More than any other judge, Justice Samuel Alito has managed to merge pro-Trump, antiestablishment forces with the more traditional wing of legal conservatism.

Justice Samuel Alito's judicial career, particularly his authorship of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, marks a significant triumph for the conservative legal movement. His approach aligns with the "originalist" philosophy championed by figures such as William H. Rehnquist. Rehnquist's 1997 opinion in Washington v. Glucksberg, which stated unenumerated rights are protected by the Due Process Clause only if "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," laid the groundwork for Alito's reasoning in Dobbs, despite Justices O'Connor and Kennedy signing onto both opinions.

Alito's consistent alignment with the Court's right wing, alongside other conservative justices like Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, has been instrumental in the Court's rightward shift over the past two decades. His conservativism is deeply rooted, possibly stemming from experiences in the 1960s, as explored in Peter S. Canellos's book "Revenge for the Sixties: Sam Alito and the Triumph of the Conservative Legal Movement." Alito's ascension to the Supreme Court was significantly aided by the Federalist Society, which promoted conservative judicial candidates.

Despite his prominent role in conservative legal victories, Alito often projects a sense of grievance, which some attribute to the "rough and tumble" of his Senate confirmation hearings. While nominated by President George W. Bush as a judge who would "interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences," some current observers, like legal analyst Andrew Napolitano, suggest Alito's decisions more often reflect his personal conservatism than a strict originalist adherence. This perception contrasts with earlier views from colleagues and clerks who defended his impartiality.

Alito's increased willingness to express his views, even suggesting occasional flashes of partisanship as a form of self-defense against perceived attacks, signifies a shift from traditional judicial restraint. His trajectory and that of the Court underscore how the dynamics of an increasingly polarized judiciary are pushing judges towards more assertive ideological stances, challenging the ideal of judicial neutrality.