Bouie: Alito’s right: ‘Only one side or the other is going to win’

In the struggle between democracy and minority rule, there is no compromise to be reached.

By Jamelle Bouie / The New York Times

Justice Samuel Alito is right.

Not about the Constitution or the use of history or whether Donald Trump has total immunity for crimes committed in office. No, Alito is right about the fact of unresolvable conflict in American political life.

As he told Lauren Windsor, a liberal documentary filmmaker who surreptitiously recorded their conversation at a dinner held by the Supreme Court Historical Society, “One side or the other is going to win.” He continued, “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.”

It is clear, from both his rhetoric and his jurisprudence, that Alito means the culture war. In a 2020 keynote to a gathering of the Federalist Society, for example, the justice bemoaned changing attitudes on same-sex marriage. “You can’t say that marriage is the union between one man and one woman,” Alito said. “Until very recently, that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it’s considered bigotry.”

In a 2022 address delivered in Rome for the Notre Dame Law School’s Religious Liberty Initiative, Alito warned, “Religious liberty is under attack in many places because it is dangerous to those who want to hold complete power.” Later, in the same speech, he mocked foreign critics of his decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and authorized states to pass draconian (and sometimes deadly) restrictions on abortion and bodily autonomy.

And in May, Alito issued a similar warning, telling the graduating class at the Franciscan University of Steubenville that freedom of religion is “imperiled.” “When you venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job or community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe, or to abandon core beliefs,” he said. “It will be up to you to stand firm.”

Alito’s vision of nearly tyrannical religious intolerance does not seem to correspond to the reality of a country where three-quarters of Americans claim one religious affiliation or another, where a vast majority of those identify as Christian, and where profession of religious belief is, in most places, a de facto requirement for public office.

Still, there is a fundamental conflict in this country. But it’s not the one Alito imagines. Instead, it is a conflict between those who hope to preserve and expand American democracy and those who aim to suffocate it.

There is Trump, of course, who is running his third campaign for the White House as an unabashed authoritarian. He has promised revenge and retribution for every effort, as halting as it has been, to hold him accountable for his criminal behavior, up to and including his effort to overturn the results of the last presidential election. And he is backed by a cadre of apparatchiks ready and eager to impose their autocratic vision on the entire country.

Among the most radical is Russ Vought, who served as budget chief under Trump in a tenure that culminated in an attempt to strip Civil Service protections from tens of thousands of federal employees so that Trump could replace them with loyalists. In a second term, Vought hopes to follow through and stock the federal bureaucracy with, as Beth Reinhard reports for The Washington Post, “hard-core disciples who would wage culture wars on abortion and immigration.”

Convinced that the United States is in a “post-constitutional” moment where he and like-minded ideologues must subvert the political order so that they can save it, Vought wants to revive the president’s power to “impound” congressional appropriations, a strategy that was outlawed by Congress in the wake of the Nixon administration. He also, like Trump, wants to use the Insurrection Act to suppress protest and domestic opposition with the military. Vought sees a future of Anglo-Protestant supremacy under the “original” Constitution.

The effort to turn the national government against American democracy is mirrored, at the state level, by the effort to narrow the avenues of political dissent and electoral competition.

In states where Republicans have gerrymandered themselves into nearly impenetrable legislative majorities, they have also taken steps to try to close the paths the broad public might use to see its views honored in government. In Arizona, for instance, Republicans have, as the news site Bolts put it, “placed a measure on the November ballot that would severely restrict direct democracy in Arizona by imposing strict geographic requirements on where organizers must gather signatures.”

This is in response to an initiative that, if successful, will write abortion rights into Arizona state law, circumventing the anti-abortion Republican-led state Legislature. Republicans in other states have made similar efforts to restrict direct democracy in the face of publics that aren’t aligned with the most doctrinaire conservative ideologues.

The Texas Republican Party has gone a step further than Arizona’s, or any other, in its hostility to democracy. Last month, delegates to the state party convention approved a platform that would effectively require a kind of electoral college for statewide elections. To win the governor’s mansion, a candidate would need to carry a majority of Texas’ 254 counties. Democrats, concentrated in the state’s major cities, could never win, no matter the majority they scored at the polls. Republicans, who dominate the state’s vast rural expanse, would govern in perpetuity.

Conservative Republicans, who have embraced “stop the steal” and are already casting doubt on any outcome short of a Trump victory in November, do not accept the legitimacy of their Democratic opponents. They believe that they, and they alone, have the right to govern. And they are working, from the bottom up and the top down, to limit as much as possible the right of the people to choose their leaders.

Alito has his hands in this effort from his perch on the Supreme Court. (Just a few weeks ago he wrote the majority opinion upholding a de facto racial gerrymander in South Carolina.) And so again, he is right. There are irreconcilable conflicts and “differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.” And the most fundamental thing on which there cannot be compromise is the question of American democracy. Will the Republic stand, or will we fall into a future of minority rule?

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

Vote 2024. US American presidential election 2024. Vote inscription, badge, sticker. Presidential election banner Vote 2024, poster, sign. Political election campaign symbol. Vector Illustration
Editorial: Ron Muzzall’s work warrants reelection to Senate

Janet St. Clair offers key experience, but Muzzall is effective and sets an example for civil leadership.

Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, July 23

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Help in efforts to save birds, wildlife

Since the 1970s, North America has lost 30 percent of its birds,… Continue reading

Say yes to saving lives by voting for Mukilteo EMS levy

The Mukilteo Fire Department is asking voters to renew the levy for… Continue reading

Kristof: What Biden’s decision not to run means for America

Biden’s selfless choice aids his party, secures his legacy and improves the world’s chances for normalcy.

G9ldberg: And just like that, Democrats find reason for joy

Following Biden’s decision to end his campaign and endorse his veep, Democrats are positively giddy.

Brooks: Democrats must provide an answer to MAGA’s promises

For Democrats to succeed, they need to offer people a future of both security and progress.

Scott Spahr, Generation Engineering Manager at Snohomish County PUD, points to a dial indicating 4 megawatts of power production from one of two Francis turbine units at the Henry M. Jackson Powerhouse on Friday, Feb. 17, 2023, near Sultan, Washington. Some of the water that passes through units 3 and 4 — the two Francis turbines — is diverted to Lake Chaplain, which supplies water to Everett. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: Amber King best suited for PUD’s 2nd District seat

Among three solid candidates, King’s knowledge of utilities and contracts will serve ratepayers well.

Vote 2024. US American presidential election 2024. Vote inscription, badge, sticker. Presidential election banner Vote 2024, poster, sign. Political election campaign symbol. Vector Illustration
Editorial: Return Wagoner and Low to 39th Disrict seats

‘Workhorse’ Republicans, both have sponsored successful solution-oriented legislation in each chamber.

A law enforcement officer surveys the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, the site of the Republican National Convention, on July 14, 2024. (Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times)
Editorial: Weekend’s violence should steel resolve in democracy

Leaders can lower the temperature of their rhetoric. We can choose elections over violence.

Editorial cartoons for Monday, July 22

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Krugman: For Trump, once again, it’s carnage in America

Ignoring the clear decline in crime rates for much of the country, Trump basks in thoughts of mayhem.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.