On Monday, June 17, 2024, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) published an article analyzing commitments Justice Samuel Alito made during his 2006 Supreme Court confirmation hearings regarding ethics and recusal practices in light of recent cases before the high court.

During his Senate testimony, Alito vowed to adhere to ethical standards beyond what is required. He portrayed himself as an impartial jurist without any ideological goals who believe no individual, including the president, is above the law.

However, CREW notes Alito has failed to recuse from matters concerning the January 6th insurrection despite reportedly displaying flags at his home associated with unfounded election fraud claims and efforts to overturn results. His participation risks violating pledges made seeking bipartisan confirmation such as taking recusal obligations seriously and avoiding any perception of bias.

The article examines statements from Alito’s hearings when questioned about prior recusal practices. He admitted that he should have recused himself from a case involving Vanguard, but maintained that he had followed all judicial ethics regulations. Alito also asserted always strictly complying with recusal duties applicable to Supreme Court justices going forward.

CREW argues Alito’s refusal to recuse in January 6th cases contradicting symbolic flags undermines hearing assertions. His participation When asked whether presidents can authorize torture, Alito unequivocally said no person, including the president, is above the law. He similarly affirmed nobody, such as the president, is above the Constitution when asked.

During legislative scrutiny about potentially serving as an ideological jurist, Alito stressed the importance of impartiality and not allowing personal views to override the law. He agreed conservative justices can be just as activist as liberal ones if failing to properly follow the judicial role.

By declining recusal even amid recusal-warranting circumstances, CREW suggests Alito risks damaging credibility in his hearing commitments to ethics, neutrality of fact over ideology, and substantively reviewing any claims of presidential power or immunity. The analysis raises concern about potential rulings impacting accountability for the January 6th attack and ongoing matters related to the 2020 election aftermath.

 

 

Source: CREW