In an outraged recent piece in the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, Supreme Court Justice Samuel

a

Alito

Jr

vehemently defended his right to a free luxury vacation and offered America another glimpse into its disturbing worldview. The bizarre episode was just the latest example of Alito’s persistence in enjoying the country’s respect, even when he behaves disrespectfully. As the court’s public standing plummets, Alito seems saddened that the public has the audacity to criticize him.

In the op-ed published Tuesday, Alito attempted to presage a then-to-be-released ProPublica story about a lavish 2008 fishing trip he took as the guest of a hedge fund billionaire who has had a string of cases in court. The billionaire, Paul Singer, flew justice via a private jet to Alaska, where they were hosted by yet another conservative mega-donor in a fishing cabin.

Leonard Leo, a former leader of the Federalist Society and a major force in the conservative legal movement, reportedly arranged the junket to allow justice to deal with monetary interests with cases in court. And as the story noted, Alito didn’t back down from cases involving Singer, at one point joining a majority decision in favor of the billionaire’s cause.

In keeping with standard journalistic practice, ProPublica questioned law enforcement before publishing the story. But instead of answering them, Alito chose to bitterly and pre-emptively complain about the story in an ideologically friendly outlet.

This is an extreme reaction from a government official, even one who is about to receive negative but accurate press. Alito does not dispute that he flew on a private jet and enjoyed a luxury fishing vacation in Alaska for free. However, he insists that his seat on the plane would have been lost had he flown commercially, that the lodge was rustic rather than luxurious, and that the wine served to him could not possibly have cost $1,000 a bottle. Alito’s group reportedly bragged.

But Alito’s response is completely consistent with the worldview he has revealed time and again inside and outside his jurisprudence. Because even though Samuel Alito is a lifelong Supreme Court justice with all the power that comes with that position, he still wants more.

The judiciary seems to believe that he and the court are so supremely powerful that they should be free from even a hint of public criticism. Alito demands perpetual public and professional confirmation of a safe space, if you will, where he’s protected from microaggression, bathed in praise, and consistently portrayed as reasonable and judicious, whether or not he actually is. And when his reception fails, he lashes out at his critics, no matter who they are.

Consider his remarkable performance in 2010 during President Obama’s State of the Union address. After Obama criticized the court’s Citizen United decision to lift long-standing restrictions on campaign contributions, television cameras focused on the judges, who are typically unmoved by such political events. But not Alito: As his colleagues sat in silence, the cameras saw him go rogue, conspicuously shaking his head and uttering the words: Not true.

The criticism of that episode did not diminish Alito’s enthusiasm for insisting that other government officials should not question him. In a 2020 speech to the Federalist Society, he characterized an amicus brief submitted by several U.S. Senators as court bullying.

The judiciary has also used its extensive platform to advise private individuals. In the same speech, he mentioned a Harvard law professor who wrote a blog post proclaiming that despite conservative dominance of the federal courts, progressives had won decisive victories on LGBTQ+ equality and other issues. Apparently triggered by the insolence of the liberal scholars, Alito shot back and ominously warned: It’s not dark yet, but it’s coming.

In comments delivered to

the

Notre Dame Law School in 2021, justice condemned an Atlantic article by journalist Adam Serwer as false and inflammatory

.

In fact, the article accurately described the court’s decision upholding the infamous Texas law declaring Roe v. Wade in one of the nation’s largest and most populous states. In the same speech, the judge dismissed public and scholarly criticism of the increased use of the emergency or shadow role as unprecedented attempts to intimidate the court. deer

And in another Wall Street Journal piece formatted as an interview earlier this year, the Justice Department whined that the court was hammered daily and no one, almost no one, is defending us.

There is real guts for a member of the Supreme Court to insist that he and the institution he serves are

entitled

the good opinion of the public, even in the face of indefensible behavior and decisions. And Alito isn’t just another government official demanding praise. He is tasked with making rules that govern the entire country, not just those who agree with him.

And yet this man, who has written fiery dissent into decisions to ensure equal rights for LGBTQ+ people and other minority groups, has such a thin skin that he cannot bear any dissent aimed at him. The man representing an institution charged with interpreting the

First 1st

The amendment cannot bear to be criticized by others who exercise their right to free speech. Instead, he uses his stature and appearance to make those bold enough to question an institution that, as we continue to learn, hates rules or restrictions.

The conservative legal movement has long defined itself as an opponent of liberal judicial imperialism. And yet it is Judge Alito, a prominent face of that project, who insists on the prerogatives of an Emperor-King, which include unwavering general admiration and complete isolation from criticism. It’s no wonder the court’s public standing is in trouble: some judges seem to be letting the term “supreme” go to their heads.

Leah Litman is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. Melissa Murray is a professor of law at New York University NYU School of Law. They are co-hosts of the

Strict control

podcast.