INSIDE the Supreme Court Coup that Happened Right in Front of Us

The conservative legal movement, starting as a 'ragtag bunch' 40 years ago, methodically achieved its agenda to change how courts view the Constitution and how law is decided by the Supreme Court. This success is framed as one of the most significant political stories of our time, impacting social change more than many realize.

The conservative legal movement is the story of our times in the law... It's been an amazing success when you think of a group of people who set out 40 years ago just to a ragtag bunch to sort of impose in changes on the way that courts viewed the Constitution and the way that the law was decided by the Supreme Court and and to watch them methodically achieve their agenda is is really one of the the great political stories of our time.

Samuel Alito was the first 'pure movement figure' to reach the Supreme Court, elevated by the conservative legal movement and motivated by the same causes and reactions as its other leaders. His appointment followed the 'Harriet Miers controversy,' where conservatives demanded a proven ideologue.

Not only is he emblematic of the movement because he was really the first pure movement figure to make it to the Supreme Court... elevated by a movement, put onto the Supreme Court, but also motivated by the same causes and reactions and concerns that motivated the other leaders of the conservative legal movement.

In the mid-1980s, while seeking a leadership role in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, Alito wrote an essay detailing his devotion to the Republican Party, admiration for William F. Buckley, support for Barry Goldwater, and opposition to apportionment and abortion cases. This was a direct response to Attorney General Ed Meese's demand for 'proven conservatives' in appointee roles.

He wrote an essay in which he talked about his devotion to the Republican Party, his deep commitment... to William F. Buckley in the National Review, his support for Barry Goldwater, his opposition to the apportionment cases and the abortion cases... Ed Meese became attorney general, he demanded essentially that people all of his appointees be proven conservatives.

During his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Alito 'bent over backwards' to present himself as having 'no agenda, no politics,' with colleagues and clerks testifying to his non-political nature. However, 'pretty much from his first days on the bench,' he demonstrated a 'dogmatic conservative' approach, contradicting his confirmation testimony.

That is not the way he presented himself at his confirmation hearings... it's very very striking how far he went leaning, bending over backwards to show that he had no agenda... But pretty much from his first days on the bench as a Supreme Court Justice, it became very clear that he was going to be much more of a dogmatic conservative than he had presented himself in the confirmation hearings.

Alito employs a form of 'originalism' focused on 'original understanding' that offers significant flexibility. This approach allows him to extrapolate from various sources, rather than being strictly bound by constitutional text or the framers' original intent, enabling him to assert politically convenient positions, such as Roe v. Wade being 'never rightly decided' or supporting presidential immunity without explicit constitutional basis.

He has crafted a form of originalism which he talks about the original understanding that has a lot of give in there. So, he's not tied to the text. He's not tied to the original intent of the framers. He's kind of free to kind of extrapolate from many different sources... Roe v. Wade was never rightly decided... Alito going along with giving John Roberts immunity from criminal prosecution, which certainly there's no language in the Constitution giving a president immunity.

Alito's judicial philosophy is deeply rooted in his personal background: a serious Catholic, proud of his Italian immigrant heritage, and identifying with the struggles and prejudice faced by his family. This combined with a '1950s Cold War era' perspective of America as a land of freedom fighting totalitarianism, intertwining 'religious values and American values and American traditions' in his mind. A formative experience was his mother, a religious public school teacher, being angered by the Warren Court's restrictions on Bible verses in lessons.

He grew up a serious Catholic... proud of their Italian heritage... strongly identified with the hardships of the families' immigrant experiences... their sense of prejudice... in his mind, religion and the the the 20th century European immigrant experience... along with a sort of 1950s sense of of sort of Cold War era freedom versus totalitarianism, all that got kind of combined into one thing... his mother was a public school teacher... the Warren Court declared that that was establishing a religion... it was deeply offensive to him.

The Federalist Society presents itself as an 'open debating society' fostering intellectual exchange among conservatives. However, co-chairman Leonard Leo simultaneously runs a 'parallel side of big money,' including $1.6 billion from DonorsTrust. This funding supports judicial nominations, identifies conservative candidates, and finances political campaigns for their confirmation, effectively acting as a powerful 'political activist and lobbying force' that influences the judiciary while maintaining a facade of non-partisanship.

The Federalist Society gets a lot of credibility... for being an open debating society, that it does not impose views on its members... Leonard Leo, who has the co-chairmanship now of the Federalist Society... runs this sort of parallel side of, you know, big money... DonorsTrust, that's $1.6 billion of money... used to support the nomination judicial nominations of conservatives... political activist and lobbying force... It's sort of a willful denial a little bit that that is operating in there.

While the conservative movement historically advocated for 'judicial restraint' and a 'small Constitution,' the current Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, has abandoned this principle. It is 'not a minimalist court by any means,' actively overturning past precedents and 'impos[ing] their views,' mirroring the judicial activism they once criticized in the Warren Court. This shift creates internal tension within the conservative legal community.

They're reacting against the idea that in their mind, you know, liberal justices have been... using things like the Ninth Amendment or the liberty language in the 14th Amendment... to to fill it with their own values... that judges should be very sort of minimalist in their decisions, but this has not been a minimalist court by any means... there are others who feel like, 'Okay, we finally got the majority and now we're going to be able to to to impose our views, you know, the way that the Warren Court imposed theirs.'