公正塞缪尔·阿利托周五，在向一位国会议员发表了一次非常固执己见的演讲后，引发了对最高法院改革的新呼吁保守法律团体这涉及到法院目前正在审查的两极分化问题。
“如果高等法院有可强制执行的回避标准，这将是一个取消资格的动议的成熟机会，”菲克斯法院(Fix the Court)执行董事加布·罗斯(Gabe Roth)表示。菲克斯法院是一个无党派的独立监督团体，曾为法官的正式行为准则进行游说。
罗斯说:“这将鼓励他们在向党派组织发表政治演讲之前三思，并进一步削弱公众对他们公正性的信任。”
阿利托的这番话，虚拟交付周四晚上，在联邦主义者协会主办的一次会议上，集中讨论了他所谓的“对个人自由的难以想象的限制”冠状病毒大流行。他还谈到了堕胎权、同性婚姻和第二修正案。
法官批评州长在制定政策时行使了广泛的自由裁量权旨在驯服病毒在传播。他挑出能力对礼拜场所的限制，哀叹内华达州宗教集会的50人上限，最高法院在7月份以5比4的投票拒绝取消该上限。
“看看宪法。你会看到宪法第一修正案的自由行使条款，该条款保护宗教自由。“你找不到骰子条款、21点条款或老虎机条款。”
“宗教自由有成为二等权利的危险，”他说，并指出内华达州的许多赌场已经以更高的上限重新开业。
就在本周，纽约布鲁克林罗马天主教教区向美国最高法院提出动议，要求对该州州长安德鲁·科莫(Andrew Cuomo)实施的类似行为能力规则发出紧急禁令。此案目前悬而未决。
安德鲁·哈尔尼克/路透社泳池，文件
塞缪尔·阿利托法官和他的妻子玛莎·安站在鲁思法官的私人仪式上
对其他公共卫生限制的挑战——这是高度政治化的——几乎每周都在法院的议程上;其他人仍在通过联邦司法系统向法官们寻求帮助。
“演讲的语气和内容都很政治化，长期以来一直被认为不适合最高法院法官，”美国广播公司新闻最高法院分析师、卡多佐法学院教授凯特·肖(Kate Shaw)说。
“我怀疑首席大法官罗伯茨肖说:“我对这篇演讲或它引起的反响很满意。”罗伯茨的目标似乎是让法院置身于政治纷争之外，在这次演讲中，奥利特似乎试图将法院置于政治纷争的中心。"
虽然大法官在公开露面时泛泛地谈论具有社会重要性的问题或辩论并不少见，但对目前法庭上悬而未决的具体案件或问题的评论却很少。
一些法律专家也对阿利托对1990年最高法院就业司诉史密斯一案的裁决的讨论感到不安，该裁决称，个人的宗教信仰不能成为遵守其他有效法律的借口。
这个先例是最高法院审理的案件本月早些时候涉及宗教自由和一项针对同性恋者的市政反歧视政策。天主教原告要求法官推翻史密斯的决定。
“我很痛苦地说，但在某些方面，宗教自由正迅速成为不受欢迎的权利。这标志着事情发生了令人惊讶的转变，”阿利托说。
最高法院诉讼律师、全国有色人种协进会法律辩护和教育基金前特别顾问J . P . Schnapper-Castelas说:“阿利托对就业司诉史密斯一案的讨论直接涉及前几天在富尔顿一案中提出的一个问题，该问题仍悬而未决。”
“鉴于法院周围刚刚发生的一切，人们可能会认为新的多数派希望降低温度，平息对公正性的担忧。施纳珀-卡斯特拉斯说，他指的是围绕艾米·科尼·巴雷特被确认一事的激烈争论。
阿利托在演讲开始时表示，他不打算就任何法律问题发表明确的公开声明。“我是法官，不是决策者，”他说。
但他的评论招致了政界各界的批评。
乔治华盛顿大学法学教授乔纳森·特利在推特上写道:“我同意阿利托的一些观点，但这并没有改变对信使的担忧，而是改变了信息。”乔纳森·特利是唐纳德·特朗普总统弹劾听证会期间唯一的共和党法律证人。"我仍然坚持认为，法官应该主要通过他们的意见来说话，如果不是唯一的话."
苏珊·沃尔什/美联社档案
最高法院法官塞缪尔·阿利托在众议院拨款委员会作证
一些进步的民主党人，他们呼吁最高法院的扩大为了反击对巴雷特的仓促确认，阿里托的评论增加了他们事业的紧迫性。
主张扩大法院的进步团体“夺回法院”的主任亚伦·贝尔金说:“阿利托法官极其不恰当的讲话提醒人们，共和党人已经让最高法院挤满了穿着长袍的极端主义政治家——他们正在计划一次党派复仇之旅。”
马萨诸塞州参议员伊丽莎白·沃伦。称阿利托的讲话“赤裸裸的带有党派色彩”，并表示她希望立法“迫使法官遵守其他联邦法官遵守的道德规则”
最高法院法官目前不受任何正式行为准则的约束，主要只在道德和回避问题上对自己负责。
南德克萨斯大学法学院的宪法教授兼自由主义者卡托研究所的兼职学者乔希·布莱克曼认为，许多批评都被夸大了。
布莱克曼说:“阿利托大法官所说的大部分内容摘自他的书面意见。”。“没什么让我吃惊的。我也很感激他对民主党参议员的反击，他们在第二修正案中提交了一份简报，威胁要“重组”法院。”
阿利托似乎预料到了自己的言论会遭到反击。
“如果你们中的任何人有扔烂番茄的冲动，那就去吧，你只会弄乱你自己的屏幕，”他打趣道。
Justice Alito speech on polarizing issues prompts calls to reform Supreme Court
JusticeSamuel Alitoset off fresh calls for Supreme Court reform on Friday after delivering a highly opinionated speech to aconservative legal groupthat touched on polarizing issues currently under review by the court.
"If there were enforceable recusal standards at the high court, this would be a ripe opportunity for a motion to disqualify," said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a nonpartisan independent watchdog group that has lobbied for a formal code of conduct for the justices.
"It would encourage them to think twice before making political speeches to partisan organizations and further eroding the public's trust in their impartiality," Roth said.
Alito's remarks,delivered virtuallyon Thursday night to a conference hosted by the Federalist Society, focused on what he called the "unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty" imposed during thecoronavirus pandemic. He also spoke about abortion rights, same-sex marriage and the Second Amendment.
The justice criticized state governors who have exercised broad discretion in setting policiesaimed at tamingthe virus's spread. He singled out capacityrestrictions on houses of worship, lamenting Nevada's 50-person cap on religious gatherings, which the Supreme Court refused to strike down by a 5-4 vote in July.
"Take a look at the Constitution. You will see the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which protects religious liberty," Alito said. "You will not find a craps clause or a blackjack clause or a slot-machine clause."
"Religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right," he said, noting that many of Nevada's casinos have reopened with much higher caps.
Just this week, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court asking for an emergency injunction against similar capacity rules imposed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo in that state. The case is currently pending.
Challenges to other public health restrictions -- which are highly politicized -- have been reaching the court's docket almost every week; others are still making their way to the justices through the federal judiciary.
"Both the tone and substance of the speech were quite political, which has long been viewed as inappropriate for Supreme Court justices," said Kate Shaw, ABC News Supreme Court analyst and professor at Cardozo School of Law.
"I doubtChief Justice Robertswas happy with the speech or the reactions it's drawn," Shaw said. "Roberts' goal seems to be to keep the court out of the political fray, and with this speech Alito seems to be trying to plunge the court right into the center of it."
While it's not uncommon for justices to speak generally about matters of societal importance or debate during public appearances, commentary on specific cases or issues currently pending before the court is rare.
Some legal experts were also troubled by Alito's discussion of the 1990 Supreme Court decision Employment Division v. Smith, which said that an individual's religious beliefs cannot excuse compliance with an otherwise valid law.
That precedent is at the center ofa case argued before the Supreme Courtearlier this month involving religious liberty and a municipal anti-discrimination policy toward LGBT people. The Catholic plaintiffs are asking the justices to overturn the Smith decision.
"It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right. And that marks a surprising turn of events," Alito said.
"Alito's discussion of Employment Division v. Smith squarely implicates one of the questions presented in the Fulton case argued just the other day, still pending," said J.P. Schnapper-Casteras, a Supreme Court litigator and former special counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
"Given everything that just happened around the court, one would think the new majority would want to take down the temperature and mollify concerns about impartiality. Justice Alito did neither," Schnapper-Casteras said, referencing the acrimony around the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett.
Alito stated at the outset of his speech that he was not intending to offer a definitive public statement on any matters of law. "I'm a judge, not a policymaker," he said.
But his commentary drew critics from across the political spectrum.
"My agreement with some of Alito's points does not alter the concerns over the messenger rather than the message," tweeted Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University Law professor, who was the sole Republican legal witness during President Donald Trump's impeachment hearings. "I still maintain that justices should speak primarily, if not exclusively, through their opinions."
Some progressive Democrats, who have been calling foran expansion of the Supreme Courtto counter the rushed confirmation of Barrett, said Alito's comments added urgency to their cause.
"Justice Alito's wildly inappropriate speech is a reminder that Republicans have packed the Supreme Court with extremist politicians in robes -- and they're planning a partisan revenge tour," said Aaron Belkin, director of Take Back the Court, a progressive group advocating court expansion.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called Alito's speech "nakedly partisan" and said she wants to enact legislation to "force justices to follow the ethics rules other federal judges follow."
Supreme Court justices are not currently bound by any formal code of conduct and largely answer only to themselves on matters of ethics and recusal.
Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law and adjunct scholar at the libertarian CATO Institute, suggested much of the criticism is overblown.
"Most of what Justice Alito said was taken from his written opinions," Blackman said. "There wasn't much that surprised me. I was also grateful he pushed back against Democratic senators, who filed a brief in a Second Amendment case that threatened to 'restructure' the court."
Alito seemed to anticipate blowback to his remarks.
"If any of you feel the urge to throw rotten tomatoes, go right ahead, you will only mess up your own screen," he quipped.
