On the former Alito staffer who attacked him in the Philadelphia Inquirer

Susan Sullivan wrote a comment in Philadelphia Inquirerentitled “I was a law clerk for Judge Alito. He must recuse himself from hearing cases involving Donald Trump.” The subheading reads: “Flying the U.S. flag upside down, once a sign of emergency, has become a symbol of those who reject the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. When Alito did it, it was indeed a distress call.”

The commentary contains nothing new or original. It quotes the New York Times reporting as gospel, and spends paragraphs talking about Dobbswhich has nothing to do with the flag. To be clear. The only The reason Sullivan placed this editorial is because she used to work as a law clerk for Justice Alito. The only thing the press loves more than a conservative criticizing conservatives is someone who worked for a conservative criticizing his former conservative boss. Just look at the endless stream of former people in Trump’s world attacking Trump.

Who is Susan Sullivan? I had never heard of her. She is an assistant professor in the College of Liberal Arts at Temple University. She teaches criminal procedure, constitutional law, and the Supreme Court. Her bio includes the following lines:

Professor Sullivan graduated with honors from Rutgers Law School in 1990. After law school, she clerked for a federal judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (now a U.S. Supreme Court justice) and then practiced as a trial lawyer in New York and San Francisco for over ten years.

She can’t even bring herself to mention the name Samuel Alito in her biography. Say his name! She’s willing to take the credit for the clerkship, but then she makes a mockery of her boss.

This is how she describes herself in Inquiry:

As a former law clerk to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., I often admired him as a person for his integrity and honesty. However, as a progressive liberal, I vehemently disagreed with his approach to reading the Constitution, his narrow interpretation, and his deference to the “restrictive intent” of the framers.

Is it normal to say that you “often” admire a judge you worked for as a trainee? When has that not been the case?

Professor Sullivan has a special connection to Justice Alito and abortion. She graduated from Rutgers University in 1990 and began her clerkship on the Third Circuit in the fall of 1990, completing it in the summer of 1991. Planned Parenthood v. Casey was heard in the Third Circuit in February 1991, right in the middle of Sullivan’s tenure as a law clerk. As everyone knows, Justice Alito would have upheld the spousal notification law, which the majority opinion in Casey held was unconstitutional.

In 2006, when Alito was nominated, Sullivan praised him modestly:

Susan Sullivan of San Francisco was in the same year that Alito wrote his controversial Casey ruling, upholding parts of a Pennsylvania law restricting abortion. That decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court. Sullivan, who describes herself as a “social progressive who is pro-choice and anti-death penalty,” says, “In general, I would be suspicious of any nominee in this administration. But having worked with him, I know he is not working toward a particular outcome. He is not out to advance his own agenda. He approaches cases very even-handedly.”

In fact, Sullivan met her husband, Jim Goneia, while they were both clerking for Justice Alito.

Jim Goneia and Susan Sullivan met in 1990/91 when they worked as law clerks for Judge Alito. They are now married and have two children. Their nine-year-old son says: “I like Judge Alito. Without him, I wouldn’t be here.”

Both Jim and Susan describe themselves as “social progressives” and are both “pro-choice.” But they vehemently support Justice Alito. And it’s not just because of their son’s existence, as good a reason as that may be. . . .

They both served with Alito during the Casey decision. And Susan responded that if Roe were overturned, she would feel the same way she did when she read Alito’s dissent in Casey: She disagreed, but respected the process he went through to reach his decision.

She added that during his time on the 3rd Circuit, Justice Alito both upheld and applied Roe, so she doesn’t think anyone knows how he will rule in any given case. And the fact that he has written opinions that are popular with some and decisions that are popular with others shows his impartiality.

But things have changed. The employees’ reunion is going to be a little strange.

There is a reason why conservative judges in particular have to weed out law school students: progressive students take the job and the prestige and then attack their former boss to the applause of the media.