Why Yes, Samuel Alito Is the Most Evil Man on the Court

Justice AlitoAlito attempts to get around Smith through a kind of bait and switch. “A law that discriminates against religiously motivated conduct is not ‘neutral,'” Alito writes, and he tries to paint this law as one that singles out religious conduct — and religious conduct alone — for inferior treatment. “The [Washington State Board of Pharmacy] has specifically targeted religious objections,” Alito claims. “Upon issuing the regulations, the Board sent a guidance document to pharmacies warning that ‘[t]he rule does not allow a pharmacy to refer a patient to another pharmacy to avoid filling the prescription due to moral or ethical objections.'”

Did you catch what Alito did there? First, he complains that the state “specifically targeted religious objections.” Then he supports this claim by noting the Board’s warning that “the rule does not allow a pharmacy to refer a patient to another pharmacy to avoid filling the prescription due to moral or ethical objections.” But “moral and ethical” objections are an entirely different concept than “religious” objections. The implication of Alito’s opinion is that the only basis for a moral or ethical viewpoint is religious faith. But that is an offensive suggestion that redefines the words “moral” and “ethical” in an idiosyncratic way.

—Ian Millhiser
Justice Alito’s Bizarre And Offensive Attack On Atheists

8 thoughts on “Why Yes, Samuel Alito Is the Most Evil Man on the Court

  1. It is like reading the stuff from Sovereign Citizens. It starts out reasonable and then ends in Crazy Town.

    • Some people are so lost in their ideology that they can’t see anything clearly. Alito is definitely that. Even at the end, you could see flashes of the brilliant mind that Scalia once had. I don’t know what Alito has — some kind of ability to twist logic without a care in the world for its practical outcome.

        • I’ve given him the benefit of the doubt because I figure you’ve got to be smart to get to the Supreme Court. But I yield to your opinion. But I think I’m on record for some time saying that he’s the worst justice. At least Thomas makes sense. I don’t think his judicial theory is correct, but he applies it consistently. (Just like the justices in the 1880s who he agrees with!)

          • It isn’t that he is not intelligent-but there is a difference between being smart and a genius. Scalia was brilliant at the law (overrated for about twenty years) however Alito was competent. And now that he is on the Supreme Court, he doesn’t have to hide his views as much as he did when he could be reversed. Freedom from having to worry what the judge above you will say does mean he can let it go.

            • Good point. Although I always imagine how people will remember me. I’d be thinking, “I don’t want to mentioned along with Roger Taney.” But they don’t seem to care. They seem to remember “The arc of the moral universe is long” and forget the rest.

  2. This “religious exception” bull stuff is so ridiculous. It’s clearly against the establishment clause, because the claims for “religious exception” are almost always “if you’re a conservative Christian.” Nobody would accept a challenge by a Muslim cabdriver that they shouldn’t have to pick up people at bars. That’s a public safety issue. You have to pick up passengers who aren’t violent/abusive. Or a Native American teacher who refuses to teach science students about the Big Bang because it’s not the same as that teacher’s belief in an origin story. A Hindu who refuses marriage licenses to people from different castes.

    And so on, and so on. It’s always the special pleading of Christians to not be offended. Which means “be reminded that theirs is not the official state faith.” It has nothing to do with taking offense. The vast majority of believers think, quite sensibly, that if their deities dislike your behavior, the deities will punish you/speak to you themselves. If you’re one of the whiners who want the Establishment Clause overturned, well go run for office on a platform of a constitutional amendment!

    • You should read the whole article. I think Millhiser uses the phrase, “Nice democracy you got; it’s be a shame if something were to happen to it.” Because that’s the end result: unless I’m allowed to not sell condoms, the state can’t make a law mandating that drugs are safe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *