Recent news about a surreptitious recording of conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito at a public reception got attention because he made a couple of less-than-even-handed responses to baited remarks.
When his questioner said she didn’t know if there was an ability to negotiate with liberals in a way that would end the country’s political polarization, Alito said, “One side or the other is going to win,” and that there are “differences on fundamental things that cannot be compromised.”
But, as syndicated columnist Mona Charen noted, Alito also said there are ways of working and living together peacefully, and he was noncommittal about many of the woman’s remarks. He said, “I agree with you” several times in what may have been nothing more than an effort to gracefully end the conversation.
The woman, Lauren Windsor, also recorded her conversation with Chief Justice John Roberts. This has received much less attention than what Alito (and his wife) said, but Roberts showed superb insight about divisions in the country and the judiciary’s role in settling them.
For example, when Windsor said to Roberts that the country is living through tumultuous times and wondered what the court could do about it, he replied, “The first thing ... is to tell me when the non-tumultuous time has been.”
That is so true. In the past century, the tumult has included the Great Depression (1929-41), World War II (1941-45), the Korean War (1950-53), the Cold War (1946-91), the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Vietnam War (1964-74), Watergate (1972-74), the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks of 2001, the Great Recession of 2008, the covid-19 pandemic in 2020 and stock market crashes in 1987, 1999 and 2008.
That’s the definition of tumultuous. Life in the world’s greatest country is rarely dull and is perpetually challenging.
Perhaps more importantly, Roberts, unaware he was being recorded, continued to avoid the trap when Windsor said it might be part of the Supreme Court’s role “to guide us back toward a more moral path.”
“No,” the chief justice said. “The role of the court is deciding cases. If I start, would you want to put me in charge of guiding us toward a more moral path? That’s for the people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.”
Again, an excellent answer. The chief justice’s respect for the American government’s separation of powers is evident.
The recording of the conversation with the chief justice inadvertently performed a public service. Our country’s history, from the very beginning, is full of passionate disagreements. This is the nature of openness and democracy.
Make America Great Again? More likely, any country that can debate its differences and continue to thrive and grow is consistently great. We’re just too busy arguing to recognize it.
