Redstate

I wouldn't be surprised if some of them honestly didn't see the distinction in invested with and invested in.

He was a customer. If he shops at Wal-mart or fills his car with gas at the BP station does that mean he can't hear any cases involving Wal-mart or BP? It would certainly be hard to find anybody to hear any cases if that is the standard.

As I understand it, Vanguard wouldn't suffer or gain which ever direction the case went. The dispute was between the widow and some creditors of her dead husband, over ownership of his Vanguard assets. The only question here was the name Vanguard would write on the check. Vanguard itself wouldn't gain anything or lose anything with the decision.

He promised the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a written questionnaire, that as a federal judge he would disqualify himself in any case involving Vanguard.  Then he didn't do it.

I very much doubt there was any malfeasance here, for the reasons stated.  But only on a very, very red planet is this not even a legitimate subject for inquiry, when a nominee promises to do one thing and ends up doing the exact opposite.  And a discovery request is not a smear.

If I were interviewing someone for a job, and I found out they had failed to keep a promise they made during their previous interview with me, I would certainly ask about it.  Common sense.

. . .is a symbol of desperation.  If the Democrats had a real plan to defeat Alito, they would have saved this for the actual hearings--by the time Alito appears before the Judiciary Committee he'll have an answer to this that would satisfy anyone short of a committed moonbat now that he knows it is coming.  The only reason to bring it up now is in the wild hope that it will cause some sort of panic reaction that will reveal other problems that Alito has.  That hope is vain and the Senate Republicans would be well-advised to use this overreach as a reason for rhetorically loosening the teeth of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee with a few "have you no shame?" sound bites.

substantiate this:

He promised the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a written questionnaire, that as a federal judge he would disqualify himself in any case involving Vanguard.  

Congressional record cite will be okay.

any communication "from or to the White House, the Justice Department ... or anyone else on their behalf" concerning Alito's decision to participate in the case

The Dems aren't seriously suggesting that the White House conspired to fix the panel on a $170,000 case, are they?  They can't be that paranoid.  And like I said, the woman suing Vanguard in this case was trying to defraud her husband's legitimate creditors.  Some cause for them to take up.

It was in his written questionnaire.  See page 43 of this PDF from the Library of Congress.

I don't know how to pincite these hearings, but it's page 646 of . . . something.

Library of Congress:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/law/nominations/alito/shrg101-651pt5.pdf

Look on page 15 of the document (which is page 43 of the pdf file) or just search for the word "vanguard"

I do not believe that conflicts of interest relating to my financial interests are likely to arise. I would, however, disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies, the brokerage firm of Smith Barney, or the First Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester, New York.

I would disqualify myself from any case involving my sister's law firm, Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, of Newark, New Jersey.

Here is the story as reported by Boston Globe.

Rosemary Alito, a lawyer who is Samuel Alito's sister, confirmed in a telephone interview yesterday that she was at the law firm of McCarter & English of Newark when the decision was made in the case.

But she said she was ''absolutely not" personally involved in the case, which involved repayment of a bank loan. She declined to comment further.

Now please notice Alito's statement does not say that he would disqualify himself if his sister was involved. He said that he disqualify himself if his sister's lawfirm Carpenter, Bennett &

Morrissey, of Newark, New Jerse was involved.

One can nitpick on that but its obviously that he did not do as he said.

I am sure the case itself could also be pulled up if necessary.

Personally I do not like my potential Supreme Court Justices to break promises.

Now Dan Perino, the White House spokesperson said:

Perino said the law firm of Rosemary Alito did not file a brief in the full court appeal, suggesting that Samuel Alito may not have been aware of the connection. She said a computer program now in use to prevent conflicts of interest had not been established for such cases.

I know about computer errors. When my computer makes an error at my job I am still the one held responsible.

Boston Globe also mentions:

Nonetheless, he wrote a letter to the chief circuit judge in 2003 complaining about the effort to remove him from the case. ''I do not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on my ownership of the mutual fund shares," he wrote.

I do not doubt that the article is accurate on that letter. This is just simple fact checking.

. Alito writes in Senate Confirmation hearing years ago that he would recuse himself in cases involving Vanguard.

. Alito is assigned a Vanguard case, and does not recuse himself.

. Senate asks for documents on what happened as part of general information gathering for the upcomming hearings.

. You consider this McCarthyisim?

This entire thread is a joke.  

we could get "Bulldog" Kennedy to relent if we spread a rumor that Alito is a big investor in New England wooden bridges, or inflatable cars, or booze.

What do you believe it means?

"thanks", I'm a literalist.

they're just looking to see if he asked the Justice Department's advice on whether he should recuse or not.

Do you believe that Alito's apparent breaking of a promise made to the Senate Judiciary Committee is a big deal, a small deal, or something every judicial nominee should feel free to do?

that you need to read Blanton's post on Breyer, big deal, small deal, or no deal?

does it say Breyer broke a promise to the Judiciary Committee?

say he didn't

No need for anyone to deny this. He did not recuse himself as he had said he would.

That seems to be pretty plain and simple. Trying to muddy it or defend it only makes one look like they are trying to cover up or gloss over a wrong.

We are not going to get a perfect justice on the supreme court. We are not going to get a perfect president. Human beings are not perfect.

I support Alito for supreme court justice despite this flaw that has been exposed.

Anyone with me on that?

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.

You think it is reasonable to ask me to prove the negative?

If Breyer made a promise to the Judiciary Committee during an earlier confirmation hearing that he would recuse himself in any case involving Lloyd's, then it would have something to do with the point I raised.  Otherwise, it doesn't.

. . . except for the word "inadvertant", which is an assumption and not a fact.

I don't think this is major, but it's not nothing.

I'm not taking you seriously, it's because I'm not.

but one that is completely supported by Prof. Morgan's argument that the actual material effect of Judge Alito's participation was nil to him and to Vanguard. I can't, for the life of me, figure why someone in his position--with nothing to gain--would advertantly avoid recusal.

but it doesn't make the issue just disappear, particularly since Prof. Morgan was most likely paid to offer this expert opinion.

Look, it's something Alito will be asked questions about.  He will presumably say under oath that it was inadvertent, and that's fine.  He will be asked about his promise to the Judiciary Committee in 1990 that he would recuse himself in Vanguard cases, and presumably he will have an answer.  If people think it's a "smear" to even ask these questions, there's not much I can do about that, and they will have to deal with the fact that Republicans voted against Justice Breyer for what appears to be a similar reason.

lower our standards to theirs, or force them to live by ours?

that this is a legitimate topic of discussion in the hearings. My concern, and I would assume that of the original poster, as well, is that this becomes the focus of a smear campaign that will be well entrenched before Alito has a chance to respond before the Committee.

One quibble with your response. Maybe I was too quick to appeal to an authoritative (?) comment. Not only is the assumption supported by Prof. Morgan's argument (hired gun or not), it is absolutely supported by common sense.

Alito should (and will) be confirmed.

His statements from 15 years ago could easily have been forgoten. And without the his non-recusal is anywhere from correct to a minor technical error. Nobody with half a brain would think this case could in any way gain/cost more than .00001 percent or so of an investment.

That said, I do think the Democrats are reasonable in looking into it. Investigating a possible ethics issue is far different from acusing somebody of it.

It does appear he did not recuse himself as he said he would.  Everything points to this being an oversight that has no improper motives or improper outcomes attached. It is a trivial error that signifies nothing more than that Alito is a human being.  His truthful acknowledgement of the error will signify that he is an honest human being.  Those who make a big deal out of the error will simply look petty.

Those who doth protest too much with legalistic parsing only assist those who would make this molehill into a mountain.

It was not just a simple error. He did say this:

Nonetheless, he wrote a letter to the chief circuit judge in 2003 complaining about the effort to remove him from the case. ''I do not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on my ownership of the mutual fund shares," he wrote.

If this was an error I'd expect him to say:



I did not realize this was about Vanguard and now I do. I understand and agree that I must recuse myself as I have promised.

Just my bit.

Admittedly, he should have probably recused himself. However, I still say it is not something that would lead me away from supporting him.

I did not support Miers. My reason; Lack of known qualifications, lack of ability to just "trust" bush when appointing someone to scotus.

I support Alito because he IS qualified. I'm not asking for perfection. Thats impossible.