William Saletan’s Right to Wife – Why does Judge Alito treat women like girls? sets out one of what I think will be the three big narratives opponents try to hang on Judge Alito. The other two, of course, will be “he’ll say anything to get a job”, and “lifelong apologist for the Imperial Presidency“. Whether even all three together can get sufficient traction to derail the nomination is not clear to me; it seems unlikely that any can do it alone, but if all three get some traction, it may be an interesting fight.
A Personal Blog
by Michael Froomkin
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
My Publications | e-mail
All opinions on this blog are those of the author(s) and not their employer(s) unelss otherwise specified.
Who Reads Discourse.net?
Readers describe themselves.
Please join in.Reader Map
Recent Bluessky Posts- I'll be virtual. Immunocompromise, alas. April 8, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- Are you clean sheeting or working in shadow of equal sufferage clause? papers.ssrn.com/abstract=379... April 8, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- Looking forward to this! Have very much enjoyed past editions. April 8, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- Jotwell Crim: Maartje van der Woude, Bordering on Indifference: The Moral Work of Immigration Enforcement, JOTWELL (April 8, 2026) (reviewing Irene Vega, Bordering on Indifference: Immigration Agents Negotiating Race and Morality (2025)), crim.jotwell.com/bordering-on.... April 8, 2026 Jotwell
- Jotwell Librianship: Kristina Niedringhaus, Can your AI Think Like a Lawyer?, JOTWELL (April 7, 2026) (reviewing Lee F. Peoples, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analysis: Implications for Legal Education and the Profession/em>, 117 Law Lib. J. 52 (2025).), lex.jotwell.com/can-your-ai-.... April 7, 2026 Jotwell
Recent Comments
- KK Ho on Introduction
- Michael on Robot Law II is Now Available! (In Hardback)
- Mulalira Faisal Umar on Robot Law II is Now Available! (In Hardback)
- Michael on Vince Lago Campaign Has No Shame
- Just me on Vince Lago Campaign Has No Shame
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 51 other subscribers
Saletan writes:
“First of all, Judge, I notice that in your concluding footnote to that case, you mentioned that the plaintiffs had asked your court to hold the statute unconstitutional because it “violates the rights to marital and informational privacy and equal protection.” You wrote that you wouldn’t address those arguments because your colleagues had relied on a different argument, the right to abortion.”
Is this true?
1. The State of Pennsylvania enacts a statute.
2. Some plaintiffs go to federal court alleging that the statute is unconstitutional on grounds A,B, and C.
3. The majority of the court agrees with the plaintiffs on ground C (or possibly D), and strikes out the law.
4. Judge Alito disagrees on ground C or D, and therefore votes to maintain the law. He ignores completely grounds A and B.
To a non-lawyer, it looks like scarcely credible judicial negligence.