Redstate

Are you saying that politicans are being hypocritical? Get a grip, man!

Inconsistent.

Why worry what Kennedy, Reid, Schumer, Durbin and Leahey do or say.  They will not vote for a Conservative judge no matter what the circumstances.

These are ultra (ACLU) Liberals that will forever be out of the mainstream of America.

I just wish the MSM would stop giving them air time for their nonsense.

If politicians couldn't be hypocritical (or inconsistent) we wouldn't have any.  

Correct, inconsistent, not hypocritical. But what does that imply?  

That he was correct with Breyer and incorrect with Alito, or correct with Alito and incorrect with Breyer?

Me personally I think that the bar has to be higher to show corruption than he has business interests in a particular party.  Should he have recused himself?  Probably, at face value it looks that way, but just because he didn't does not imply he acted in a biased mannner in the case.

The cries of hypocrite are not sufficient, as all they show is lack of will power, and not necessarily lack of wisdow.

Nor are cries of inconsistent sufficient, all they should be are flags to say "pay more attention to this statement since it has a 50/50 chance of not actually representing this person's ultimate belief".  Perhaps Mr. Kennedy was in error before, but has learned from the error of his ways,(not likely, but a possibility).  

I just think this discussion has to go up a level.

...or did they argue that it was a "smear" to even raise the issue of a potential conflict, and that the Republicans were not entitled to any information concerning the issue?  No one is claiming that the GOP isn't entitled to "defend" Alito.

Indeed, the very article you link to says that nine Republicans voted against Breyer, principally for this very reason.  Should we ask Sens. Lott and Burns whether they think it's a "smear" to bring up conflicts issues?

Frankly, I doubt the underlying conflict is a big deal in either case.  But in Alito's case, you have the additional issue that he made a specific promise to the Judiciary Committee that he would recuse himself in any case involving Vanguard, and then he didn't do it.  I'm not aware that Breyer made any such promise regarding Lloyd's.

I think you are splitting hairs :-)

We have a right to expect some kind of standards from these people. If they can't meet the standards of hypocricy or inconsistency we have come to expect then they shouldn't take these jobs. Off with their heads™

Bench Memos at National Review Online has posted a letter, dated November 3, to Chairman Specter from Professor Thomas Morgan, George Washington University School of Law.  Here's the money part:

I have seen it suggested that Vanguard apparently regards its mutual fund purchasers as "owners" in the same way that mutual insurance companies call their policyholders "owners." In both situations, investors or policyholders may "own" the company in some theoretical sense, but that fact no more makes Judge Alito part of the "management of the [Vanguard] fund" than a policyholder could be said to "manage" his or her insurance company. There is, in short, simply no way that Judge Alito fits within the prohibition of 28 U.S.C. § 455.

Further, and going more to the real issue in any ethics charge, it is absolutely clear that there is no way Judge Alito stood to profit from deciding the Monga case one way rather than another. Putting aside the infinitesimal share of the Vanguard funds that Judge Alito owned, Vanguard had no material stake in the outcome of the Monga case. Vanguard presumably wanted the case to be over; that is likely why it moved to dismiss the federal proceeding. But Vanguard held money that belonged either to Mr. Monga, or to the receiver Mr. Ottenberg.

Nothing that Judge Alito did or could do would change the fact that the money did not belong to Vanguard or Vanguard's theoretical "owners" such as Judge Alito.

Professor also addresses the question of Judge Alito's answer to the Senate questionnaire:

Finally, I have seen it said in the media that Judge Alito promised your Committee at the time of his confirmation in 1990 that he would recuse himself from "any cases involving the Vanguard companies." I have not seen the context of that "promise," but I greatly doubt that your Committee understood it to require more than the law governing disqualification requires.

In any event, even if Judge Alito had undertaken special responsibilities involving disqualification in cases in which Vanguard appeared in any form, I do not see his failure to recuse himself in the Monga case as other than one of the inadvertent failures to disqualify that occur from time to time because of the volume of cases and press of business in the federal courts. In 1997, for example, press reports said that Justice Ginsburg had participated in some twenty-one Supreme Court cases involving companies in which her husband held stock. The mistakes were clearly inadvertent, did not affect any result, and no one saw the incidents as suggesting anything other than oversights to be avoided in the future.

Looks like this trial balloon was popped before the Dems could even get it off the ground.

the 'mainstream media' is, contrary to the name, also out of the "mainstream" so it makes sense.

This argument seems quite tenuous considering the massive size of the Lloyd's market.

Vanguard is a mutual fund.  Lloyd's is not a fund, or even a business, but is instead a market consisting of over 60 insurance syndicates.  Big big difference.  

Both arguments are weak though, considering that the reputation of a judge is so much more valuable than ANY monetary investment, no matter how large.

Her it is:

Bench Memos

One standard for Democrats, one standard for Republicans.

One standard per party. Non-refundable deposit required. Democrat standards do not apply in Washington state, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maryland, and where prohibited by law.

Could someone please enlighten me as to what is "mainstream" these days? I'm having trouble determining what is and is not mainstream anymore. I hear ABC, NBC, MSNBC, Washington Post, (basically everybody 'cept Fox News) are out of the "mainstream" of America. Both coasts are apparently out of it too. So what is mainstream these days? Only the red states? Just the Heartland? Most conservatives/conservative newspapers? I'm genuinely interested.

I believe that the real "mainstream" is largely politically uninvolved, doesn't really get around to watching National News, and will barely pick up the USA Today (with its pretty colors). Sure, I'll probably agree that the attacks on Christmas/religious holidays, some of the 9th circuit rulings, etc. are a bit out of step, but where is the line drawn between "being out of the mainstream" and simply "disagreeing with a political position"?

This probably could be identified as a  "threadjack" so I will withdraw my question here. My apologies. Still it would be interesting to know.

....had Breyer promised to dump his investment PRIOR to the 3-judge ruling? No. I agree that he should have recused himself, but Alito DID promise to remove himself from Vanguard cases prior to the point where he actually did not do so. Still, for me, this is a strike against Alito but certainly not a deal-breaker. While there is a certain amount of conflict of interest going on, it isn't as egregious as if he actually had investments in Vanguard itself (as far as I know, anyway).

Nothing Breyer or Alito have done is as bad as Thomas and Scalia ruling on Election 2000 when they had direct family members actively involved in the Bush campaign.

lower our standards to theirs?  Or force them to live up to ours?

In my opinion a Judge should never recuse themselves.  They are elected or appointed to do a specific job regardless of their personal relationships and external involments.

This is like a scientist not doing experiments on live animals because he has pets.

We hopefully will soon have Judges that interpret the law not legislate or make new law brom the bench.

The writer states :

'I have not seen the context of that "promise," but I greatly doubt that your Committee understood it to require more than the law governing disqualification requires.  '

This "promise" made then is the heart of issue. But instead of reading the orriginal source

( http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/shrg101-651pt5.pdf pdf page 43) he just assumes what it says! It is much easier to debunk something by asumming it is what it isn't.

The actual question and answer was quite clear. Alito stated he would recuse himself from a case involving Vanguard.

It is reasonable to investigate the issue, but given the very likely facts it should be resolved as a simple, honest, minor, mistake. Not an ethical issue.

And BTW,

This "promise" made then is the heart of issue. But instead of reading the orriginal source...he just assumes what it says!

No, he doesn't assume what the promise says.  He doubts that the committee would have believed Judge Alito to be promising to recuse himself any more than is required by statute.

The professor discusses the relevant statute here:

The relevant statutory provision, 28 U.S.C. § 455, requires a federal judge such as Judge Alito to disqualify himself (a) "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned," or (b) if he "has a financial interest in * * * a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."

Part (d) of § 455 then defines "financial interest" to mean "ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that: (i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a `financial interest' in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund."

The best technical argument that Judge Alito did something wrong seems to be that he had a "financial interest" in "a party to the proceeding," because Vanguard was technically one of the defendants in the collateral proceeding for injunction that was on review. The argument collapses, however, in view of the clear statement in § 455(d) that ownership of a mutual fund is expressly not a financial interest "unless the judge participates in the management of the fund."

What had been dubunked here is the notion that Judge Alito was required by the law to recuse himself from this case due to his Vanguard holdings.  The promise issue is another matter, although, I think the professor eviscerates that as well.

 

I don't see how these are binding at all. People say they will do one thing then decide to do something else down the road all the time. It is not a lie unless a does not intend to do what they claim at the time they make the statement.

I don't see how saying you would do something would prohibit you from changing your mind down the road.

....that's why his behavior merely makes me raise my eyebrows rather than loudly demand to Feinstein and Boxer that they filibuster or vote against him. But I still don't think it was very honest of him. He should have at least acknowledged that he changed his mind for certain reasons rather than get irritated at the suggestion that he should recuse himself.

election Krap. It didn't happen and referring to it diminishes your credibility for your other arguments.

it's a matter of lowering standards down.  It's a matter of saying, even if all the allegations were assumed to be true, this is so immaterial as to be laughable.

How pathetic to even suggest an investigation into this point?