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.
Recent Bluessky Posts- Any DOJ settlement that gives the President a dollar -- or a direct material benefit -- is a plain-as-day violation of the Presidential Emoluments Clause: "The President shall not receive ... any other Emolument from the United States, or any of [the states]." Art II, S.1, cl. 7. May 20, 2026 Jed H. Shugerman
- It cannot bind, because you cannot rely to your detriment on a promise you make to yourself. The document itself is an unconstitutional violation of the presidential oath. May 19, 2026 James Grimmelmann
- Historian here this is literally about gutting the Reconstruction amendments especially the consequential 14th amendment piece by piece. May 19, 2026 Manisha Sinha
- Jotwell Contracts: Orit Gan, Ordinary Contract Law, JOTWELL (May 19, 2026) (reviewing Cathy Hwang & Justin Weinstein-Tull, Contract Law and Civil Justice in Local Courts, 2026 Wis. L. Rev. 1 (2026)), contracts.jotwell.com/ordinary-con.... May 19, 2026 Jotwell
- Jotwell Courtslaw: Suzette M. Malveaux, Resilience and Judicial Power in the Aftermath of Trump v. CASA, JOTWELL (May 18, 2026) (reviewing Mila Sohoni, In CASA You Missed It, 78 Stan. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2026), available at SSRN (Nov. 25, 2025)), courtslaw.jotwell.com/resilience-a.... May 18, 2026 Jotwell
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.