To the Editor:
Re “In Secret Recording, Alito Endorses Nation of ‘Godliness’” (information article, June 11):
Lauren Windsor, a self-described “advocacy journalist,” poses dishonestly as a Catholic conservative on the annual Supreme Court docket Historic Society fund-raising occasion, and engages Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice Roberts in a recreation of “gotcha.” Her conduct is ethically incorrect on so many ranges.
She is at a non-public occasion, not open to journalists. She didn’t disclose that she was a journalist. She was secretly wired and recorded personal conversations with out disclosure or consent. She baits them with main questions, making an attempt to lure them into agreeing along with her said opinions. One affordable interpretation is that Justice Alito was agreeing merely to be well mannered.
Are there occasions when the ends justify the means? Sure, however this isn’t one. Lauren Windsor isn’t any courageous agent working to lure a drug gang chief, or working within the resistance behind enemy strains. Most first rate folks of all political persuasions might be disgusted by her conduct and sympathize with the justices who have been the victims of her dishonesty.
What number of justices will attend subsequent 12 months, and if that’s the case, what number of might be keen to speak to anybody apart from a detailed and trusted buddy? This is only one extra instance on the highway to incivility.
Mary Ann Lynch
Cape Elizabeth, Maine
To the Editor:
It’s essential to not conflate the ethics of how these statements of Justice Samuel Alito have been obtained, and what the implications of those statements are. Whatever the circumstances, it’s clear that Justice Alito is a non secular extremist of Manichaean, us-versus-them pondering.
It’s equally clear that he sees his function as a jurist to make use of his place on the Supreme Court docket to impose his particular person spiritual beliefs on all of society. I take into account it unacceptable and really harmful for any Supreme Court docket justice to make their authorized judgments in a manner to make sure that their very own private spiritual beliefs “win” some nice ethical battle over “godliness.”
Gary M. Stewart
Laguna Seaside, Calif.
To the Editor:
For me the foremost conclusion to be derived from the surreptitious recordings of each Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts is the distinction between the 2 males.
One, Justice Alito, is a dyed-in-the-wool spiritual zealot who sees the world and the court docket based mostly upon his private beliefs.
The opposite, Chief Justice Roberts, is a way more affordable and reasonable one who seems to have the ability to put apart any private beliefs in favor of compromise and equity.
That is just about what most of us would have thought earlier than the recordings grew to become public.
Steve Kutay
Santa Fe, N.M.
To the Editor:
As an writer with an curiosity in ethics, I can’t assist however query The Instances’s choice to publish a narrative that was based mostly completely on a recording made in secret and below false pretenses by a self-described “advocacy journalist.”
The 2 journalism ethics specialists quoted within the article are proof that the reporter, no less than, questioned the strategies used. The truth that each agreed that the surreptitious recording and misrepresentation of the questioner’s id have been unethical is jarring and raises two apparent questions: If the specialists say that the tactic is unethical, why did The Instances go ahead with the story? And if the identical strategies have been utilized by a Instances reporter, would the story have handed muster?
Michael D. Beil
Matosinhos, Portugal
