of recent outraged articles On the opinion page of The Wall Street Journal, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. fiercely defended the right to free luxury vacations, opening a new window into his disquieting worldview to America. provided. This bizarre episode was just the latest example of Alito’s insistence on enjoying the respect of his country, even if he did not act politely.as the official status of the court plummetAlito seems resentful of the public’s audacity to criticize him.

In an op-ed published Tuesday, Alito attempted to “preface” an issue. Story of the Pro-Publica at the time The article details a 2008 luxury fishing trip he took as a guest of a hedge fund billionaire who is filing a series of lawsuits in court. Billionaire Paul Singer flew the judges on a private jet to Alaska and was entertained by another conservative big donor in a fishing shack.

Leonard Leo, former leader of the Federalist Society and a major force in the conservative legal movement, said judges had arranged junkets to allow money-making interests and corporate exchanges in court. It is And as the article pointed out, Alito never backed down from lawsuits involving the singer, at one point joining the majority in favor of the billionaire cause.

In accordance with standard journalism practice, ProPublica submitted questions to the judge before the article was published. But instead of answering them, Alito chose to complain about the story in an ideologically friendly way, both bitterly and proactively.

This is an extreme reaction, even for civil servants trying to receive negative but accurate coverage. Alito doesn’t dispute that he boarded a private jet and enjoyed a free and luxurious fishing vacation in Alaska. But he said the jet seats would have been wasted if he had been on a commercial flight, the lodge was more “rustic” than luxurious, and the wine served couldn’t have cost $1,000 a bottle. argues that A member of Alito’s group reportedly boasted.

But Alito’s response is entirely in line with the worldview he has repeatedly articulated both within and outside of jurisprudence. Because even though Samuel Alito is a Supreme Court Justice with tenure and all the powers that come with that position, he still wants more than that.

The judge seems to believe that he and the court are so thoroughly supreme that they should not be subject to even the slightest public criticism. Alito demands eternal professional affirmation in public. If so, it’s a safe space where he’s protected from microaggressions, admirable, and portrayed as consistently rational and wise, whether he really is or not. And if his reputation falls short of that, he lashes out at whoever his critics are.

recall His Amazing Performance in President Obama’s State of the Union Address in 2010 address. After President Obama criticized the court’s decision by Citizen United to break long-held restrictions on campaign donations, the television cameras turned to judges who usually keep a blank face at such political events. But Alito was not. While his colleague sat in silence, the camera caught him shaking his head remarkably, uttering the words “not true” and going wild.

Criticism of the episode did not dampen Alito’s zeal to insist that no other official should interrogate him. in 2020 Speech at the Federalist Societycharacterized court briefs filed by several US senators as “bullying” the court.

Judges have also used their considerable position to denounce civilians. In the same speech, he named a Harvard law professor who wrote the following paper: blog post It declared progressives a decisive victory on LGBTQ+ equality and other issues, despite conservatives’ dominance in federal courts. Clearly triggered by the brashness of liberal scholars, Alito fought back, eerily warning that “it’s not dark yet, but it’s getting darker.”

In a statement delivered at Notre Dame Law School in 2021, the judge denounced the Atlantic article by journalist Adam Sarwer, saying:false and inflammatory.” In fact, this article accurately described The court’s decision implemented a notorious Texas law that effectively nullified the Roe v. Wade trial in one of the country’s largest and most populous states.In the same speech, justice dismissed public and academic criticism of judges’ increased use of emergency or “shadow” case files as an “unprecedented effort to intimidate the courts.” in another speech Last year, he mocked several foreign leaders who dared to criticize his policies. opinion against law.

and, Another Wall Street Journal article At the trial, which took the form of an “interview” earlier this year, the judge whined that the court was “beaten on a daily basis” and that “no one, effectively no one, is protecting us.” rice field.

It’s really cheeky for a Supreme Court member to claim that he and the agency he serves are illegal. entitled Towards favorable public opinion, even in the face of undefensible actions and decisions. And Alito is more than just a civil servant seeking praise. He is the man tasked with making the rules that govern not only those who agree with him, but entire nations.

Nonetheless, the man who has written a vehement dissent against decisions that ensure equal rights for LGBTQ+ people and other minority groups cannot prevent a hint of dissent directed at him. It’s so flimsy. As the head of the agency charged with interpreting the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, he cannot stand others criticizing him for exercising their right to free speech. Instead, he uses his stature and appearance to attack, as we continue to learn, daring people who question an organization reluctant to abide by rules and restrictions.

The conservative legal movement has long defined itself as opposed to liberal judicial “imperialism.” Nonetheless, Judge Alito, a prominent face of the project, asserts the privilege of the king-emperor, in which he spares public admiration and completely isolates himself from criticism. No wonder the court’s social standing is in trouble. It seems that some judges have put the word “best” out of their minds.

Leah Littman is a Law Professor at the University of Michigan Law School.Melissa Murray is be professor of law new york university Faculty of Law. They are co-organizers of “”.rigorous inspection” podcast.