Bonus 32: On the Ill-Conceived Alito Op-Ed, the Streisand Effect, and the Unaccountable Court

How the substance of—and forum for—Justice Alito's response to the latest troubling ethical kerfuffle helps to underscore exactly what's wrong with the current Court

Welcome back to the weekly bonus content for “One First.” Although Monday’s regular newsletter will remain free for as long as I’m able to do this, much of Thursday’s content is behind a paywall to help incentivize those who are willing and able to support the work that goes into putting this newsletter together every week. I’m grateful to those of you who are already paid subscribers, and hope that those of you who aren’t yet will consider a paid subscription if your circumstances permit:

One of the central distinctions between the substance of Monday’s free issues and that of Thursday’s bonus content is the personalization of the latter. To that end, today’s bonus content offers something of a more personal take on the latest ethical dust-up to ensnare the Court—ProPublica’s reporting about Justice Alito’s relationship with billionaire hedge-fund manager Paul Singer, and Justice Alito’s … highly unusual … op-ed in the Wall Street Journal purporting to preemptively respond to ProPublica’s report. Specifically, after the paywall, I offer three reactions to why I think this latest episode is actually a pretty big deal—and a big black eye for the Court.

For those who are not paid subscribers, the next free installment of the newsletter, which will include coverage of the Court’s decisions that are expected both later today and tomorrow, will drop Monday morning. For those who are, read on.