Holy Fucking Shit.
At another point, the activist represents herself as a devout Catholic, telling the justice, “I don’t know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that, like, needs to happen for the polarization to end. I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.”
“I think you’re probably right,” Alito responds. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So, it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”
That’s a terrifying thing for a US Supreme Court Justice to say.
There’s a lot to not like about Alito, but I’m not seeing a cause for concern in this one quote.
because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So, it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”
That’s a terrifying thing for a US Supreme Court Justice to say.
Rights for gays must be legally protected. Rights of women to control their own bodies cannot be compromised. The American experience for people of color cannot be a lessor version of what whites experience as codified by law.
There is no “splitting the difference” with homophobic, misogynistic, and racist people on the treatment of gays, women, and people of color.
The problem is that Alito is on the other side of those things and also holds a lot of power. “No compromise” to him means a lot of suffering for minority groups.
Thats a different problem, but it doesn’t change that his statement one that both sides agree on. Its a statement of rationality, not of policy. Again, I’m not Alito defender, but we can’t get wrapped around the axle on the definition of logic.
Is it? Are Supreme Court Justices supposed to be compromising, or are they supposed to interpret the written law?
Would you feel the same way if a liberal, pro-choice, pro-lgbt rights justice said the same thing about there being fundamental differences that can’t be compromised?
I think it comes down to what those things are rather then not compromising. Not compromising on human rights, for instance, is great. Not compromising on if you can openly hate gay people due to your religion, not so great. If you feel child labour is required for a functional society, also not great. So it’s chilling when someone in a high level of rule making says they don’t believe they can compromise on their hatred.
Add to that they believe they are being persecuted and that their German heritage will explain how they will eventually react, and it becomes more chilling.
Sure, so the issue is not so much that a supreme court justice is saying such things, but which specific one is saying due to the beliefs he holds.
