EGN NEWS DESK
To the Editor:
Re “In Secret Recording, Alito Endorses Nation of ‘Godliness’” (information article, June 11):
Lauren Windsor, a self-described “advocacy journalist,” poses dishonestly as a Catholic conservative on the annual Supreme Court Historical Society fund-raising occasion, and engages Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts in a sport of “gotcha.” Her conduct is ethically improper on so many ranges.
She is at a non-public occasion, not open to journalists. She didn’t disclose that she was a journalist. She was secretly wired and recorded personal conversations with out disclosure or consent. She baits them with main questions, making an attempt to lure them into agreeing along with her said opinions. One affordable interpretation is that Justice Alito was agreeing merely to be well mannered.
Are there occasions when the ends justify the means? Yes, however this isn’t one. Lauren Windsor isn’t any courageous agent working to lure a drug gang chief, or working within the resistance behind enemy traces. Most first rate individuals of all political persuasions might be disgusted by her conduct and sympathize with the justices who have been the victims of her dishonesty.
How many justices will attend subsequent yr, and if that’s the case, what number of might be keen to speak to anybody aside from a detailed and trusted pal? This is only one extra instance on the street to incivility.
Mary Ann Lynch
Cape Elizabeth, Maine
To the Editor:
It is essential to not conflate the ethics of how these statements of Justice Samuel Alito have been obtained, and what the implications of those statements are. Regardless of the circumstances, it’s clear that Justice Alito is a spiritual extremist of Manichaean, us-versus-them considering.
It is equally clear that he sees his position as a jurist to make use of his place on the Supreme Court to impose his particular person non secular beliefs on all of society. I take into account it unacceptable and really harmful for any Supreme Court justice to make their authorized judgments in a method to make sure that their very own private non secular beliefs “win” some nice ethical battle over “godliness.”
Gary M. Stewart
Laguna Beach, Calif.
To the Editor:
For me the main conclusion to be derived from the surreptitious recordings of each Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts is the distinction between the 2 males.
One, Justice Alito, is a dyed-in-the-wool non secular zealot who sees the world and the court docket based mostly upon his private beliefs.
The different, Chief Justice Roberts, is a way more affordable and reasonable one who seems to have the ability to put apart any private beliefs in favor of compromise and equity.
This is just about what most of us would have thought earlier than the recordings grew to become public.
Steve Kutay
Santa Fe, N.M.
To the Editor:
As an creator with an curiosity in ethics, I can’t assist however query The Times’s choice to publish a narrative that was based mostly completely on a recording made in secret and beneath false pretenses by a self-described “advocacy journalist.”
The quotes from two journalism ethics specialists within the article are proof that the reporter, a minimum of, questioned the strategies used. The indisputable fact that each agreed that the surreptitious recording and misrepresentation of the questioner’s id have been unethical is jarring and raises two apparent questions: If the specialists say that the tactic is unethical, why did The Times go ahead with the story? And if the identical strategies have been utilized by a Times reporter, would the story have handed muster?
Michael D. Beil
Matosinhos, Portugal
