(Photo
by
Alex
Wong/Getty
Images)
Justice
Sam
Alito
is
the
quintessential
Originalist.
He
will
write,
as
he
did
in
Dobbs,
that
rights
are
contingent
upon
being
“deeply
rooted
in
the
Nation’s
history
and
tradition,”
but
this
is
just
a
hustle.
In
truth,
he
cares
little
about
either
the
text
or
the
vaunted
“original
public
meaning”
of
the
Constitution,
casting
it
aside
with
a
yawn
and
an
eyeroll
if
it
doesn’t
match
his
very
contemporary
political
preferences.
Within
an
ivory
tower
somewhere,
there
probably
lives
a
principled
conservative
law
professor
seeking
a
grand
unified
theory
of
Originalism
that
could
be
consistently
applied
in
the
21st
century,
but
on
the
ground,
“Originalism”
is
just
public
relations.
The
Intelligencer
has
a
story
today
that
actually
happened
several
years
ago
but
—
not
unlike
Alito’s
Upside-Down
Flag
nonsense
—
didn’t
register
with
the
public
at
the
time.
As
we
noted
last
week,
Alito
has
been
taking
expensive
gifts
—
as
the
conservative
Supreme
Court
justices
are
wont
to
do!
—
from
a
right-wing
German
princess,
but
it
turns
out
he’s
been
cultivating
more
ties
to
the
European
aristocracy.
It
turns
out
the
last
time
Donald
Trump
was
president,
Supreme
Court
Justice
Samuel
Alito,
author
of
the Dobbs decision
setting
women’s
health
care
back
a
few
centuries,
added
a
knighthood
to
his
own
résumé,
pledging
an
oath
to
the
Sacred
Military
Constantinian
Order
of
Saint
George. The
knighthood,
bestowed
in
2017,
wasn’t
widely
reported
at
the
time,
but
the
order’s
website
was
updated
in
July
with Alito’s
investiture on
the
front
page.
May
we
present,
Sir
Samuel
of
Blackacre!
We
don’t
know
his
sigil,
but
it’s
meant
to
be
flown
upside-down.
Alito’s
“An
Appeal
to
Heaven”
flag
is
a
reference
to
John
Locke’s
argument
in
favor
of
a
right
to
rise
up
against
monarchists.
Alito
himself
accepted
a
knighthood
from
an
order
managed
by
the
House
of
Bourbon–Two
Sicilies.
The
grand
prefect
of
the
order’s
son
is
a
pretender
to
the
Imperial
Throne
of
France.
Guys,
I’m
starting
to
think
Alito
doesn’t
even
understand
the
history
he
haphazardly
quotes.
Did
the
Framers
have
anything
to
say
about
the
idea
of
European
nobles
granting
titles
to
American
government
officials?
You
know,
since
they’d
just
fought
a
war
of
independence
from
a
royal
superpower
on
the
strength
of
Enlightenment
philosophy.
Indeed,
they
did!
Article
I,
Section
9
of
the
United
States
Constitution
reads,
in
relevant
part:
No
Title
of
Nobility
shall
be
granted
by
the
United
States:
And
no
Person
holding
any
Office
of
Profit
or
Trust
under
them,
shall,
without
the
Consent
of
the
Congress,
accept
of
any
present,
Emolument,
Office,
or
Title,
of
any
kind
whatever,
from
any
King,
Prince,
or
foreign
State.
That’s
why
when
you
hear
of
some
famous
politician
getting
knighted
or
some
other
play
title,
it’s
always
after
they
retire.
The
Supreme
Court
may
be
adamant
that
no
branch
can
impose
any
ethical
rules
upon
it
—
which
is
gibberish
—
but
one
would
think
the
Constitution
itself
exert
some
influence
over
the
institution.
But,
to
be
fair,
this
is
just
the
“text”
of
the
Constitution
and
Originalists
don’t
care
about
the
text
where
they
can
conjure
an
“original”
meaning
“deeply
rooted
in
the
Nation’s
history
and
tradition.”
Perhaps,
despite
these
words,
the
understanding
at
the
time
of
the
Framing
was
much
more
friendly
to
the
idea
of
high
government
officials
taking
on
honorifics
from
foreign
aristocrats.
What
did
Alexander
Hamilton
think
about
it
in
the
Federalist
Papers?
Evils
of
this
description
ought
not
to
be
regarded
as
imaginary.
One
of
the
weak
sides
of
republics,
among
their
numerous
advantages,
is
that
they
afford
too
easy
an
inlet
to
foreign
corruption.
An
hereditary
monarch,
though
often
disposed
to
sacrifice
his
subjects
to
his
ambition,
has
so
great
a
personal
interest
in
the
government
and
in
the
external
glory
of
the
nation,
that
it
is
not
easy
for
a
foreign
power
to
give
him
an
equivalent
for
what
he
would
sacrifice
by
treachery
to
the
state.
The
world
has
accordingly
been
witness
to
few
examples
of
this
species
of
royal
prostitution,
though
there
have
been
abundant
specimens
of
every
other
kind.
“Royal
prostitution”
more
or
less
sums
it
up.
He
then
added
a
Savoy-blue
wool
cape
(made
by
the pope’s
tailor and
retailing
for
a
starting
price
of
940
euros)
and
a
large
blingy
jeweled
cross
insignia
(retail
322
euros)
to
his
wardrobe
of
black
vestments.
Or
maybe
royal
pimping
because
that’s
straight
out
of
SuperFly.
The
Intelligencer
article
concludes,
“Justice
Alito
did
not
respond
to
emails
or
calls
for
comment.”
No
shock
there.
Alito
has
two
modes
when
confronted
with
criticism
or
the
hint
of
accountability:
refuse
to
acknowledge
it
as
someone
above
the
law
and
preemptively
and
clumsily
whine
about
to
the
Wall
Street
Journal.
Since
we’ve
not
seen
a
new
WSJ
opinion
piece,
he’s
opting
for
the
former.
While
the
title
amounts
to
a
constitutional
violation
on
its
face,
the
oath
that
Alito
took
upon
induction
might
be
worse:
We
declare
and
promise
to
Almighty
God,
to
Jesus
Christ
his
only
Son
our
Lord,
with
the
assistance
of
the
Holy
Spirit,
the
maternal
protection
of
the
Blessed
Virgin
Mary,
and
the
powerful
intercession
of
Saint
George
the
Martyr,
to
observe
as
true
soldiers
of
Christ
everything
that
is
asked
and
recommended
of
us.
There’s
a
long
history
of
bigotry
hiding
under
the
idea
that
groups
bear
some
sort
of
“dual
loyalty”
that
renders
them
unfit
to
be
“real”
Americans.
John
F.
Kennedy’s
election
involved
a
nasty
whisper
(or
not-so-much-a-whisper)
campaign
suggesting
that
as
a
Roman
Catholic
he’d
take
orders
from
the
Pope
over
the
American
people.
But
that’s
just
because
he
was
Catholic,
not
because
he’d
affirmatively
sworn
allegiance
to
the
Bourbon
crown
in
some
Eyes
Wide
Shut
ceremony.
Alito
would
probably
say
that
this
is
no
big
deal
because
his
knighthood
is
mostly
play-acting
and
he’s
not
going
to
be
called
upon
to
legally
bail
out
the
Bourbons
any
time
soon.
Which
is
probably
true
but
not
the
point. Knighthood
was
already
a
joke
at
the
nation’s
founding
and
the
Framers
still
saw
fit
to
include
this
language.
No
one
was
donning
a
suit
of
armor
anymore,
but
the
title
still
held
symbolic
weight.
In
fact,
as
the
Hamilton
passage
notes,
they
were
worried
MORE
about
fundamentally
meaningless
titles
because
officials
in
a
Republic
can
be
swayed
for
so
little.
The
Framers
sought
to
protect
against
the
idea
that
the
nation’s
democratic
ideals
and
frontier
ethic
could
be
sold
cheap
even
if
the
transaction
never
gave
rise
to
some
Münchenian
Candidate.
They
just
feared
foreign
influence
bribing
a
vain,
petty
official
with
a
fancy
if
meaningless
title.
It
took
them
a
couple
centuries,
but
the
aristocrats
definitely
found
their
man.
Justice
Alito’s
Royalist
Cosplay
[Intelligencer]
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.