Believe Justices Alito & Thomas As They Prove They Are Unfit To Serve

The latest bribes and leaked conversations affirm SCOTUS's existential legitimacy crisis—but is it too late to act?

Note: Before you dive in, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to help me continue to advocate for human rights and media accountability. Thank you for your thoughtful support.

Today Newsweek reported my comments on the Supreme Court where I said:

“Alito caught on tape admitting he will not be impartial. When are the hearings @SenatorDurbin?" human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid wrote. “A reminder once more SCOTUS has (almost) never upheld justice in America, but largely been the obstacle to justice. The receipts back it up throughout history.”

Credit: Alito: AP Photo/Susan Walsh. Thomas: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

I’ll start with a blunt statement. If the Supreme Court has any hope left to maintain any legitimacy, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas should face immediate impeachment and removal. I’ve written before on the dire need to expand the Supreme Court to protect our democracy, as well as the horrifying receipts that the Supreme Court has been arguably the greatest blockade to civil rights and justice in America. Now, the antics from Justice Alito and Justice Thomas further prove that my criticisms of the Supreme Court aren’t just historical critiques—they’re contemporary facts.

Let’s start with Justice Alito, or rather, his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, who said:

I’m German. I’m from Germany. My heritage is German. You come after me, I’m gonna give it back to you.

These, and other even more concerning comments from leaked audio by journalist and documentary filmmaker Lauren Windsor, should be a wake up call to anyone who cares about our basic civil rights. Mrs. Alito went on to demonize LGBTQ Americans and make clear she wants a Constitution based not on secular principles, but Biblical mandate. Can we agree it is less than ideal, to put it lightly, that the wife of a Supreme Court justice does not seem to believe in separation of religion and state?

Credit: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

Also, let’s be clear. If I was the spouse of a powerful politician who had the ability to undermine the entire Constitution and rights for hundreds of millions of people, and I said, "I'm Pakistani. I'm from Pakistan. My heritage is Pakistani..." I'd be told immediately by MAGAs to "go back where you came from." But a white German-American woman says it and, well, that's just her opinion? This is even more urgent given how, per Justice Alito, Martha Alito has repeatedly flown pro-insurrection flags at their home—while her husband is about to hear a case about the insurrection and the limits of Presidential immunity.

Justice Alito insisted her opinions were her own, and not opinions he shares. That mask has come off as we now hear the grotesque comments made by Justice Alito regarding his lack of impartiality on deciding cases. He said:

One side or the other is going to win. I mean, 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. It’s not like you can split the difference.

No regard for objectivity or impartiality. A flat out statement that one side, “his” side, is going to win and he’s not willing to compromise. This is an exact contradiction of the Supreme Court oath which requires Justices to affirm, “…I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me…”

Considering Alito's disdain for Supreme Court precedent given his overturn of Roe, his disregard for the US Constitution given his pro insurrection flags, and his disregard for confidentiality given his diatribe admitting lack of impartiality—why is he still on the bench? (And also, is there any doubt left that he leaked Dobbs decision on purpose?)

Not to be outdone in corruption is Justice Thomas, who just happens to be fond of conservative right wing billionaires.

I recall when applying for my law license, I was required to disclose toll violations and parking tickets from a decade prior that were less than $100. How absurd, therefore, that as a sitting SCOTUS justice, Clarence Thomas has accepted at least $4M in gifts (bribes?) that we now know of, and did not disclose them or recuse himself from cases involving his benefactors? How can SCOTUS be deemed legitimate when one of its members is so clearly bought and paid for? To visualize how grotesque Justice Thomas’s behavior is, consider this handy chart:

It probably shouldn’t be surprising that Justice Alito is second among living justices who has taken gifts (bribes) from people. In law school we are taught that we must recuse ourselves not only when there exists a conflict of interest, but even when a perception of conflict exists. Accepting more than $4 million in gifts (bribes) is not merely a perception of a conflict of interest, it tramples any semblance of justice, integrity, and impartiality.

Pro insurrection actions, open statements of partiality, and secret bribes — all things to expect from a mafia boss — but not things we should tolerate from sitting Supreme Court justices. Unfortunately, Chief Justice Roberts has refused to act. Congress, which has the power to impeach and remove corrupt Supreme Court justices, has refused to act. We find ourselves in this situation, in part, because while the Founders contemplated individual politicians who may be corrupt and codified impeachment as the remedy to remove them, they did not seem to have contemplated that an entire Congress might be complicit in that corruption.

As I’ve written before, while we are quickly running out of time, it is still not too late—yet. Democrats can still stand united to abolish the Jim Crow filibuster, vote to expand the Court, and add at least four more seats to make it a 13 member Supreme Court. Failure to act risks not just a continued degradation of our fundamental rights as Americans, but a dissolution of our democracy itself.

Let us act quickly—while we still have a democracy to save.