Hypocrite

Here is a surprise, Samuel Alito, much like his previous purveyors of perfidious pretense, predecessors like Scalia and Bork, states that he has a philosophy of the law that he abides by, but he drops that idea like a hot potato when he gets a result he does not like. 

Balls and strikes, my ass:

In his first public address since the explosive leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion he wrote that would overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. breezed through a detailed examination of statutory textualism, and renewed a disagreement over the court’s decision saying federal discrimination law protects gay and transgender workers.

………

Alito’s topic centered on how Scalia, who died in 2016, had transformed the court’s methods of reviewing federal laws, putting far more emphasis on the text of the law rather than the intent of Congress. It is a method he favors, Alito said, but it was used incorrectly in the gay rights case, Bostock v. Clayton County.

In that case, the court ruled 6 to 3 that a landmark federal civil rights law from the 1960s protects gay and transgender workers, a watershed ruling for ­LGBTQ rights written by one of the court’s most conservative justices, Neil M. Gorsuch.

Gorsuch and Roberts joined the court’s liberals in the ruling. They said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination “because of sex,” includes gay and transgender employees.

Gorsuch is a “colleague and friend,” Alito said, and someone he is happy to have on the court. But he said the decision relying on the text of the law alone was “in my view indefensible.”

While he said he wasn’t defending past actions, Alito said it was clear Congress at that time allowed and practiced discrimination.

That in a case he brings up on his own, he shows himself unworthy to wash Neil Gorsuch's jock-strap.

Among a host of hypocrites cloned by the Federalist Society, Alito shows himself to be the lowest of the low.