Alito: $500K Investment Isn’t A Conflict Of Interest
Alito: $500K Investment Isn’t A Conflict Of Interest
Supreme Court nominee Samuel J. Alito and Justice Antonin Scalia share more than just ideology; they also share a resistance to removing themselves from cases where they have a conflict of interest.
In 2002, Alito dismissed a case in favor of a company where he was heavily invested [Philadelphia Inquirer, 12/15/03]:
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, has been accused of a conflict of interest by a woman whose suit he and two other appeals judges dismissed…. According to Alito’s 2002 financial-disclosure statement, the judge held investments worth $390,000 to $930,000 in 11 Vanguard funds in July 2002, when he ruled on a lawsuit filed by Shantee Maharaj of Wayne against Vanguard.
Alito argued that he didn’t need to recuse himself because the case was so small that it wouldn’t even affect Vanguard:
They have $600 billion invested with them. The idea that a case like this would affect [their investments] is just ludicrous.
Despite his own arguments, Alito eventually recused himself but continued to insist he had done nothing wrong.
(HT: AMERICABlog)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
39 Responses to “Alito: $500K Investment Isn’t A Conflict Of Interest”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Glad to know we’ve got another ethical nominee. Can’t we have just one honest one. Just one?!
October 31st, 2005 at 11:35 amOh HELL no. This is a real red flag. We cannot have someone on the Supreme Court who is not able to understand conflict or admit a mistake. I see why Georgie likes him.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:40 amThere is a huge difference between investing IN Vanguard and investing in funds RUN BY Vanguard when it comes to conflicts of interest. Vanguard contracts with the Fund’s trustees to provide third party management services to the funds in exchange for a fee. Vanguard does not own the securities in the funds, and the funds are separate entities from Vanguard.
This is like saying he had a conflict because he owned shares in Ford and then one of Ford’s major suppliers had a case in front of him.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:45 amWell, this addresses the non-ideological question I had about him. Thanks.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:48 amUgh #3,
Well then, if Alito is an honest man of principle (I assume he’d need to be for SCOTUS nomination)….why did he recuse himself from that case?
October 31st, 2005 at 11:57 amGotta second what Ugh says — this issue is weak. Owning shares in a mutual fund does not give you a common interest with the company that manages the mutual fund — too often the opposite. His conflict, if any, would have been more on the side of the plaintiffs, who he ruled against.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:57 amWow! Who knew being a judge could pay so well. There are a couple (ok, much more than a couple) of troubling parts to this argument against recusal. First, it’s not Vanguard’s potential loss that’s in question–it’s the decision-maker’s interest. In other words, it may not be worth a lot to Vanguard, but it should be to the individual judge and that’s a conflict.
Which brings me to the second issue; if this isn’t that much of a conflict to the individual, either somebody is making entirely too much money on the bench, or there’s fire from where this smoke comes.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:01 pmWe don’t need no stinking ethics, we are REPUGnicans.
And for the idiot that says a mutual fund investment would’nt sway your opinion: what color is the sky in your world?? You obviously don’t know what ethics are do you?
You honestly expect anyone and I do mean anyone to believe that you would not remove yourself from a case involving in anyway one of your investments? (Of course you wouldn’t because you know nothing of ethics and a little thing called conflict of interest)
You honestly expect anyone to believe you wouldn’t be swayed toward a company/investment of yours? Come on, we aren’t stupid. Not even you would invest in a company that had a lawsuit pending.
Unless you knew crash-cart cheeney and that those asbestos lawsuits from dresser industries would pale in comparison to the many billions you would receive from the illegal war and no bid contracts.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:04 pmPoor liberals. They have no way to stop this. Bye, bye Ralph Neas - should have played by the rules.
With Alito, Republicans will have four solid votes on the Court with one inclined to support, in case Democrats try to steal another election.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:14 pmI have the motto for the new Right Wing theocracy:
“BORN STUPID, LIVE STUPID, DIE STUPID”
YOUR GOD help you.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:39 pmMy point is that a Judge has to avoid even the appearance of conflict. When it was apparent there was a perception of conflict, he should have recused himself.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:45 pmHe definitely should try to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. While he eventually recused himself, he should have done so at the beginning. Can you imagine if Gonzales had decided to take on the Plame leak case and then recused himself AFTER he decided in it…after the public outcry?
This should definitely be made into a bigger deal.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:26 pmUgh and Dave are correct. This criticism appears to be driven by economic illiteracy. An investor in Vanguard funds has no interest in the Vanguard company itself, but is instead a client/customer of Vanguard.
From Judge Alito’s comment, it appears that the argument was made that the case would nonetheless affect investors in Vanguard funds - although the post doesn’t say how - and he concluded that it would not (given the massive size of the funds managed by Vanguard), but recused himself anyway to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:00 pmAs others have commented, there is no actual conflict here. Otherwise, by the same reasoning no judge could preside over a ruling involving the government — any judgment against the government reduces its ability to provide benefits to citizens and/or will lead indirectly to a higher tax burden. In effect, all citizens have a substantial investment in the government and a judgment against it hurts that “investment.” (except for the plaintiff) Of course, given the scale of the government, the number of citizens, and the size of a plausible judgment, this effect is trivially small.
Similarly, Vanguard funds have about $1 trillion invested in them. So, Scalito’s share is 1/2 of one billionth of their assets under management. So even, hypothetically, if the case involved the funds instead of the company (a critical distinction as others have mentioned), a $200 million dollar judgment would cost him personally 10 cents.
Don’t get me wrong, I oppose this nomination. I just think there are a lot of good reasons for that and we should resist peddling trivial ones that won’t fly.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:04 pmit’s NOT a conflict of interest… it’s one heckuva par-tay!
October 31st, 2005 at 2:04 pmSorry, math error in the last post. Should say “1/2 of one millionth” and that a $200 million dollar judgment would cost him $100. A much weaker point, but one that still holds.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:07 pmDon’t think the reasoning that because Alito’s investments are small, there’s no conflict of interest. Look at Frist. His investments in HCA are only a small fraction, but he’s facing a lot of criticism because of his potential conflict of interest with health care legislation.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:08 pm1. Technically Vanugard is a mutual - so Vangard the company is owned by investors in it’s funds.
2. That said, what a crock - as Franco points out the impac ton Alito would have been paltry if any.
3. This whole thing had better not be blown out of proportion - but fine, I suppose the left will have to find something to keep their image of a big evil cabal going. They probably think Miers was a set up on purpose……
October 31st, 2005 at 4:24 pmdoes Think Progress actually think Alito was wrong on this matter? if so, you ain’t got much common sense and perhaps you’re stupid.
i mean if he had ruled against vanquard what exactly would have happen to his investment with vanquard? don’t tell me, Think ‘full of hubris rich Liberals’ Progress, that he would have lost money if he hadn’t.
“progressive thinking” like this is what you get when you apply an English degree to an economic or legal issue.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:26 pmDon’t we all know by now that when it comes to money the Republicans have no ethics?
October 31st, 2005 at 5:26 pmDon’t forget that Scalia refused to recuse himself from the Florida case which resulted in the Supreme Court coup which installed Bush in the first election, despite the fact that Bush was represented by a law firm which employed Scalia’s son. I’m still amazed by that, and the failure of the media to question the propriety of the ethics of that.
October 31st, 2005 at 6:06 pmI second Maries opinion. =)
I see Our Resident Capicom (Capitalist International Communist) NED is still Buying into the Republican/Democrat/ Liberal ‘Myth’
Son Of Man.
Look and Learn.
In the 1960s the organization, determined to gain more corporate funding and expand its influence, applied for taxexempt status, which it received in the mid-1960s after a twoyear examination by the IRS. At the same time it became more overtly political in its goals. In its new guise, a main focus of AEI is to influence national policy and to place its scholars into influential positions in government. In the mid-1970s AEI joined with other conservative think tanks–backed by greatlyexpanded corporate funding–in a concerted effort to influence public policy in ways favorable to private enterprise. These groups churned out “books, books, and more books” attacking liberal “myths” and proposing specific conservative policy suggestions. (43) Through effective public relations and sophisticated media campaigns, AEI has attacked “uncontrolled government spending, excessive regulation, and the evils of bureaucracy.”(8,9)
Of course NED Buys into this Liberal ‘MYTH’ above; Yes NED AEI is the Parent Group of your beloved NEO-CON Capicoms PNAC.
Son of Man.
Look and Learn.
Jeane Kirkpatrick was a prominent member of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM) and the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD). CDM is an anticommunist group that was formed by the conservative wing of the Democratic Party in 1972 to promote a strong military. Many of its members went on to join the hawkish CPD. (26) Kirkpatrick was also connected with PRODEMCA (Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America). (27) PRODEMCA used funds from Oliver North’s illegal contra support network for media campaigns in favor of aid to the Nicaraguan contras. (40) Kirkpatrick has been on the “faculty” at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a rightwing think tank sometimes called “a parking lot for former government big shots.”(27) She also served on the board of Lewis Lehrman’s conservative citizens lobbying group Citizens for America and on the stridently anticommunist Committee for the Free World. (16,29) She was the vice president of the short-lived Nicaraguan Freedom Fund, a group funded by the Unificationchurch owned Washington Times which was supposed to funnel aid to the Nicaraguan contras. (30,31)
Pretty Hard to tell a Neo-Kook, from a Capicom, from a Democrat, from a Conservative.
Would you now agree NED Your Neo-Cons are basically the ones Democrats or ‘Liberals’ as you say?
Jeane even was associated with the Washington Times, Contras, and Ollie North.
What a Load of Crap you bought into NED.
October 31st, 2005 at 6:30 pmAckSyn…. Wow.
I think you just presented the most compelling argument I’ve seen on here yet for stricter moderation of these comment threads.
Seriously… WTF, man?
October 31st, 2005 at 9:45 pmSo Alito is another Frist. Perfect for the neocon agenda.
votetoimpeach.org
November 1st, 2005 at 1:28 amLAW: Smearing Judge Alito
Given the difficulty of persuading the American people that they would be justified in filibustering Samuel Alito based solely on his judicial philosophy, it’s not surprising that some on the Left are looking to smear him instead with bogus ethical…
November 1st, 2005 at 7:42 amI wonder if Alito has the same broker as Michael Moore?
Seriously, the whole conflict of interest argument is lame. Let’s focus on his stance on spousal notification and his rulings.
Unfortunately, we are too caught up in the b.s., and as a result, look foolish.
FYI: Someone needs to put a muzzle on Schumer. He has embarrassed himself again. Amazingly, he did it this time before even meeting the man. Referencing Rosa Parks before she is laid to rest is reprehensible. How is he or the other Reps. going to say they are going into the proceedings (especially after unanimously confirming him for the Court of Appeals in 1990) with an open mind? Some of these dolts continue to act like bulls in a china shop. Where has the art of politics gone? For us to “Bork” him, we have to do our due diligence. When will we learn how to play the game?
November 1st, 2005 at 10:00 amChris Matthews thiks Democrats are “disgusting”.
“I don’t know. I think the democrats, i’m sitting here holding in my hands a disgusting document, put out not for attribution. The democrats are circulating it. It’s a complaint sheet against judge alito’s nomination. The first thing they nail is he failed to win a mob conviction in 1988. They nail him on not putting italian mobsters in jail. Why would they bring this up? This is either a very bad coincidence or very bad politics. Either way it will hurt them. This document, not abortion rights, not civil rights but that he failed to nail some mobsters in 1988. This is the top of their list. Amazingly bad politics.”
http://www.shadowtv.com/ redirect/ notification.jsp?vid=31bb95519fffc352aedbff0b92d14722
November 1st, 2005 at 11:25 amRepublicans are corrupt by nature. Of course this guy is involved in conflict of interests. Fascists are always crooks, thieves, liars - and as we all know republicanism=fascism! The rightwing of the 30s has become the rightwing for a new century.
November 1st, 2005 at 9:17 pmAccording to the Washington Post: “When Samuel A. Alito Jr. appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee 15 years ago as a nominee for the appellate bench, he promised in writing to disqualify himself from “any cases involving the Vanguard companies,” a stock and mutual fund firm in which he had substantial personal investments.” The url is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2005/ 10/ 31/ AR2005103101686.html?sub=AR
November 2nd, 2005 at 5:20 pmHe is not worthy! Next candidate…
Well, I wish you were right, but it turns out that the Code of Conduct for US Judges explicitly lets Scalito off the hook. Stephen
November 3rd, 2005 at 4:14 pmHealth Insurance Health Care Waste Management Small Business Health Insurance Florida
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 11th, 2008 at 9:27 pmEric
That is a different way of thinking about it.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:20 pmlearn how to play golf
Good websites are few and far between; yours is a pleasure to visit; bookmarking for future visits and I enthusiastically recommend the same!
June 27th, 2008 at 12:32 amHealth Insurance Florida Individual Health Insurance Patient Safety
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 28th, 2008 at 3:09 pmHealth Insurance Aetna Health Insurance Universal Life Insurance
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
July 7th, 2008 at 5:56 amOnline Cash Advance
Secure lender supplying payday cash advance nationwide.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:41 amgolf cart florida
The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August
July 14th, 2008 at 7:45 pmJohnnie Hair
Tamra Hatfield
Eva Keilbach
Penelope Mcintosh
Dona Pinney
Prudence Marriman
Shantelle Porter
Sherry Butler
Earline Echard
Brendan Brandenburg
Baptist Judge
Isidora Treeby
Orval Anderson
Bart Wheeler
Brittani Mcmichaels
Cara Rowe
Nevada G…
The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August
July 16th, 2008 at 5:26 pmBetter Business Bureau Work From Home Businesses Businesses For Sale
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
July 20th, 2008 at 10:29 am