To the Editor:
Re “In Secret Recording, Alito Endorses Nation of ‘Godliness’” (news article, June 11):
Lauren Windsor, a self-described “advocacy journalist,” poses dishonestly as a Catholic conservative at the annual Supreme Court Historical Society fund-raising event, and engages Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts in a game of “gotcha.” Her behavior is ethically wrong on so many levels.
She is at a private event, not open to journalists. She did not disclose that she was a journalist. She was secretly wired and recorded private conversations without disclosure or consent. She baits them with leading questions, trying to trap them into agreeing with her stated opinions. One reasonable interpretation is that Justice Alito was agreeing merely to be polite.
Are there times when the ends justify the means? Yes, but this is not one. Lauren Windsor is no brave agent working to trap a drug gang leader, or working in the resistance behind enemy lines. Most decent people of all political persuasions will be disgusted by her behavior and sympathize with the justices who were the victims of her dishonesty.
How many justices will attend next year, and if so, how many will be willing to talk to anyone other than a close and trusted friend? This is just one more example on the road to incivility.
Mary Ann Lynch
Cape Elizabeth, Maine
To the Editor:
It is crucial not to conflate the ethics of how these statements of Justice Samuel Alito were obtained, and what the implications of these statements are. Regardless of the circumstances, it is clear that Justice Alito is a religious extremist of Manichaean, us-versus-them thinking.
It is equally clear that he sees his role as a jurist to use his position on the Supreme Court to impose his individual religious beliefs on all of society. I consider it unacceptable and very dangerous for any Supreme Court justice to make their legal judgments in a way to ensure that their own personal religious beliefs “win” some great moral battle over “godliness.”
Gary M. Stewart
Laguna Beach, Calif.
To the Editor:
For me the major conclusion to be derived from the surreptitious recordings of both Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts is the contrast between the two men.
One, Justice Alito, is a dyed-in-the-wool religious zealot who sees the world and the court based upon his personal beliefs.
The other, Chief Justice Roberts, is a much more reasonable and moderate person who appears to be able to put aside any personal beliefs in favor of compromise and fairness.
This is pretty much what most of us would have thought before the recordings became public.
Steve Kutay
Santa Fe, N.M.
To the Editor:
As an author with an interest in ethics, I can’t help but question The Times’s decision to publish a story that was based entirely on a recording made in secret and under false pretenses by a self-described “advocacy journalist.”
The quotes from two journalism ethics experts in the article are evidence that the reporter, at least, questioned the methods used. The fact that both agreed that the surreptitious recording and misrepresentation of the questioner’s identity were unethical is jarring and raises two obvious questions: If the experts say that the method is unethical, why did The Times go forward with the story? And if the same methods were used by a Times reporter, would the story have passed muster?
Michael D. Beil
Matosinhos, Portugal