{"id":2213,"date":"2025-03-03T10:00:28","date_gmt":"2025-03-03T10:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=2213"},"modified":"2025-03-03T16:31:14","modified_gmt":"2025-03-03T16:31:14","slug":"samuel-alito-and-the-ethics-of-suspicion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/samuel-alito-and-the-ethics-of-suspicion\/","title":{"rendered":"Samuel Alito and the Ethics of Suspicion"},"content":{"rendered":"

Justice Samuel Alito, of the United States Supreme Court, professes<\/a> to be an \u201coriginalist\u201d about the interpretation of the law. The originalist approach, roughly speaking, says that judges should adhere to the intent behind and\/or meaning of the words of the U.S. Constitution as originally written, without trying to interpret it to accord with their own moral and political convictions or engage in \u201cjudicial activism.\u201d Alito is also often<\/a> said<\/a> to hold<\/a> the distinct but compatible view of \u201ctextualism,\u201d which holds that legal statutes more broadly should be interpreted according to their plain meaning and, again, not in light of one\u2019s moral and political views.<\/p>\n

Yet here is a striking fact. Alito\u2019s interpretations of the \u201cplain meaning\u201d of the Constitution and other laws do<\/em> reliably line up with his own moral and political convictions. These moral and political convictions, it is no secret, are highly conservative. Not only is Alito a Republican appointee in a very partisan judicial system; he has also twice been caught flying<\/a> flags<\/a> outside his home that are associated with far-right political causes and the \u201cStop the Steal\u201d conspiracy theory that followed the 2020 Presidential election. And Alito\u2019s interpretations of the law, time after time, align with conservative causes and with the interests of candidates of the Republican party. He has found that the constitutional right to freedom of religion extends to denying other people access to contraception<\/a> and the right to marry a same-sex partner<\/a>. Before his appointment to the Supreme Court, he ruled that the Fourth Amendment did not, contrary to all appearances, forbid strip-searching a child without a warrant<\/a> naming them. More recently, he (unsuccessfully) tried<\/a> to get a case challenging 2020 Presidential election results to be heard before the court. And perhaps most notoriously, he joined other Republican-appointed justices in handing down the decision that as a (then-)former President, Donald Trump enjoys absolute immunity<\/a> from prosecution for any \u201cofficial act.\u201d<\/p>\n

These are not outliers. Out of all the Supreme Court\u2019s cases during his tenure, Alito has joined with the liberal justices as the sole conservative just once, and that was on a case<\/a> where the liberal justices were on the side of giving unchecked power to the executive branch of government. Every other conservative justice has joined with the liberals more often<\/a>.<\/p>\n

You don\u2019t have to be a hardened cynic to be getting a little suspicious here. In any one of these cases taken individually, it could be that a neutral and fair interpretation of the constitutional or statutory text happens to favor the side aligned with conservative political causes or Republican electoral interests. But it seems like a bit of a coincidence\u2014to put it mildly\u2014for them to do so on every occasion<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The implausibility of this coincidence, I think<\/a>, gives us excellent reasons to think that, contrary to his professed legal philosophy, Alito\u2019s interpretations of the law are <\/em>being influenced by his moral and political convictions. On this hypothesis, insofar as Alito is reaching beliefs about the plain meaning of the legal texts, these beliefs are being (perhaps subconsciously) biased by a (perhaps subconscious) desire to arrive at rulings that line up with these convictions and that advance the interests of those who would further them. (This is an instance of a general process that psychologists call \u201cmotivated reasoning<\/a>,\u201d whereby someone\u2019s desire to reach a particular conclusion leads them to gather and process evidence, and evaluate arguments, in a biased way.) And this in turn gives us reason to think that, at least as interpretations of the plain meaning of the text, his rulings are unreliable.<\/p>\n

To be clear, similar points may well apply to many of Alito\u2019s Supreme Court colleagues\u2014including some of the court\u2019s liberals. That we find this to some degree on both \u201cwings\u201d of the court is an almost inevitable consequence of a system where judicial appointments are so politicized. But Alito\u2019s record of ruling in line with his own moral and political convictions is particularly extreme, and is particularly striking in light of his claim to be an originalist who disavows any role for a judge\u2019s own moral and political convictions. (By contrast, some liberal justices, historically, have more openly embraced a conception of legal interpretation<\/a> whereby a judge\u2019s own moral and political convictions have a role to play<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

The hypothesis about what explains Alito\u2019s interpretations of the law that I\u2019ve offered, in terms of motivated reasoning, is a purely causal, psychological one. It explains why<\/em> Alito arrives at his beliefs about what the law says without in any way rationalizing<\/em> these beliefs. Additionally, Alito himself would almost certainly say\u2014and probably even sincerely think<\/em>\u2014that the motivated reasoning explanation of his beliefs is not in fact the correct one. He would say that he really is arriving at his judgments by an unbiased evaluation of what the Constitution and statutes say. We can (roughly) follow the philosopher Amy Flowerree in calling an explanation of this kind\u2014one that explains without rationalizing, and that the believer themselves would disavow\u2014a \u201cpsychologizing<\/a>\u201d explanation, and the activity of giving such explanations \u201cpsychologizing\u201d.<\/p>\n

Flowerree and some other philosophers have recently suggested that engaging in psychologizing\u2014as I have just done with Alito\u2014is ethically problematic. They offer two reasons why this might be so. The first, stressed by Flowerree, is that the explanation I\u2019ve given is disrespectful and insulting to Alito. The idea is that in taking him to be deceived about his ultimate reasons for believing what he believes, and (relatedly) refusing to believe him when he claims that his own moral and political convictions are playing no role, I am treating him as something less than a rational agent. The second, stressed more by the philosopher Nick Smyth, is that psychologizing is corrosive to public discourse<\/a>. Here the thought is that accusations of bias and motivated reasoning can be traded in both directions, and make no progress in helping us to resolve our differences.<\/p>\n

Consequently, both Flowerree and Smyth think that we should have at least a default presumption against giving psychologizing. According to them\u2014and following a longer philosophical tradition that sometimes shows up in current discussions of \u201ccivil discourse\u201d\u2014we should generally engage with people\u2019s beliefs on the merits of their stated arguments for them, rather than trying to discredit these beliefs by speculating about their psychological origins. If Alito is so biased, they might say, then there will be flaws in his arguments<\/em> for his legal judgments, and we should focus on identifying those.<\/p>\n

But therein lies my problem. I am by no means an expert on constitutional or statutory interpretation. For all his flaws, Alito is not a stupid person, and he knows far<\/em> more about these matters\u2014about the principles of such interpretation, about the context in which the Constitution was written, and of course about relevant case history and precedent\u2014than I do. As such, I don\u2019t think I can<\/em> confidently identify the flaws in his interpretive arguments. Of course, for each of his controversial rulings, I could cherry-pick<\/a> a legal scholar\u2014or, indeed, a liberal Supreme Court justice\u2014who says he\u2019s wrong, and accept their reasoning for why this is so. But in doing this I\u2019d just be engaged in the same sort of motivated reasoning I\u2019m complaining about. As a layperson, I can\u2019t really tell whose legal arguments are superior, and I would only be accepting those of Alito\u2019s opponent because they line up with my<\/em> desired conclusions.<\/p>\n

For all that, though, it still seems to me that I have very good reasons to be suspicious of Alito\u2019s interpretations of what the law says, given how conveniently they line up with his moral and political convictions. (Indeed, the points about how smart and knowledgeable Alito is don\u2019t allay that concern. On the contrary, there is some evidence<\/a> that the more smart and knowledgeable someone is, the more<\/em> prone to motivated reasoning they are, because they are better at cooking up apparently-good justifications for their desired conclusions.) But were I to forbid myself from engaging in psychologizing, I wouldn\u2019t be able to access these good reasons to be suspicious. Since I am also not enough of an expert to identify the flaws (if any) in Alito\u2019s legal arguments, I would be left without any basis for critique of Alito\u2019s stance at all\u2014neither that it is flawed on the merits, nor<\/em> that is it a post hoc rationalization for his political agenda.<\/p>\n

Writ large, such an approach would be a very dangerous thing at this political moment. As I write, there is a real threat that the Supreme Court will effectively write President Trump a blank check to do (almost) whatever he likes, unhindered by law or the Constitution, with the assurance that complex legal justifications of facially absurd positions\u2014say, the consistency of abolishing birthright citizenship with the Fourteenth Amendment\u2014can always be cooked up<\/a>. The legal establishment\u2019s perpetuation<\/a> of the fiction that judges do not have political agendas<\/a> that they bring to bear on their rulings\u2014in effect, its un<\/em>willingness to engage in psychologizing of judicial decisions, and insistence that we accept that the patterns of partisan rulings we see from the likes of Alito are just coincidences\u2014has, I suspect, played a genuine role in enabling judges to feel unconstrained to rule in this way. They will not be called out for naked partisanship by the colleagues whose opinions they value most, because it is against the norms and niceties of the elite legal world.<\/p>\n

On balance\u2014and against Flowerree and Smyth\u2014it seems to me that public discourse is worse off if we all constrain ourselves to participate in this pretense. Even if it is disrespectful to psychologize figures like Alito\u2014and I have my doubts about how disrespectful it is, given how widespread partisan motivated reasoning is<\/a>, and how obscure our own motives are to us<\/a>\u2014sometimes disrespect is a price worth paying. In cases like Alito\u2019s, we must call a spade a spade.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Justice Samuel Alito, of the United States Supreme Court, professes to be an \u201coriginalist\u201d about the interpretation of the law. The originalist approach, roughly speaking, says that judges should adhere […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":2220,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Alex Worsnip \"Samuel Alito and the Ethics of Suspicion\" on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[456,153,7,332],"custom_author":[488],"class_list":["post-2213","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-judiciary","tag-motivated-cognition","tag-politics","tag-usa","custom_author-worsnip-alex"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-zH","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1802,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-to-become-an-incel\/","url_meta":{"origin":2213,"position":0},"title":"In-Between Identities: The Online and Offline World of Incels","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"October 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Introduction Discussions around incels \u2013 involuntary celibates \u2013 have become prevalent across popular social media platforms such as X\/Twitter. However, it is not always clear who exactly is behind the incel identity. Are incels just people who can\u2019t find love, or is there more to it? Can anyone fall into\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/10\/man_computers.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/10\/man_computers.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/10\/man_computers.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":558,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/coming-to-grief-violence-mourning-and-interracial-intimacy\/","url_meta":{"origin":2213,"position":1},"title":"Coming to Grief: Violence, Mourning, and Interracial Intimacy","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 3, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"In my last piece, I defended two claims regarding the relationship of Dana Schutz to Mamie Till Mobley. The first concerned Schutz\u2019s statement that Open Casket was undertaken through empathy with Mobley. The response among critics has been to treat this \u2018claim of empathy\u2019 as a terribly naive. I think\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/12\/Corridor-3-Memorial-photo-credit_-Equal-Justice-Initiative-Human-Picturesv3-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/12\/Corridor-3-Memorial-photo-credit_-Equal-Justice-Initiative-Human-Picturesv3-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/12\/Corridor-3-Memorial-photo-credit_-Equal-Justice-Initiative-Human-Picturesv3-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/12\/Corridor-3-Memorial-photo-credit_-Equal-Justice-Initiative-Human-Picturesv3-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/12\/Corridor-3-Memorial-photo-credit_-Equal-Justice-Initiative-Human-Picturesv3-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/12\/Corridor-3-Memorial-photo-credit_-Equal-Justice-Initiative-Human-Picturesv3-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1179,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/normative-entanglement-in-public-discourse-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":2213,"position":2},"title":"Normative Entanglement in Public Discourse (Part 2)","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"April 19, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"To read Part 1 of this series, click here. Let\u2019s start simple. \u2018I\u2019m hurt.\u2019 Taken by itself, this tiny phrase has an obvious meaning. Without any context, however, it is difficult to guess what is the upshot of the statement. Notice how the upshot changes when we add different kinds\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/04\/Melicsohn_hurt-BW.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/04\/Melicsohn_hurt-BW.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/04\/Melicsohn_hurt-BW.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/04\/Melicsohn_hurt-BW.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/04\/Melicsohn_hurt-BW.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/04\/Melicsohn_hurt-BW.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1922,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-dark-side-of-digital-influence\/","url_meta":{"origin":2213,"position":3},"title":"The Dark Side of Digital Influence","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"March 18, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In the previous post, I outlined three reasons for paying closer attention to social influence in the digital landscape: the proliferation of social influence, the informational empowerment of social influence, and the fact that AI increasingly mediates social influence. In this post, I will argue that this not only perpetuates\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/03\/man-6533390_1280.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/03\/man-6533390_1280.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/03\/man-6533390_1280.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/03\/man-6533390_1280.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/03\/man-6533390_1280.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":542,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-empathy-defense-emmett-till-open-casket-and-white-empathy\/","url_meta":{"origin":2213,"position":4},"title":"The Empathy Defense: Emmett Till, “Open Casket,” and ‘White Empathy’","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 19, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA painting of a dead black boy by a white artist.\u201d This is British artist Hannah Black's description of Dana Schutz's Open Casket, a painting included in the 2017 Whitney Biennial and one that Black has urged be destroyed. The 'dead black boy' is Emmett Till, a fourteen-year-old who was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/SCH-16_012aL2-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/SCH-16_012aL2-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/SCH-16_012aL2-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/SCH-16_012aL2-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/SCH-16_012aL2-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/SCH-16_012aL2-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1044,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/getting-the-question-right-reflections-on-transgender-and-the-transgender-question\/","url_meta":{"origin":2213,"position":5},"title":"Getting the question right: reflections on transgender and \u201cthe transgender question\u201d","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 2, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"I: From \u201cthe transgender question\u201d to the transphobia question \u00a0There is no such thing as \u201cthe transgender question\u201d. No more than there was any such thing as \u201cthe Jewish question\u201d in Germany in the 1840s\u2014or 1930s. For Bruno Bauer, and for his interlocutor Karl Marx, the supposed question about Germany\u2019s\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/11\/sophie-grace-climbingBW-22528212_1862011984114877_2700895398703663270_n.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/11\/sophie-grace-climbingBW-22528212_1862011984114877_2700895398703663270_n.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/11\/sophie-grace-climbingBW-22528212_1862011984114877_2700895398703663270_n.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/03\/judge-stock-image-scaled.jpeg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2213","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2213"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2213\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2223,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2213\/revisions\/2223"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2220"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2213"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2213"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=2213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}