4 ms·

Please, go ahead and explain how this is not corruption: https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court ht

Please, go ahead and explain how this is not corruption: https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishi.... I’m a huge mental gymnastics enthusiast.

morkalork 2y ago
Well you see, it's just a gratuity.
Ajedi32 2y ago
> In early July 2008 Ask yourself this: why are you only hearing about this 13 years later? This wasn't a big deal when the allegedly problematic ruling on the hedge fund came down, only when the ruling on Roe v. Wade did. I won't comment on the factual accuracy of the claims in the article. I haven't investigated them thoroughly, so I don't have an informed opinion on them. But if you want a rebuttal, maybe read the response from Alito linked to in the article? https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers...
- psb217 2y ago
  If the corruption can be revealed, it exists. This is true whether or not the decision to reveal it is biased.
- burkaman 2y ago
  Because "Alito did not report the 2008 fishing trip on his annual financial disclosures." It was extremely difficult for anyone to find out about this. Parts of Alito's response are extremely difficult to believe. > Until a few months ago, the instructions for completing a Financial Disclosure Report told judges that “[p]ersonal hospitality need not be reported,” Alito intentionally cuts out the rest of this sentence. The law says "except that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported". Obviously a private jet flight does not qualify as any of these categories. Why did he ignore that part of the law? > My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On a multi-day fishing trip with a very small group, where you were personally hosted by Paul Singer, you only made small talk? You flew on his private jet, and were photographed multiple times posing with him in front of a tiny boat or plane that only held a handful of people, so you must have spent many hours with him and only a couple other people. It is completely unbelievable that anybody in this situation with a sitting supreme court justice would only make small talk. Why did he invite you, if he didn't care about your position as a justice and you barely knew each other? > when I was invited shortly before the event Who invited you? > Had I taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me. Alito does not address the third option of not going. What was this event and why was it important he attend? He doesn't say.
- vundercind 2y ago
  Is your assertion that no reporters disliked Alito enough—and/or, that none were career-advancement-motivated enough—to bother reporting on this in 2008, and that's why it was only reported recently? It seems to me the more likely explanation is that nobody who might be inclined to report on it, knew about it then.
  - Ajedi32 2y ago
    Maybe. But even if that's true, then why did the people "inclined to report on it" only find out about it right after Dobbs? You could say it was just coincidence, but this isn't the only story making accusations against conservative justices that came out right after the Dobbs decision. I'd say its far more likely the result of opposition research. Which doesn't necessarily mean its not true, just that you should take it with a few extra grains of salt.
    - vundercind 2y ago
      > but this isn't the only story making accusations against conservative justices that came out right after the Dobbs decision I would agree that it appears to be an alarmingly widespread problem.
      - Ajedi32 2y ago
        Of judges being targeted for character assassination after making objectively correct interpretations of the constitution that politicians don't like? I completely agree.
        vundercind 2y ago
        No, of actual corrupt behavior. Plenty of us would get fired from our jobs for less. Much of what’s happened would get lower justices disciplined, because there are ethics rules with teeth for them. Do you read Alito’s rebuttal you linked as an actual rebuttal of the events? It reads as a “yeah, sure, but it’s fine, trust me” to me.
- ubertaco 2y ago
  This calls to mind complaints from a few years ago about fact-checking as "damaging to the reputation" of the person whose claims were fact-checked and identified as false. One's reputation is damaged when they choose to tell a lie, not when someone else points it out. Similarly, when someone accepts a bribe, they have damaged their integrity. That damage was not done by the person who exposes the bribe, but by the person who chose to accept the bribe. Put another way: unethical behavior is unethical regardless of whether one gets caught while engaging in it.

morkalork 2y ago

Well you see, it's just a gratuity.

Ajedi32 2y ago

> In early July 2008 Ask yourself this: why are you only hearing about this 13 years later? This wasn't a big deal when the allegedly problematic ruling on the hedge fund came down, only when the ruling on Roe v. Wade did. I won't comment on the factual accuracy of the claims in the article. I haven't investigated them thoroughly, so I don't have an informed opinion on them. But if you want a rebuttal, maybe read the response from Alito linked to in the article? https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers...

psb217 2y ago
If the corruption can be revealed, it exists. This is true whether or not the decision to reveal it is biased.
burkaman 2y ago
Because "Alito did not report the 2008 fishing trip on his annual financial disclosures." It was extremely difficult for anyone to find out about this. Parts of Alito's response are extremely difficult to believe. > Until a few months ago, the instructions for completing a Financial Disclosure Report told judges that “[p]ersonal hospitality need not be reported,” Alito intentionally cuts out the rest of this sentence. The law says "except that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported". Obviously a private jet flight does not qualify as any of these categories. Why did he ignore that part of the law? > My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On a multi-day fishing trip with a very small group, where you were personally hosted by Paul Singer, you only made small talk? You flew on his private jet, and were photographed multiple times posing with him in front of a tiny boat or plane that only held a handful of people, so you must have spent many hours with him and only a couple other people. It is completely unbelievable that anybody in this situation with a sitting supreme court justice would only make small talk. Why did he invite you, if he didn't care about your position as a justice and you barely knew each other? > when I was invited shortly before the event Who invited you? > Had I taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me. Alito does not address the third option of not going. What was this event and why was it important he attend? He doesn't say.
vundercind 2y ago
Is your assertion that no reporters disliked Alito enough—and/or, that none were career-advancement-motivated enough—to bother reporting on this in 2008, and that's why it was only reported recently? It seems to me the more likely explanation is that nobody who might be inclined to report on it, knew about it then.
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  Maybe. But even if that's true, then why did the people "inclined to report on it" only find out about it right after Dobbs? You could say it was just coincidence, but this isn't the only story making accusations against conservative justices that came out right after the Dobbs decision. I'd say its far more likely the result of opposition research. Which doesn't necessarily mean its not true, just that you should take it with a few extra grains of salt.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    > but this isn't the only story making accusations against conservative justices that came out right after the Dobbs decision I would agree that it appears to be an alarmingly widespread problem.
    - Ajedi32 2y ago
      Of judges being targeted for character assassination after making objectively correct interpretations of the constitution that politicians don't like? I completely agree.
      - vundercind 2y ago
        No, of actual corrupt behavior. Plenty of us would get fired from our jobs for less. Much of what’s happened would get lower justices disciplined, because there are ethics rules with teeth for them. Do you read Alito’s rebuttal you linked as an actual rebuttal of the events? It reads as a “yeah, sure, but it’s fine, trust me” to me.
ubertaco 2y ago
This calls to mind complaints from a few years ago about fact-checking as "damaging to the reputation" of the person whose claims were fact-checked and identified as false. One's reputation is damaged when they choose to tell a lie, not when someone else points it out. Similarly, when someone accepts a bribe, they have damaged their integrity. That damage was not done by the person who exposes the bribe, but by the person who chose to accept the bribe. Put another way: unethical behavior is unethical regardless of whether one gets caught while engaging in it.