Recently, Justice Samuel Alito gave a speech in Rome where he ridiculed foreign critics of the Dobbs decision and while critics deserved to be called out for their uninformed hot takes, CNN legal analyst and Supreme Court biographer Joan Biskupic joined CNN Newsroom on Friday to label the marks as having a “tone of aggrievement” and “nasty.”
After playing a clip of Alito skewering outgoing British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Prince Harry, guest host Fredericka Whitfield asked, “So, what do you make of Justice Alito's remarks and, you know, some sarcasm there in his tone?”
Biskupic labeled the remarks “classic Samuel Alito” and lamented that “even when he is winning he can't help but take some shots at his critics. You know, he—he-- has this tone of aggrievement in so many instances, again, even though he is prevailing.”
Alluding to the remarks directed at Harry, Biskupic continued, “He was able to hold on to five votes in the Dobbs case, that’s the name of the case he said he could not name to roll back a half century of abortion rights in America.”
Maybe if foreigners completely unaware of American constitutional law didn’t compare Dobbs to Putin’s war of imperial aggression, Alito wouldn’t have to correct record. Additionally, if the media would stop implying he rules simply based on his Catholicism, he wouldn’t see an attack on religious Americans.
But, Biskupic did just that, claiming:
He also has prevailed in other ways on religious liberties where he, the overall subject of the speech in Rome sponsored by the University of Notre Dame, had to do with the increasing secularism in America but he has been winning with religious conservatism in so many different ways. Obviously on abortion rights, but also this session as you know, Fredricka, where the justices have required more public funding for religious schools and more religion in public places. So even though he at times has had the sense of persecution, he is definitely driving this Court in a religiously conservative way.
Another reason why Alito made be aggrieved is because reporters like Biskupic keep misrepresenting what he believes. In the case Biskupic was alluding to, the Court simply said Maine could not discriminate against parents who want to send their kids religious schools using the state’s voucher program, it did not mandate funding them.
Shifting gears, a little bit, Whitfeld asked about Justices Sotomayor and Barrett doing a joint appearance together to show that, despite disagreements, justices are still civil towards each other.
Biskupic responded by declaring “it’s interesting that it's paired with Justice Alito's comments because Justice Alito just seemed to-- can't help but sort of strike a nasty tone at times.”
Again going to bat for Alito’s opposition, she further added, “But it was Justice Sotomayor who from the bench made the comment on questioning whether the justices themselves will survive this stench of the political tone that comes with decisions and actions such as what we have in abortion.”
Maybe that’s why Alito is so frustrated, because it is the critics of Dobbs who think they are above the democratic process who are being the political activists.
This segment was sponsored by Select Quote
Here is a transcript for the July 29 show:
CNN Newsroom with Ana Cabrera
7/28/2022
1:32 PM ET
FREDERICKA WHITFIELD: Alright, let's bring in CNN legal analyst and Supreme Court biographer, Joan Biskupic. Joan, good to see you. So, what do you make of Justice Alito's remarks and, you know, some sarcasm there in his tone?
JOAN BISKUPIC: Good afternoon, Fredericka. That is exactly it. This is classic Samuel Alito. You know, even when he is winning he can't help but take some shots at his critics. You know, he—he-- has this tone of aggrievement in so many instances, again, even though he is prevailing. He was able to hold on to five votes in the Dobbs case, that’s the name of the case he said he could not name to roll back a half century of abortion rights in America.
But then he also has prevailed in other ways on religious liberties where he, the overall subject of the speech in Rome sponsored by the University of Notre Dame, had to do with the increasing secularism in America but he has been winning with religious conservatism in so many different ways.
Obviously on abortion rights, but also this session as you know, Fredricka, where the justices have required more public funding for religious schools and more religion in public places. So even though he at times has had the sense of persecution, he is definitely driving this Court in a religiously conservative way.
WHITFIELD: And this has been a pretty volatile year for the U.S. Supreme Court. Two justices on opposing sides are now calling for civility, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barret appearing together for the first time for a public talk and—and-- Barrett said justices can disagree, quote, “without being nasty.” So what does this reveal about these justices?
BISKUPIC: Well, first of all, it’s interesting that it's paired with Justice Alito's comments because Justice Alito just seemed to-- can't help but sort of strike a nasty tone at times. Justice Barrett really seems to go to lengths not to be overly critical, not to take any shots.
But it was Justice Sotomayor who from the bench made the comment on questioning whether the justices themselves will survive this stench of the political tone that comes with decisions and actions such as what we have in abortion.
But she and Justice Barrett made a point in their joint appearance that despite what they say from the bench or despite what they say in opinions that they try to get along and a point that they do make is that they are the only justices, the only ones who know what they're going through.
So despite their differences, and I have to say on the law, Justices Sotomayor and Barrett disagree lots of times on the law but that they try to look for the positive in each other as human beings and that's what they were demonstrating in that joint appearance, Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: All right. Fascinating. Joan Biskupic, thanks so much.
