Category: Supreme Court

Trump Suddenly Embraces Impeachment . . . of a Federal Judge

Michael Matheron1 Comment

“Public officials … regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges — for example, suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations. Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed. Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, New Year’s Eve message, December 31, 2024.

This morning, Trump took once again to Truth Social for an exquisitely intelligent broadside aimed at the chief judge of the Washington, DC U.S. District Court, Judge James Boasberg for halting his efforts to remove Venezuelan migrants using the Alien Powers Act of 1798 which was intended to to resist a foreign invasion during a time of declared war. Needless to say, we are not at war with Venezuela. This upset our president who is set upon complete capture of the federal government within himself, a monarch in (impatient) waiting. He had this to say:

Avatar

@realDonaldTrump

This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President – He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY. I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! Mar 18, 2025, 9:05 AM

Trump’s beef? (1) Judge Boasberg was appointed by President Obama, (2) Judge Boasberg did not perform better that Trump in the 2024 election, (3) Judge Boasberg is a crooked judge, “a troublemaker and agitator,” and, as a consequence, the judge ought to be impeached, primarily for doing his job and interpreting the law in a manner consistent with precedent.

The rule of law laid down in judicial impeachment cases has been that judges cannot be removed for decisions that the president disagrees with. Impeachment of judges is an unlikely event in American history: 15 judges have been impeached, 8 convicted and removed. Impeachment and removal has ranged from intoxication on the bench, to abandoning the office and joining the Confederacy, to various types of corruption, and to perjury and income tax evasion, all of which arguably fit the normal impeachment standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for executive branch impeachments.*

* [But see this for more complete background: within the judicial branch “good behavior” clause of Article 3, there may be some argument that Trumpists may make to the effect that Judge Boasberg violated the good behavior clause (believe it or not) by simply ruling against Trump. The background of this good behavior clause makes it unrealistic to believe that such an argument would be considered as anything other than frivolous, however.]

In any event, the important conclusion in this crucial case is that Trump’s reaction shows clearly (1) his complete lack of basic understanding of the American constitutional system, particularly the judiciary, and (2) his knee jerk reaction to pulverize the reputation of any judge that disciplines him, (3) his utter contempt – utter demented contempt – for law, in general, and anything untoward that affects him adversely, and (4) his descent into uncontrolled all caps madness unlike anything witnessed in his first presidential term.

This battle between Trump administration and the courts represents, potentially, the most important on display since without Trump accepting court rulings the American government loses its principal foundation, judicial supremacy in judicial matters. Absent that, the jungle awaits . . .

__________________

UPDATE: Just prior to my posting this it’s been reported that in a very unusual pronouncement, the Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, issued the following:

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Given the highly unusual statement by the Chief Justice, its import cannot be underestimated. We’ll likely see, in its wake, MAGA world completely “cancel” the Chief Justice, and Trump say something that makes the situation worse.

This is important. Stay tuned.

Supreme Court Immunity Decision Virus May Be Spreading

Michael Matheron2 Comments

Three days ago, Judge Merchan issued the letter below to the defense and the prosecution in the so-called hush money case, more properly called the election interference case (emphasis added). So, the Supreme Court has teed this up for Trump’s attorneys and God knows whether the 34 convictions will be overturned. A sea change . . .

Biden Robs the Federal Reserve After the Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Decision

Michael Matheron2 Comments
President Joe Biden captured on Federal Reserve camera

This morning, acting quickly on the Supreme Court’s decision granting presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, President Biden robbed the Federal Reserve. A mere 22 hours after the Court’s decision, and accompanied by dozens of armed Secret Service agents, the President, disguised in a black mask and sunglasses, plundered the nation’s bank of all of its cash on hand. While personall directing what he called “a cash withdrawal,” he explained that in accordance with the court’s decision yesterday:

“I’m simply exercising one of the core powers of the presidency which includes assuring that the banking system is acting in the best interests of the nation. I decided that the Federal Reserve was not. Therefore, I am seizing their cash until such time as I decide to give it back.”

Under the Supreme Court holding, the President may engage in what some might call criminal behavior and may not be prosecuted for it after leaving office. Also, it is already established as Department of Justice policy that a president may not be criminally indicted during his tenure. The Supreme Court, however, did not grant carte blanche permission for presidents to act unlawfully and escape prosecution after they leave office. For example, his audacious Federal Reserve heist, might, by some, be considered to be not among his core powers, which include those actions that can only be taken by the president, including the naming of ambassadors, acting as Commander-in-chief, and issuing pardons. Other presidential actions, the Court held, outside of his core powers may be examined by a court to determine whether they are nonetheless within overall presidential powers, and a prosecution of a former president could be brought if his actions are adjudged as “unofficial acts” undertaken, for instance, for personal benefit alone.

President Biden reflected on this immediately after robbing the Federal Reserve of all of its currency on hand, perhaps billions of dollars:

“As president, I have a responsibility to protect the American people from bank fraud. As soon as the court handed down its decision in Trump v. United States, I decided that the Federal Reserve was engaging in bank fraud. Don’t ask why, the court said I don’t have to tell you, but I assure the American people that none of this cash will be used to finance my reelection campaign. Not a penny. So don’t worry. Really. In any event, my borrowing the Federal Reserve’s cash foe safekeeping is well within my powers because as head of the executive branch I’m responsible for a multitude of banking-related agencies. What Republicans may label as a smash-and-grab operation is well within the plethora of official acts which I may undertake. If Mitch McConnell objects take it up with the Supreme Court. Regardless, I will secure this cash in the White House itself, within perhaps the best guarded building in the country for the duration of my time as president which will be until 2029. After that, we’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say.”

It all makes sense to me, and I look forward to President Biden’s next official act, which may occur this very day as the President was heard directing his getaway limousine driver to “head to the U.S. Mint.” Whether pillaging the Federal Reserve is a presidential power or not, at least this caper will take the spotlight off Donald Trump for a news cycle.

Justice Clarence Thomas’s Mea Culpa, Without Much Mea

Michael Matheron1 Comment

During August 2023 I wrote of ProPublica’s investigation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s creative moral and legal accounting on his yearly financial statements. His failure to disclose two all-expense paid trips during 2019 to Indonesia and to the Bohemian Grove, an all-male retreat in northern California, were each financed entirely by billionaire Harlan Crow, a cofounder of Club for Growth and a major donor to the GOP. Well, today the self-fashioned untouchable, unshakeable Supreme Court justice filed a financial disclosure document that (quite belatedly) described a come to Jesus change of attitude, if only for a moment.

This is quite a turnaround. Recall that at the time of ProPublica’s April 2023 exposé, Thomas characterized his trips – as did benefactor Crow – as “hospitality” which he maintained was not reportable on his 2019 financial disclosure report. I fact, he took high road that only lifetime tenure in one’s government job offers by maintaining that all of this was just Mr. Crow’s hospitable way of spending some of his billions. And apparently Justice Thomas was also hospitable enough to accept free hospitality. And, despite the many many thousand dollars spent by Crow, Thomas maintained that hospitality doesn’t count as income or as a gift, noe would it sully his judicial neutrality should a case come forth impacting Harlan Crow or his buddies. And, what are you going to do about it, he seemed to say, “impeach me?” Well, actually, some suggested it.

Excedrin headache number 1 . . .

This has caused Thomas many headaches for the past two years. He wasn’t helped to escape the spotlight by his hospitable brethren Justice Sam Alito (who also got ensnared in the hospitality trap, see here). Moreover, lately, the upside down American flag catastrophe didn’t exactly cover Alito in a garland of roses. The public doesn’t seem to care for juvenile delinquents sitting on the highest court. Moreover, Rhode Island’s Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has been incessantly irritating the Court to produce an enforceable code of ethics, finding no joy there. So, it’s possible that Thomas thought that disclosing, four years late, his 2019 antics now would lighten his load a bit despite how miffed he must be at having to carry a load at all. Regardless, whether what amounts to a confession of wrongdoing will actually lighten his load, his belated report is directly below (emphasis added).

I double dare you, Clarence. Copyright, Michael V. Matheron

Let’s see how this is received by us, the public. The fact that Thomas pleads “inadvertently” to his failure to file in 2019 – after having had a world class team of lawyers advising him – wouldn’t be accepted as a plea for mercy by a judge, for example, like Sam “Hang ’em High” Alito, arguably, Thomas’s Old Gangster crony. So, from a PR standpoint, it would have been helpful have issued a press release explaining that he “regrets” something, anything related to what I’d guess he still believes to be a small faux pas.

Perhaps, like Alito vis-a-vis the upside flag episode, he could simply blame his wife . . . Yes, Clarence, let’s try blaming Ginni.

Nikki Haley: No Success with Secession, Part One

Michael Matheron1 Comment

“. . . if Texas decides they want to do that [secede] they can do that,
but I don’t think that if that whole state says we don’t want to be
part of America anymore I mean that’s their decision to make . . .”
Nikki Haley, January 31, 2024, speaking on The Breakfast Club

“Asking the U.S. if you can secede from it is a bit like asking your iPhone if you can use it
as an iron lung. It’s not built to do that, and also: No.”
“So you want to secede from the U.S.: A four-step guide,” Washington Post, July 26,2016

“What the Constitution says repeatedly is once you’re in (as a state), you’re in. 
If people want to secede, they are allowed to leave; they just can’t take the land and the water with them. There is a lawful way to secede – it’s called emigration. They can move to Canada.”
Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University

Secession 101

Oops! I did it again . . .

Nikki Haley’s relationship with the Constitution is somewhat distant when it comes to secession. In 2010, for example, she gave almost a verbatim version of her comments last Wednesday. Then, she was asked directly by the pro-Confederacy group Sons of Confederate Veterans whether states have the right to secede, and she replied, “I think that they do, I mean, the Constitution says that.” She hasn’t learned the correct answer in the intervening 14 years. In fact, the Constitution has no provision permitting secession.

No state may legally secede based only upon the will of that state’s people. In the post Civil War year of 1869, in Texas v. White, the Supreme Court settled the issue when Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote, 

> “The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”

> “When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”

> “All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.”

> “The ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.”

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)

More recently, in 2020, Justice Antonin Scalia observed in a letter to a screenwriter researching secession, “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘one Nation, indivisible.’)” The screenwriter’s brother reported that Justices Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen Breyer responded in the same spirit and noted that “the responding troika of Scalia-Alito-Thomas form 3/4 of the conservative wing[.]” That’s principled conservatism.

Then, what are the arguments that the Constitution permits secession, implicitly, if not explicitly? I’ll tackle that in a post next week.

BREAKING – Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump’s Colorado Disqualification Suit

Michael Matheron2 Comments

SCOTUS, in a brief order, agreed to take on Trump’s Colorado ballot disqualification suit seeking to invalidate Colorado’s ruling. This was all but inevitable and SCOTUS will move quickly having scheduled oral argument four weeks from now on February 8th. It’s not hyperbole to say that this case will be one of the most important cases in our history. Within the next week I will publish a primer about the many vitally important issues that will be raised in this case, matters of both state and federal importance.

                                  (ORDER LIST: 601 U.S.) FRIDAY, JANUARY 5, 2024 CERTIORARI GRANTED 23-719 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. ANDERSON, NORMA, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.  The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024.   Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024.  Respondents’ briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024.  The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5, 2024.

Supreme Court Justice Thomas May Someday Coordinate Travel Agency Services for the Entire Federal Judiciary

Michael Matheron2 Comments

How We Got Here

Today, ProPublica revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas enjoyed more than 38 vacations and accepted many other unethical gifts over the past 30 years, all gratis and unreported. In effect, he’s a one man travel agency. ProPublica wrote:

“At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.”

Recently, we highlighted Justice Sam Alito’s free Alaskan fishing trip provided by billionaire Paul Singer. According to ProPublica’s initial expose of April 2023, Thomas accepted dozens of more expensive offers of “hospitality” from billionaire Harlan Crow than what we know thus far about Alito who characterized the trip as nonreportable “hospitality.”

Today’s ProPublica report extends further, and Thomas apparently is the Chief Justice for Hospitality of our highest court. These new revelations have restoked the fires of criticism, some calling for penalties like IRS audits and impeachment.

“Perfectly suited for the job, indeed.”

Here at They Will Say ANYTHING! we discovered that Justice Thomas may now be aware that his silent noncooperation is a double edged sword. He has, it appears, confounded his critics by stating bluntly his advantage of life tenure; his position within a coequal branch of government; his absolute need for frequent vacations which he cannot afford; his political “read” on the long odds of a successful impeachment; and, finally, his general damned cussedness. He’s been a tough competitor. . . until, perhaps, these new ProPublica revelations. After all, his protective sword has two edges, one to defend, one to injure himself via overconfidence. Even he, lolling in entitlement, may think that this time he may sooner or later be looking for another job.

Our reporter, Matt Shultz, spoke today with a member of the Judicial Conference, Chief Judge Jonathon Simpson, of the D.C. Circuit to discuss today’s ProPublica bombshell report. The Judicial Conference is the Judiciary’s entity that “considers administrative and policy issues affecting the federal court system . . .”

Shultz filed this report of his interview of Judge Simpson at the Capitol Building restaurant The Disgruntled Toad:

Matt Shultz (MS): Welcome to the Disgruntled Toad, Judge Simpson! Have you been drinking, or is it me?

Judge Simpson (JS): I believe, Matt, that it is you based upon the fact that you are sitting on the floor.

MS: The Toad serves a powerful Vengeful Donkey . . . But let’s get on with this. Apologies, but I can’t get off the floor . . . But let’s get on with this . . . The topic is Justice Clarence Thomas. Anything to say?

JS: Indeed. Indeed. Justice Thomas has a luxurious lifestyle, certainly, And that is not unethical unless he lives his self-styled lifestyle based upon, for example, accepting and not reporting the donor’s hospitality. It is true here, with us, I contend, and I shall report this fine dinner of the Toad Burger.

MS: I thought this was Dutch treat . . .

JS: Indeed, you did, and I appreciate your hospitality.

MS: OK, OK . . . but no dessert and no Toad tee shirt! Shall we get on with this?

JS: I thought we were ‘getting on with this. Indeed. Are you any closer to being able to get off the floor and into a chair?

MS: OK. I’ll jump right in. The way I see it, Judge Thomas is in a supersized bag of [curse word]! This is the second time in a few months he’s been caught shimmying himself into rank and ugly hospitality! Just like I’m the donor of this dinner. You’re shimmying!

JS: Not accurate. You called me and did not inform me of your intent to cause me to make any contribution monetarily.

Was It Worth the Extra Dessert and Tee Shirt?

MS: I don’t understand your legalese, but I resent it anyway. Look, let’s get on with this. So what do you think about Judge Thomas’s hospitality grift? Do you think he’s in a state of meltdown? Would you pay for his dinner here? Like the dozens of billionaires who hospitalitied him for 30 years. These are people who might have court matters before the Supreme Court! He himself has barely noticed the anger of the American people! How would you punish this behavior?

JS: Regrettably, I agree that the Justice is tormented by, as you say, the “American people.” I wish I could do something to assuage his mind. Indeed.

MS: So that’s it? Let’s cry real tears for a grifter?

JS: I am simply remaining neutral and balanced so that in the end I do not truly voice or opine any judgement at all. I, too, must remain fair and balanced.

MS: Well, I presently have no notes on this interview in-name-only. But answer me this? If Judge Thomas is ultimately ousted or successfully impeached, and then definitely hospitality starved, would you offer him a job?

JS: I would but your insistence on no dessert has led to a state of low blood sugar . . . . and would my words be off the record?

MS: OK, dessert’s on me, as always happens on interviews with lawyers . . . oh, and doctors. Would you offer Judge Thomas a job . . . or an internship at the Judicial Conference? Oh, but at They Will Say ANYTHING! we don’t do ‘off the record.” If I throw in a second dessert . . . and a Disgruntled Toad tee shirt?

“Your Hospitality Causes Me to Weep”

We know why this man is laughing . . .

JS: Indeed. Your hospitality causes me to weep. So, yes, of course I would offer, then, former Justice Thomas a highly significant job. And that is something he has extraordinary experience over more than 30 years, and “off the record,’ I have already had a very satisfactory conversation with Justice Thomas. He is extraordinarily in a ‘Yes’ state of mind. The judicial system has for years not offered many services for judges who seek hospitality, or to realize their vacation dreams. Therefore, as the head of a new department at the Judicial Conference this, then, former justice would, I believe, accept the title Chief of Hospitality and Judicial Travel Agent.

JM: So rather than correcting the problems visited on the court’s reputation, your plan is to allow Clarence Thomas to regularize hospitality grift for the entire federal judiciary.

JS: Indeed. And Clarence has great strength in coordinating complex donor hospitality offers to sitting judges. Taking such coordinating activities off the tired shoulders of judges, both male and female, by the way, would free them up to do more judging. It’s as you say, ‘a no brainer!” A good relationship with hospitality is owed to federal judges, and Clarence would create a streamlined automated matching service that will, indeed, create a happy judiciary. And no court, obviously, would declare this activity unconstitutional.

MS: You know, that is an enticing job. I wish I were a grifting Supreme Court justice . . .

JS: Indeed, my good man, indeed! Was that off the record information not well worth the extra dessert and tee shirts?

MS: Tee shirt, singular, not plural! Meaning one!! Dammit!

The Openly Hospitable Sam Alito, Supreme Court Justice

Michael Matheron3 Comments
“Let’s bring Clarence and Ginny next time, they love rustic!”

In 2008 Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito accepted a last minute invite for a fishing trip to Alaska offered by billionaire hedge fund maven and major GOP donor Paul Singer. It included, gratis, transportation on Singer’s private jet, lodging, meals, and, perhaps, rod, reel, and bait. In the end, he got caught by his own bait. ProPublica discovered that Alito failed to report any of this as a gift that, of course, might just tempt him to smile upon any cases brought before the court that involve Singer’s interests. In effect, Paul Singer landed a 200 pound Supreme Court justice for a price estimated a $100,000; the only surprise here is that he wasn’t able to squeeze in Clarence and Ginny Thomas.

Alito, in a rush to overshadow ProPublica, wrote, for the Wall Street Journal, what amounted to a whining legal and ethical defense almost before the ProPublica story broke. Alito made the usual excuses: I don’t have to report what was nothing other than hospitality; the trip wasn’t really all that luxurious, it was “rustic,” at best and served only “family-style meals,” and wine under the cost of $1,000 per bottle; and, in short, you can all go to hell.

This journal caught up with Alito at the Disgruntled Toad, a new restaurant within the Capitol rotunda. He’d agreed to sit down for lunch with us (and on us) if we’d agree in writing that our offer was simple hospitality and thus unreportable. Our reporter, Bart Shultz, of course agreed, and Alito ordered a steak the size of a small Alaska town; items to take home, including tee shirts; and a bottle of $999 wine, none of which this journal could afford, but we figured we’re judgment proof. Thereby the interview began.

“You lookin’ at me? That’s not very hospitable, and I know hospitable!”

Alito: “Let me start this interview off the record by asking why the hell do you care what I did with some fishing buddies 16 years ago?” [Note: We don’t do “off the record.”]

Shultz: “Well it’s a matter of great concern to our country and there’s no bigger story than you right now. Also, it’s a story worth a thousand dollar lunch, if you get my meaning.”

Alito: “Yeah, I get it you, you obnoxious enemy of the people; no interview, no hospitality.”

Shultz: “Would you do the same thing today if Singer offered you a fishing trip to Alaska?”

Alito: “Wow. You dive right in, don’t you? Of course I would accept, in a New York minute. He’s a very hospitable man. I’m a very hospitable man. Also, I don’t have to report gifts that are hospitable. One reason is, I didn’t catch any sunfish in 2008, the water was too cold. But now that some say the sea is warming I’d like to catch a bunch of sunfish. Good eating, great sushi, and I can sell sunfish in Japan where it’s a delicacy.”

Shultz: “Many legal scholars, though, assert that your Alaska trip was not hospitality; it was pure and simple a reportable gift. Also, they assert that you ought to have recused yourself from any cases that implicated any of Paul Singer’s interests.”

“If you ever need some hospitality. . . . .”

Alito: “No, no, no. Over the years I’ve accepted a lot of hospitality from a bevy of persons wealthy enough to offer a Supreme Court Justice such hospitality. I would not accept hospitality from persons who were of modest means. Perhaps I’d be hospitable enough to give them an autograph. Would you call that a reportable gift? Should they report my autograph to the IRS as income?”

Shultz: “Sir, so you admit that you regularly accept what you broadly define as hospitality? And you maintain that you do not have to recuse yourself from cases that involve those hospitable persons?”

Alito: “Now you’re catching on. If I had to recuse, why, I’d have to recuse myself from a preponderance of cases now before the court! There would be no reason for me to sit on the court.”

Shultz: “Many are saying that right now; some calling for your impeachment. What about that? Moreover, what about the obvious ethical improprieties of your actions?”

“Are we going to need a team of lawyers?”

Alito: “Law is something, young man, that you are required to do or not to do. Ethics is not law, just a suggestion that taking what might be bribes in some circumstances might be appropriate for certain persons. Ethics is enforced by self policing. Look at Sotomayor. She was gifted numerous times with large amounts, by weight, of bagels. Not those supermarket bagels, but the substantially heavier boutique bagels infused with caviar and truffles and gold which are highly prized by many, including federal employees who do not have the wherewithal monetarily to purchase them from toney bagel shops.”

Shultz: “Justice Sotomayor refused the bagels!”

Alito: “So she indicated, however, how does one refuse lox and bagels? I’m skeptical. As for me, my mouth is watering.”

Shultz: “Well, sir, I believe you misread the temper of the times. Ethics, for whatever reasons, is having its day. Senator Dick Durbin of the Judiciary Committee said the other day, ‘We wouldn’t tolerate this from a city council member or an alderman.'”

Alito: “Dick Durbin is subject to a vote in 2026. On the other hand, I am a member of the life tenured profession. Good luck impeaching me. I can count votes, and I’m not seeing that as a viable option. So, until that changes I’m open for hospitality.”