Exhibit A. Justice Alito’s Polygamy Perplex – BY AMY DAVIDSON
The New Yorker (April 30, 2015)
“Judging from Justice Samuel Alito’s contributions during Tuesday’s oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case before the Supreme Court, he is a little hung up on polygamy. Over the course of two and a half hours, he asked about little else—other than sibling marriage and the sexual relations of the ancient Greeks. “Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then, after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license,” he said to Mary Bonauto, one of the lawyers arguing against state bans on same-sex marriage. “Would there be any ground for denying them?” She explained that there would be many grounds: the structures of marriage are designed around two people, and polygamy raises questions of coercion and consent…”
Exhibit B. “Justices clash over lethal injection cocktail: Justice Alito accuses death penalty opponents of waging “guerrilla war.” – By Josh Gerstein
“Let’s be honest about what’s going on here,” Justice Samuel Alito declared emphatically. “Is it appropriate for the judiciary to countenance what amounts to a guerrilla war against the death penalty?” The original drugs, sodium thiopental and phenobarbital, “have been rendered unavailable by the abolitionist movement putting pressure on the companies that manufacture them,” Justice Antonin Scalia told a lawyer for death row prisoners. “And now you want to come before the Court and say, well, this third drug is not 100 percent sure. The reason it isn’t 100 percent sure is because the abolitionists have rendered it impossible to get the 100 percent sure drugs.”
Exhibit C. Transcript Glossip v. Gross (14-7955)
JUSTICE ALITO: And why is Oklahoma not using sodium thiopental? Why is it not using that drug?
MS. KONRAD: It isn’t using it you’ll – You could ask my friend here, but
JUSTICE ALITO: You don’t know?
MS. KONRAD: The the finding here is that it was unavailable at that time of the hearing.
JUSTICE ALITO: Yes. I mean, let’s be honest about what’s going on here. Executions could be carried out painlessly. There are many jurisdictions - There are jurisdictions in this country, there are jurisdictions abroad that allow assisted suicide, and I assume that those are carried out with little, if any,
pain. Oklahoma and other States could carry out executions painlessly. Now, this Court has held that the death penalty is constitutional. It’s controversial as a
constitutional matter. It certainly is controversial as a policy matter. Those who oppose the death penalty are free to try to persuade legislatures to abolish the
death penalty. Some of those efforts have been successful. They’re free to ask this Court to overrule the death penalty. But until that occurs, is it appropriate for
the judiciary to countenance what amounts to a guerilla war against the death penalty which consists of efforts to make it impossible for the States to obtain drugs
that could be used to carry out capital punishment with little, if any, pain? And so the States are reduced to using drugs like this one which give rise to disputes about whether, in fact, every possibility of pain is eliminated. Now, what is your response to that?
(At page 13-14)