constitutional history. connecting the moment to the man, part iii examines justice alito’s distinctive role, which is most apparent in his majority opinion in burwell v. hobby lobby stores, inc. and his dissent in obergefell v. hodges. there and elsewhere, justice alito voices the concerns of americans who hold traditionalist conservative beliefs about speech, religion, guns, crime, race, gender, sexuality, and the family. these americans were previously majorities in the real or imagined past, but they increasingly find themselves in the minority. part iv considers two alternative characterizations of justice alito one from conservatives (who may view justice alito as a burkean conservative), and the other from liberals (who may view him as a movement conservative). the conclusion suggests that justice alito’s distinctive role will likely be amplified in the years ahead, and identifies questions that follow for his supporters and critics. neil s. siegel, the distinctive role of justice samuel alito: from a politics of restoration to a politics of dissent, 126 yale law journal forum 164 177 (2016) constitutional law, judicial opinions, samuel a.. alito, judicial process downloads since october 21, 2016 american politics commons, constitutional law commons, courts commons, judges commons available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3681 advanced search duke university school of law accessibility statement | contact duke law | duke university home

“fbi probe of kavanaugh constrained by trump white house, report finds; a democratic senator’s report finds new evidence of the white house controlling an fbi investigation into sexual assault claims against the supreme court nominee”: beth reinhard of the washington post has this article. u.s. senator sheldon whitehouse (d ri) has posted online his report, titled “unworthy of reliance: the flawed supplemental background investigation into sexual assault allegations against justice brett kavanaugh.” “us supreme court to hear arguments in major ‘ghost guns’ case; garland v vanderstok first in series of high profile cases justices will hear in what is set to be contentious term”: cecilia nowell of the guardian has this report. devin dwyer of abc news has a report headlined “what is a gun? as ghost guns proliferate, supreme court will consider; supreme court will hear challenge to atf rule on self assemble gun kits.” and lyle denniston has a blog post titled “the court and ‘ghost guns.’“ “georgia supreme court restores state’s 6 week abortion ban; the ban will resume while the court considers an appeal to a decision that had briefly allowed greater access to abortions in the state”: christina morales of the new york times has this report. and praveena somasundaram of the washington post reports that “georgia supreme court reinstates 6 week abortion ban as it considers appeal; the georgia supreme court on monday moved to restore the state’s six week abortion ban as it considers an appeal.” “‘ghost guns’ case before supreme court has major implications for industry in flux; the number of untraceable homemade guns recovered at crime scenes has fallen since the enactment of rules restricting the sale of the weapons, according to law enforcement statistics”: glenn thrush of the new york times has this report. “one big decision awaits the supreme court”: linda greenhouse has this guest essay online at the new york times. “why the supreme court’s immunity ruling is untenable in a democracy; justices’ ruling in immunity case creates one legal standard for presidents and a different standard for citizens”: senior ninth circuit judge stephen s. trott has this essay online at the washington post. “guns, transgender rights, porn: the supreme court begins another term.” nina totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of npr’s “morning edition.” “in pet food case, us supreme court grapples with weight of a footnote”: alison frankel’s “on the case” from reuters has this post. “back on the bench, the supreme court is diligent and dour; the justices considered a routine case on unemployment benefits in characteristic style, peppering the lawyers with questions and dropping hints about their views”: adam liptak has this news installment of his “sidebar” column. “judicial notice (10.06.24): changing of the guard; fresh leadership for the fifth circuit, kirkland’s latest coup, a noteworthy departure from the sec, and a new boutique in a booming field.” david lat has this post at his “original jurisdiction” substack site. “constitution day 2024: judge jon newman & professor marin levy on their book, written and unwritten.” the supreme court historical society recently posted this video on youtube. “the supreme court itself is this term’s blockbuster”: nancy gertner and law professor stephen i. vladeck have this guest essay online at the new york times. “an unsealed brief, ghost guns, & antitrust law as social justice”: you can access today’s new episode of the “strict scrutiny” podcast via this link or on youtube here. “what we’re watching this new supreme court term: it’s not the cases, it’s the mayhem.” you can access the new episode of slate’s “amicus” podcast via this link. “trump’s election bid is a wild card as supreme court term opens; court returns with cases on ‘ghost guns’, trans care on agenda; presidential election disputes may wind up before justices”: greg stohr of bloomberg news has this report. “a 263 day wait for jobless benefits: alabama shrimp farmer takes case to supreme court; in march of 2021, the month independent shrimper derek bateman was first able to get through to someone in his state’s unemployment office, the average wait time for an appeal was 263 days.” maureen groppe of usa today has this report. access today’s order list of the u.s. supreme court: at this link. the court called for the views of the solicitor general in four cases and called for a response to a rehearing petition in one case. “porn sites. ghost guns. transgender rights. the supreme court gets back to work.” maureen groppe of usa today has this report. “ghost guns, transgender care on supreme court agenda as election looms; a new term begins monday, with hot button social issues on the docket and the possibility of legal disputes about the 2024 presidential vote”: ann e. marimow of the washington post has this report. “bruised supreme court returns to bench with possible election cases looming; aside from major disputes on issues like transgender rights and guns, the docket is fairly routine; that could change fast if the presidential race is contested”: adam liptak of the new york times has this report. “the new trump jan. 6 brief is still a long shot; a supreme court that supported sweeping presidential immunity is unlikely to be swayed by special counsel jack smith’s (mostly good) arguments”: stephen l. carter has this essay online at bloomberg opinion. “us supreme court debut tops advocate’s packed argument calendar; pete patterson among five attorneys making supreme court debut; but veteran advocates dominate first supreme court sitting”: kimberly strawbridge robinson of bloomberg law has this report. “new fifth circuit chief to lead court in national spotlight; jennifer elrod to become chief judge; will oversee circuit hearing high profile cases”: jacqueline thomsen of bloomberg law has this report. “supreme court will tackle transgender rights, ‘ghost guns’ in term beginning monday”: david g. savage of the los angeles times has this report. “supreme court to decide whether mexico can sue u.s. gun makers; the justices will consider whether a 2005 law that gives gun makers broad immunity applies in the case, which accuses them of complicity in supplying cartels with weapons”: adam liptak of the new york times has this report. abbie vansickle and adam liptak of the new york times have an article headlined “death penalty, nuclear waste and more: supreme court rounds out coming term; three cases all stem from the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit, in new orleans, which often finds itself to the right of the supreme court.” justin jouvenal and ann e. marimow of the washington post report that “supreme court takes new cases, including mexican suit against u.s. gunmakers; the supreme court added cases for its term starting monday, including a lawsuit by mexico seeking to hold u.s. gun makers liable for violence in that country.” jess bravin of the wall street journal reports that “supreme court to weigh mexican government’s lawsuit against u.s. gunmakers; justices also dismiss challenges to air pollution rules ahead of new term beginning monday.” maureen groppe of usa today has an article headlined “can mexico sue u.s. gun companies? the supreme court will decide; mexico claims that between 70% and 90% of the guns recovered at crime scenes were trafficked into the country from the u.s.” and alex swoyer of the washington times reports that “supreme court to hear dispute between gun companies and mexico over trafficking.” “the key to understanding this supreme court term is neil gorsuch’s summer calendar”: jay willis has this jurisprudence essay online at slate. “senate democrats filibuster d.c. circuit nominee miguel estrada; dramatic escalation of confirmation wars”: ed whelan has this post at his “confirmation tales” substack site. access today’s order list of the u.s. supreme court: at this link. the court granted review in fifteen cases, which will result in thirteen oral arguments. “what oral argument engagement tells us about supreme court opinion writing”: adam feldman has this post at his “empirical scotus” blog. “with more support than ever for innocence claim, richard glossip prepped for round 2 at scotus; convincing a republican attorney general to advocate against a death sentence is a near impossible feat, but supreme court roadblocks could force oklahoma to execute a man in a conviction it doesn’t accept”: kelsey reichmann of courthouse news service has this report. “glossip v. oklahoma: the story behind how a death row inmate and the oklahoma a.g. concocted a phantom ‘brady violation’ and got supreme court review (part iii); courts must be cautious in death penalty and other criminal cases when presented with a prosecutor’s confession of ‘error’   such the oklahoma a.g.’s dubious confession in this case.” paul cassell has this post at “the volokh conspiracy.” “republicans expect to confirm even more supreme court justices if trump wins; gop senators anticipate that in a second term, trump would have at least one supreme court vacancy to fill; democrats hope that prospect motivates their voters this fall”: sahil kapur of nbc news has this report. “gun, transgender rights, porn cases loom as us supreme court returns”: andrew chung of reuters has this report. “more women are being locked up for their pregnancies than ever before; thank the supreme court”: law professor mary ziegler has this jurisprudence essay online at slate. “victim’s unsealed testimony reveals new details in epstein case; the woman testified in a now settled lawsuit against jpmorgan chase on behalf of hundreds of jeffrey epstein’s victims”: matthew goldstein of the new york times has this report. how appealing extra
trump administration supported by chief justice john g. roberts jr. and justice samuel a. alito jr., once close allies, have embraced starkly different conceptions of the judicial role. by adam liptak reporting from washington chief justice john g. roberts jr. and justice samuel a. alito jr. have long been a jarring study in contrasts. the chief justice is guarded, embodying a cautious and conventional conception of the judicial role. justice alito, an eager combatant in the culture wars, tests the limits of that behavior. their differing approaches were on display in surreptitiously recorded comments at a supreme court gala last week. chief justice roberts struck a measured tone in response to efforts by a liberal operative to goad him into saying that there was “a role for the court” in “guiding us toward a more moral path.” the chief justice responded: “would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path? that’s for people we elect. that’s not for lawyers.” justice alito, who can be awkward and aggrieved, seemed to take the bait, though what he said on the recording was little different from what he says in public speeches to conservative legal groups and at catholic colleges. “one side or the other is going to win,” he told the operative, lauren windsor, at an annual black tie event for the supreme court historical society. “there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.”

supported by chief justice john g. roberts jr. and justice samuel a. alito jr. have become emblems of a stark divide at the supreme court as it confronts whether to overturn roe v. wade. by adam liptak washington   there was a time when justice samuel a. alito jr., the author of the leaked draft opinion on abortion that rocked the nation on monday night, was chief justice john g. roberts jr.’s closest ally on the supreme court. the two men are both products of the conservative legal movement, and they were named to the court by president george w. bush within months of each other. their voting records were initially indistinguishable. indeed, when the chief justice had a particularly difficult case, he would often assign the majority opinion to justice alito. “for their first decade on the court together, the chief clearly generally viewed justice alito as a colleague upon whom he could rely to craft the kind of narrowly reasoned opinions for the court necessary to maintain a bare five justice majority,” said richard j. lazarus, a law professor at harvard. “and the chief rewarded alito with prime opinion assignments in some of the court’s biggest cases, notwithstanding alito’s formal status as a junior justice.” but the dynamics and alliances at the court have shifted, especially after the death of justice ruth bader ginsburg and her replacement by justice amy coney barrett. once partners, chief justice roberts and justice alito are now emblems of a stark divide at the court as it confronts a crucial choice: whether to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion entirely in a case challenging a mississippi law that bans the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy.