I have here a draft opinion piece from Samuel Alito. It’s a follow-up to the piece he preemptively published in the Wall Street Journal to get ahead of the damning investigative article from ProPublica. It’s still a work in progress so please refrain from picking apart the finer details at this time. Further rationalizations and excuses will follow in due time.
Here is the copy:
Anyone who has spent any time at a Federalist Society cocktail party or dinner knows about originalism. It’s the legal theory that allows conservatives to interpret laws in a way that adheres to their political positions. Sometimes we can look back through history and find kernels of rationale in the writing and thinking of the founders, which is great when it’s there, but it’s not always possible. Other times we have to do mental gymnastics and nobody has the time for that stuff. Just look at the Citizens United decision. [Editor’s Note: You should probably cut this stuff about making it up as you go along. It makes it sound as if the doctrine is a little flimsy.] This doctrine has served as the backbone of my judicial philosophy ever since I first donned a robe. It is my North Star. Whenever I torn about how I’ll rule in a case I take solace in the fact that I can look back to the wisdom of the founders (or not) to awaken my internal legal compass.
When I penned a recent op-ed in response to terrible and unfounded ethical allegations I was struck by a new legal framework that should be an addendum to originalism, which I’m calling the empty seat doctrine. I conceived of it in response to a very specific allegation, though I think it is a useful tool in myriad circumstances. I accepted a private plane trip to Alaska as reported and which was nothing the ordinary American would find all that interesting. I did so only because the seat would have otherwise been empty. It was really an act of altruism, ensuring that the inevitable flight was at capacity therefore maximizing the use of fuel and service that would have been incurred regardless. But that’s besides the point. The seat was empty and therefore had no value. [Editor’s Note: You may want to develop this idea a little more. If a commercial plane has an empty seat they will not give It to eligible passengers for free. People have to buy it or it is not used.]. If something has no value it is not reportable on ethics forms. It shouldn’t even be talked nor written about. Any so-called journalist who thinks otherwise is setting a dangerous precedent.
If a billionaire wants to buy you a car (I like expensive sports cars, if any are reading this) and they present it to you with the driver seat empty then you are perfectly allowed to take that gift and not report it on any disclosure forms. Or if you are offered a ride on a super yacht, like my dear friend Clarence Thomas, and there are untaken seats on that yacht then it is permissible to accept. If you are invited to a friend’s compound and offered a ride in a limousine it is acceptable as well as long as there is an otherwise empty seat. And when you get to the compound it’s okay to accept a fancy multi-course dinner if there are available seats at one of the tables. You could even accept a new home from a friend or acquaintance, provided that the home come furnished with some kind of seating apparatus. I could even make the case that an unfurnished house also applies because one can easily sit on the floor. The same goes for a plot of land I suppose. You could even accept a bag full of money, inside a bank vault, if there was an empty seat within that vault, or it could happen anywhere I suppose, provided the money is handed to you while sitting in an otherwise empty seat.
[SA: This final paragraph is a work in progress. I’m scouring databases and legal texts for any and all mentions of seating, sitting, seat, or other related terms in hopes of bolstering this new doctrine with more originalist heft. I may also check with ChatGPT as well, or have it create an originalist pretext for what I’m arguing.]. [Editor’s Note: You may want to consider adding something about how the ProPublica story is politicizing the court and doing damage to democracy. It helps to frame the story as something that’s not about ethics or ethical lapses. Instead it can be seen as overreach by the body politic into the personal lives of government servants who’ve sacrificed extreme wealth for just ordinary wealth.]
