Judicial ethics expert who sided with Samuel Alito ‘reversing himself’ with ‘new evidence’

A judicial ethics expert who previously was willing to give Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito a pass on the extremist symbol on his property, is now convinced he did in fact act unethically, according to The Washington Post.

The analysis came as part of a report that Senate Democrats are putting new pressure on Chief Justice John Roberts to call for Alito’s recusal from the two upcoming Trump cases, involving whether he has presidential immunity from prosecution and whether people involved in January 6 can be charged with obstruction of Congress.

“Stephen Gillers, an expert in judicial ethics at New York University, said he initially gave Alito the benefit of the doubt that the upside-down flag was not tied to the ‘Stop the Steal’ effort. The second flag, he said, makes that theory no longer plausible,” reported Ann E. Marimow and Justin Jouvenal. “[Chief Justice John] Roberts must encourage Alito to recuse himself from the Trump cases and give him a deadline to do so, Gillers said Friday. He said the chief justice should separately address the circumstances surrounding the flying of the flags, even if Alito does not recuse, because of the intense public interest in the upcoming court decisions, which are expected to be announced by the end of June.”

“Gillers noted the consequences of the rulings in those cases for the November presidential election, in which Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee,” noted the report. “He also cited ‘Alito’s failure’s to allay public suspicion with a full explanation for each flag, and the need to reverse the public’s eroding confidence in the court,’” adding, “This is a rare instance when collegiality must yield to protecting the court.”

rawstory.com