We called it what it was when it was Justice Clarence Thomas who became the subject of gratuitous smears and baseless insinuations: a “war against the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as a whole.” And now that Justice Samuel Alito is the target of another transparent effort to tarnish his reputation and the Court’s conservative majority by proxy, National Review is once again speaking out plainly and forcefully against what we’re witnessing. But we need your help to keep it up — and ask if you would consider donating as part of our webathon.
Dan McLaughlin has led the way with his superior coverage of the Court’s conservatives, applying his depth of legal knowledge and jurisprudential history to dismantle ProPublica’s latest shoddy attack on Alito’s ethicality. He provides a bulletproof case against the outlet’s mere insinuations with the kind of thorough reading of the applicable statutes and self-set standards governing the institution’s disclosure rules that ProPublica couldn’t be bothered to perform. But Dan also delves into the history of justices, liberal and conservative alike, engaging in the banal conduct ProPublica insists is untoward.
Moreover, Dan doesn’t run from his own conclusions. “No,” he wrote, “what is going on is an effort by progressives to do to the Supreme Court what Donald Trump tried to do to our presidential-election system after 2020, and for roughly the same reason: If they can’t get the results they like, they will do whatever it takes to burn down the institution’s public legitimacy.”
I contributed modestly with a look at a most welcome development, noting that the Right’s justices and outlets aren’t content to sit back and be passively besmirched anymore:
It is a campaign of intimidation masquerading as journalism. The Wall Street Journal editorial page deserves commendation for attempting to break the rhythm of this tawdry onslaught of defamation and agitation. Others should follow its lead.
Rich Lowry applied withering mockery to the Left’s campaign to disgrace Thomas for having such poor judgment that he would work with his wealthy friend to secure housing for an elderly widow. “The woman at the center of the controversy died in 2008,” he observed. “ProPublica’s reporting has not yet established who paid for the funeral.”
Dan provided a detailed analysis of where these attacks on Alito, Thomas, and John Roberts are coming from, and of the strategic objectives their defamers hope to secure, in the May 29 issue of National Review. That piece is required reading for anyone dedicated to preserving an originalist majority on the Court’s bench. And make no mistake: What we’re seeing today from the Left expands the rules of political engagement. As Dan observes,
These were tactics dramatically different from how conservatives responded to the Warren Court. They were coupled with a seemingly never-ending parade of bogus demands for justices to recuse themselves or theories about why their nominations were illegitimate.
Apparently, it’s now fair game to insist that a fishing trip about which Justice Alito spoke openly requires him to recuse himself from yet-unidentified future cases. It’s fair game to insinuate that because John Roberts’s wife has a career — what remains of it after she gave up her profitable litigation practice in deference to her husband’s role on the Court — the chief justice is irreparably tarnished. It’s perfectly aboveboard to insinuate that Thomas is tainted by his friendships, the absence of any evidence of taint in his judgments notwithstanding. It’s entirely legitimate to allege with laughably scant evidence that Justice Kavanaugh committed or was involved in multiple sexual assaults, in an effort to keep him off the bench by any means necessary.
No more. Not another inch. The architects of these smear campaigns must be stopped. We will continue to speak out against such campaigns and interdict their most malign designs. But we can’t do that without your support. National Review survives with the support of our subscribers and charitable contributors. Our webathon has focused in large part on our coverage of the transgender-advocacy madness. Of course, we’re doing that and much more. I hope you’ll consider donating to help us continue advancing our shared values and principles.
