Alito: If Confirmed, I Won’t Recuse Myself From Vanguard Cases
Alito: If Confirmed, I Won’t Recuse Myself From Vanguard Cases
Judge Samuel Alito’s failure to recuse himself from a case involving Vanguard, a company in which Alito has invested between $390,000 to $975,000 of his personal fortune, has become a source of “debate and disagreement.” Yesterday, he argued that his failure to recuse was merely an oversight on his part, but if given the opportunity to go back in time and do things differently, he would.
ALITO: And is a case that came up in 2002, 12 years after I took the bench, and I acknowledged that if I had to do it over again, there are things that I would have done differently. And it’s not because I violated any ethical standard, but it’s because when this case first came before me, I did not focus on the issue of recusal and apply my own personal standard, which is to go beyond what the code of conduct for judges requires.
Today, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) gave Alito the opportunity to uphold this pledge and declare that any such conflict of interest would not happen again. But Alito would not promise to recuse himself from a case involving Vanguard if he were to be confirmed for a seat on the Supreme Court:
FEINGOLD: Is there any question, if you still have holdings in Vanguard and a case comes before the Supreme Court, that you should recuse yourself?
ALITO: Well, under the Code of Judicial Conduct, I don’t believe that I am required to recuse myself in Vanguard cases. And I would strictly comply with the ethical obligations that apply to a Supreme Court justice.
Alito’s answer today that he will not recuse himself in the future because it is not required by the code of judicial conduct is in direct contrast to his pledge yesterday to “go beyond what the code of conduct requires.†If Alito wants to put this controversy to rest, why won’t he simply pledge never to rule on a case involving Vanguard in the future?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“I did not focus on the issue of recusal …”
What, the briefs had the litigant’s names whited out? COME ON …
January 11th, 2006 at 5:44 pmWell DUH!!!! Isn’t it obvious?!?! He’s got his offer from Vanguard, and now it’s worth his while not to recuse. Get with it! The guy is a Rethuglican first!!
January 11th, 2006 at 5:48 pmWho cares? Pass the Prozac and pour another round. Alito is in, the Donks don’t get another Sandra WishyWashy O’Connor and all the American people are gong to take from this spectacle is what a class act Sam is and how easily a Donk can pass for an ass.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:50 pmHe won’t promise to recuse because this would be a backhand admission that he should have recused himself before. He’s trying to muddy the waters here, and persuade people that a recusal in such cases may not always be ethically required…..
HTH.
Kind of like the present maladministration’s policy of never admitting a mistake, even when it’s so glaring you need sunglasses to contemplate it, because if you tough it out, enough of the RW yahoos are gonna say, “well, he’s sticking to his guns, he must be right, eh?…”
Cheers,
January 11th, 2006 at 5:53 pmI don’t care for Alito, but this whole Vanguard thing is a red herring. Vanguard is a vast mutual fund manager. To think that any one lawsuit (even a massive class action) would affect Alito’s investments is silly. In fact, if there were a class action of any size Alito likely be a class member (as an investor) and would benefit from a ruling that required Vanguard to reimburse investors.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:06 pmwell we got 114 now to impeach Blair we need 200 gonna be here soon …the link in the chain is gonna break …How you americans getting on with bush impeached …can i track progress anywhere like this link
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29437&SESSION=875
January 11th, 2006 at 6:06 pmGo Sammy!!!
January 11th, 2006 at 6:06 pmReminds me of Sen. Hightower (TX-RIP) who promised (in 1987?) to give up drinking if confirmed as Sec of Defense. That was the final blow to his nomination.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:13 pmTed Kennedy is a MURDERER, yet the left treats him like God. It’s scary how dumb liberals are.
Comment by Samuel Alito
And he’s still a drunk.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:22 pmYou back again? Damn, get a life guy.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:22 pmtrolls are worried. Otherwise they wouldn’t be here so much.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:23 pmthe new statute for republicans is to admit that what they do is against the law, and then thumb their noses at anyone saying so.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:29 pmthis is a mussolini type facisti folks, anyone that would want alito in such a position is the type of person that thinks they know more and better than someone else. Which proves the point that they are neither
Republicans prove that they believe that you’re innocent until proven guilty, unless you’re a democrat, at which point they believe all Democrats are guilty, and there’s no way to prove their innocence. I-RIGHT-I just demostrates yet another way Republicans don’t believe in, or represent american values. Unlike smears made against Kennedy, we have proof that Specter lied, Bush lied and Alito lied. Republicans lie because they don’t like the truth, and they prefer criminality to honesty. The ends to not justify the means, and virtually no act of republicans is justified, despite their intense efforts to justify and project their guilt on others. Poor things, clearly all of those religious fairy tales have helped to to live their lives in delusion and out of reality.
I-RIGHT-I, I feel pity for you that you could live so disconnected from yourself and your fellow americans. You’re truly a tragic soul.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:31 pmVanguard is a vast mutual fund manager. To think that any one lawsuit (even a massive class action) would affect Alito’s investments is silly.
Doesn’t matter. He has a direct stake in the outcome. He has $400K of Vanguard stock, and the named party is “Vanguard”.
There was a reason the decision (which Alito voted in favour of Vanguard on) was vacated and Alito removed.
Then there’s the matter of trust: Alito said he’d recuser himself from cases involving his investments, and he didn’t….
Cheers,
January 11th, 2006 at 6:32 pmGWB is the king, and Scalito is the little prince.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:32 pmIn fact, if there were a class action of any size Alito likely be a class member (as an investor) and would benefit from a ruling that required Vanguard to reimburse investors.
And then he’d also be an interested party and sould recuse. But nice “red herring”. That was not the case. As it was, it was a case where Vanguard (and Alito’s investment) was at risk, and Alito voted for Vanguard. Why not discuss the actual factual basis at hand, rather than making up some imaginary case, where Alito’s failure to recuse would be (in your eyes, at least) less objectionable. Oh, yeah, because maybe that wouldn’t fit your desired conclusion….
Cheers,
January 11th, 2006 at 6:36 pmA little off topic, but click on this link and watch Sen Cornyn make a total ass of himself:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/11/161224/773
January 11th, 2006 at 6:38 pmI would like to see a thread where right between the I’s actually stops sucking republican dicak and actually contributes something of value.
I personally don’t think he’s able. He like the taste of feces on his cocks.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:38 pmSomebody’s looking to get their comments pulled. Or something like that.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:58 pmHave you ever seen such bul*sh*t in all your born days?
Either Alito’s wife was crying bec she knows that sombich IS a bigot and racist, because she was recalling the moment he came out to her, or because it was staged…
Why don’t the republiscum senators just blow the guy, it’s apparent he’s their kinda fella…
January 11th, 2006 at 7:04 pmThe hearings have become just a side show when the Majority knows it has the votes for confirmation. Just like the judges won’t let their own personal views interfere with their independant judicial philosphy,IE: Scalia, Roberts, and now Alito their Catholic beliefs wont influence any decision regarding RoeV Wade, any idea that their own financial or personal relationships might hinder them to make an objective and unbiased differential ruling on any matter before the court is a given. Come on, Scalia went duck hunting with the Vice President as a personal guest, prior to the court ruling on privileged conversations for the Executive branch and saw no reason to recuse himself. What do you expect. Hey the President is above the Law at his convenience why not the Supreme court?
January 11th, 2006 at 7:13 pmbig papa,
January 11th, 2006 at 7:14 pmPerhaps they were tears of disappointment as she came to the realization of what a tool she is married to. But I suspect it was staged for sympathy, which is incredibly pathetic.
bottom line, he just ADMITED, ‘he’ll do as he pleases’,never mind justice. DISQUALIFIED, next…..
January 11th, 2006 at 7:24 pmhe’s using the Scalia formula for recusal … not gonna do it.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:31 pmEthics are in the eye of the party in control.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:33 pmit’s not just vanguard…
“Alito and Exxon-Mobil…just wondering”
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002634.html
“…Alito provided new details about his financial holdings, including that he owns $161,000 of Exxon Mobil Corp. stock…
…the chance that Alito will not be asked to rule on something that impacts Exxon-Mobil is completely nil…”
January 11th, 2006 at 7:38 pmAliot is in (without a doubt), but that does not mean he shouldn’t have to answer questions about his past actions. Those actions are the true arbitor of what his future will hold (not what he says he will do). This point a few bad jokes are at PoliZoo.com
January 11th, 2006 at 7:41 pmWithout a doubt? I’m sure we’ll find SOME skeletons is his OBVIOUSLY MANY closets.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:53 pm#6
The Flying Scotman,
I love your link. It is nice to see a real democracy in the works. I listed by party and there are 8 yes 8 different parties.
This two sided shit over here is exactly what the problem is.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:07 pmWhy do Republicans call Kennedy a murderer when he obviously never had any INTENT to kill anyone, it was an ACCIDENT. Meanwhile Bush has executed HOW MANY people??? And sent HOW MANY troops to die for his lies??? And killed HOW MANY innocent Iraqi civilians with his bombing raids???
Strange, with him being a Christian and all, that he wouldn’t remember that little thing called THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Now I’m no Christian (and neither was Jesus), but I’m pretty sure that one of them is “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. Way to go, Bushie boy!
January 11th, 2006 at 8:11 pmJustin,
The short answer is that republicans are liars and hypocrites. They prefer to ‘win’, even it means lying, cheating, stealing or subverting justice. They see compromise, and working with others as a sign of weakness. They believe that competition requires violence. They believe that the ends justify the means.
Summary conclusion, they say what they say because they’re just a little insane.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:19 pmHow can they all be insane? How can everyone be corrupt? What hope does that leave for our future?
Its like half the country has gone totally mad and the other half hasn’t noticed.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:27 pmWhat hope does that leave for our future? NONE! Unless we the people make a change of our ELECTED leaders.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:33 pmI agree. I find it amazing how people walk around blind to this stuff.
It only takes me 5-10 minutes of talking to anybody to get them to wake up.
You know what my favorite weapon is?
The PSP. The Sony PSP can play videos, display images and play audio tracks. I have an entire 1GB memorsy stick dedicated to Bush and friends lies. So, I am not just talking, I can show people. They can see and hear for themselves the lies.
People tend to be quite shocked, because this stuff is not covered by the “liberal media”
January 11th, 2006 at 8:54 pm#33, Justin
Its like half the country has gone totally mad and the other half hasn’t noticed.
How aptly put.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:58 pmSamuel Alito will never lay all his cards out on the table. It is in his best interests not to. The thing Republican(conservative) stratagists know that the conservative automatron braindead followers don’t know is that the conservative leadership never intended to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. Samuel Alito is not going to overturn Roe Vs. Wade because that is not what the RNC really wants. They need abortion present so that they can always use it to manipulate voters into getting behind conservative candidates. The featus is just a political football in the eyes of the conservative leadership. If they really cared so much for babies, they(the conservative politicians)wouldn’t vote for spending cuts on the working poor families of America. Samuel Alito’s role in the whole conservative flim flam was to produce outrage so as to further divide and conquer America on behalf of the Conservative puppetmasters.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:58 pmAnd if by some chance the followers of the conservative movement ever figured out that their leaders were playing them for fools, that will prove even better for the conservative leadership because millions of conservative Americans would become disillusioned and would no longer take part in the political process. These millions of poor disillusioned former conservatives would become spectators and would give up their own power to the powers-to-be(the conservative puppet-masters). The leaders of the conservative movement would be only too eager to fill the vacuum left by those they used and abused.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:05 pmI don’t hate the conservatives. Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative, it doesn’t matter. They are my fellow Americans. I feel bad for them. I want to help them. That is why I am extending my hands out to them in the hopes that they will accept my help. They mean well, and deep down they are all good people. They just need a guiding light.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:10 pmIt’s sad at the end of the day he’ll get the gig and he was nominated by such an unpopular president. It’s just not right.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:20 pm#40 – maybe you need to step outside the bubble and ask yourself why such an unpopular President is naming justices to the Supreme Court.
If you want the answer, just look at the hatefulness that Democrats spewed today. We never did this to Ginsburg or Breyer. NEVER. Today’s stunt cost Democrats seats in any red state in America. AND you can’t blame Bush for that.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:29 pmThe issue of Roe is about a constitutional right of each woman to make up her own mind about abortion during the earliest first trimester stage of pregnancy. The decision is very difficult. Women at that time when the embryo has not yet developed into anything near a thinking being should have the ability to control their bodies and to decide whether they want to house an embryo. The government should not have the right to impose its view at that time.
If you take away the right to choose the states will legislate the issue in different directions. Poor women will suffer and rich women will be slightly inconvenienced. Poor women in states where abortion is barred will not have the same rights as rich women who can travel to other states where abortion is legal. The result will be incredibly regressive and lead to dangerous back-alley abortions.
Republicans have shown a disturbing pattern to favor the rich over the poor.
Also, if life is sacred, how come the Bush Republicans have killed far more of our soldiers and citizens than Democrats in recent history? One would have thought that in their calculations, Republicans would count the loss of life greater against the potential gains of conquest in a war, and therefore would be less likely to go to war. That is not the case. Again, the poor in our volunteer army have been the ones who have suffered and in this case been killed. And one would have thought the Republicans would value human life greater against money, but again they cut corners in our Homeland Security and body armor for our troops, and our disaster victims in Katrina and inadequately protected soldiers perished.
The majority of Americans do not favor overturning Roe. Republicans are out of the mainstream on this issue, they are imposing their religion/morality over individual freedom, they are favoring the rich over the poor, and they are acting inconsistently with their warlike and reckless policies in which so many have died.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:39 pm#31 The reason bushy gets away with it is BECAUSE of his CLAIM to be a christian. But as a christian, bushy is FAR FAR FAR from ANY remote meaning of christian.
He is a schizophrenic psychopath that needs serious medical attention. When he first became prez a reporter asked which historic figure he most identified with and he IMMEDIATELY said christ. As in christ the messiah NOT jesus the man.
Murder in the name of god is a load of shit. bushy is NO BETTER than the radical muslims that brought the towers down.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:41 pmTetra King – Sorry, but the Democrats MUST ask these detailed and critical questions. It’s because the crooks have stolen the bank and they have to ensure that they clean it all out before anyone notices.
We’ll see. I think that people are really starting to wake up to what Bush and his partners in crime are really up to. Rap and Pillage the country. If they don’t wake up, well then they can kiss their liberties bye bye.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:43 pmIt is highly likely that a case involving Exxon-Mobil will come before the Supreme Court in the not so distant future. Alito, who mysteriously was “bequeathed” a pretty fair number of shares in the corporation from some unknown benefactor a couple of years ago, is already announcing he will not recuse himself in any conflict of interest case. Something smell funny here?
January 11th, 2006 at 9:58 pm#44 – I don’t agree that Bush’s plan is to extend the executive branch to be Big Brother. He will be gone soon and the Democrats could get the White House back. No one in a democracy wants the White House to have too much power.
But today, the issue is Alito and whether or not he is qualified. He is and until Democrats understand that attacking qualified conservatives is political suicide, their will be Republicans in the White House.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:08 pm#48 Your not looking at the big picture! To maintain the power is exactly what the WH is trying to do. Don’t be suprised in a couple of years when the president says that he is going to enact presidential powers to remain the president because we are still at war. It’s for the good of the nation that I remain in power, is what Bush and company will say.
After all, look at the PNAC document. This describes all of the things that are to come. NWO (New World Order) is what they are trying to achieve and they will try to make it happen no matter what, just like 9/11. Dont think that a few thousand lives mean anything to them, they have over 7,000 American lives and over 150,000 Iraqi lives. It’s all about the power.
Enjoy your freedom while you have it Tetra King, because King George is working to make sure that your rights will be taken away and Alito is another piece of the puzzle.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:19 pmAlito is underqualified to be a rest room attendent at Wal-Mart.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:20 pmWaltTheMan – I actually believe he is rather inteligent and is very knowladgable with the law. However, he is very clearly against the little person and for big buisness. This, and the fact that he is extremely right, makes him a very dangerous person to be on a court with this much power.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:24 pmRemoveBush,
January 11th, 2006 at 10:30 pmI guage intelligence on the ability to remember and act on life experiences. The mind is like a tape recorder. Unintelligent poeople use the erase button too often. Alito is a prime example.
Oops – people.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:31 pm#
I think Democrats will destroy themselves before the end of this year. The hatred that is on display in the hearings is turning Americans off. The GOP’s job is to remind voters that Democrats only plan if they were to take back Congress is to continue the left-wing witch hunts.
Ted Kennedy is a MURDERER, yet the left treats him like God. It’s scary how dumb liberals are.
Comment by Samuel Alito — January 11, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Now thats an Unbiased Judge for ya. say SAMMY, doesnt it Say Justice is Blind?
January 11th, 2006 at 10:39 pmYou are Blinded by hatred Sammy dude, your like salivating, like a mad dog, Something annoying you? Perhaps Jeff Gannon? Or Fitz? or Those damn liberals? Cmon Sam, you can do better than the tired old Rush Limbaugh racial lines. Thats been done ad nauseum
January 11th, 2006 at 10:42 pmDems didn’t do anything today. Their questions were soft, yet less sappy, than the Goobers. “What kind of Ice Cream do you like, Alito?” asks Sessions. Jeesh. What a suckfest. The goobers know they need someone to give the war criminals some slack.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:12 pmI think Democrats will destroy themselves before the end of this year.
Comment by Samuel Alito — January 11, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Wishful thinking. Do you have a crystal ball?
The hatred that is on display in the hearings is turning Americans off.
More wishful thinking. How do you know? How many people did you poll?.
The GOP’s job is to remind voters that Democrats only plan if they were to take back Congress is to continue the left-wing witch hunts.
“Witch hunts”? Like Delay’s indictement? Abramoff, Scanlon guilty pleas? Pray tell, what “witch hunts”?
Ted Kennedy is a MURDERER, yet the left treats him like God. It’s scary how dumb liberals are.
The fact that you post strawman after strawman, shows how out of touch with reality you are. It’s really scary.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:16 pmFunny how you guys still haven’t figured out that Alito did not own stock in Vanguard. He owned shares of mutual funds managed by Vanguard. That you don’t know the difference shows how ignorant you actually are. No legitimate organization has stated that he violated any ethics rules. The American Bar Association, the organization that counts on this, did not think he did anything wrong.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:18 pmWhat also gets lost in the rush to condemn is the fact that when the complaintant brought this up after losing the case was reheard by other judges who, wait for it…..reached the same decision Alito did!! So even if you make the stretch that he shouldn’t have heard the case, you are left with the inescapable evidence that he reached the same decision as supposedly un-biased judges. This would tend to prove that he does have an “open mind” as Sen. Durbin put it (as if he would know what one was).
Alito is flaky, whimsical, short-sighted, and a liar.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:24 pmTheRef, so by judging against the little person, I think it was more than 70% of the time, is not biased and is “open minded”? He has CLEARLY demonstrated an act for judging based on his opinion, rather than the facts. In one case, he was the lone disenter among 11 judges. Nooooo he’s not biased and has a completely open mind! When he can’t even come to a similar decission that 10 other judges come to tells me that it was pretty clear what the decission should have been.
It’s not like the judges were split 5 to 6 or 8 to 3 it was 10 to 1.
Now don’t try to tell me that he is “open minded”. He legislates from the bench.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:26 pmMrs. Alito started to cry when she heard the sound of Senator Lyndsey Grahams’(R-Emerald City)balls bouncing off of her husbands chin.
Stagecraft and shammery.
-GSD
January 11th, 2006 at 11:46 pmFunny how you guys still haven’t figured out that Alito did not own stock in Vanguard. He owned shares of mutual funds managed by Vanguard. That you don’t know the difference shows how ignorant you actually are.
Comment by TheRef — January 11, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
Funny how you still haven’t figured out what this thread is about. What’s worse, instead of trying to find out, you refute what your overactive imagination tells you it is about. That you cannot tell the difference shows how delusional and ignorant you are.
Alito yesterday said that “he did not violate any ethical standard in failing to recuse himself from a 2002 case involving Vanguard, the mutual-fund company where his investments totaled several hundred thousand dollars at the time. But he said he would have acted differently if he had it to do over again.” Alito on the issues
“Differently” meaning he would recuse himself from any case involving Vanguard. Which is the exact opposite of what he said today: He reneged on his pledge. That’s what the thread is about.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:58 pm#62
January 12th, 2006 at 12:05 amYou’re damn sharp for a dung beetle, Gregor. We can always count on you to stay on target.
if its a Bushco Appointee LOOK OUT!!
January 12th, 2006 at 12:10 am“Производитель†or ‘Producer & “ ИÑтребитель†‘Exterminator’Or Abramoff and DelayIn order to facilitate American assistance, Mogilevich made contact with Republican lobbyist Jack Abramof. From 1996, the American CIA in conjunction with various European law enforcement agencies, were tapping Mogilevich’s international telephone calls (with the assistance of the secret NSA’s “Operation Harvest†that taps into the communications satellites worldwide) and became aware of the outlines of the enormous swindle. From this, it was learned that a person being contacted with the purpose of securing top level financial support and official U.S. government blindness, was a man called “Производитель†or ‘Producer.’ This was later positively identified as Jack Abramof, who had produced a terrible movie called “Red Scorpion,†released in 1989. His high-level American contact was identified as “ ИÑтребитель†‘Exterminator’- who was later positively identified as Tomas Dale DeLay, Congressman and powerful Republican figure from Texas. At one time, DeLay, a personal friend of Abramof, ran a pest exterminator company in Texas, one that failed due to the rampant alcoholism of the later Republican Whip
______________
hey IRI whatcha gotta say Now?
BYE BYE ALITO, BUSHCO, AND DELAY INC, and of Course the Neo-Kooks, the Republicrooks democreeps, Libbyists whom took part in Bushco..
Bye Bye
January 12th, 2006 at 12:12 amSo long Yellow Elephant!
Muuuuuuhahahahahaaa
January 12th, 2006 at 12:13 amM. Duchamp,
Thanks! ;-)
It’s hard to stay on topic with these trolls. They are always trying to change the subject: Clinton did it, Kerry did it, the “liberal media” distorts, the Democrats do it too… the list of excuses never ends.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:15 amFor more on Alito’s key rulings, judicial history, Reagan-era documents, an interactive chart of his decisons, confirmation hearing transcripts and other essential materials, see:
“The Alito Files.”
January 12th, 2006 at 12:18 amThanks #47, for pointing out before I had time to get to it that Laura Bush (nee Welch) caused a car accident that killed an ex-boyfriend. From http://www.nndb.com:
On the night of November 6, 1963, 17-year-old Laura Welch ran a stop sign in the family Chevy at the intersection of State Highway 349 and Farm Road 868 near Midland, Texas. She plowed into a Corvair sedan, killing its driver — classmate (and purported boyfriend) Michael Dutton Douglas.
Trolls like #9 and #10–not to mention Ann-trax Coulter–love to accuse Ted Kennedy of murder but conveniently forget that our highly respected first lady is “guilty” of pretty much the same thing (if “guilty” is the word to be used here). Any comment, #9 or 10, or Annie-thrax?
January 12th, 2006 at 12:32 amWow! I was totally unaware of Mrs. Bush’s “history”. The circle of hipocrisy is now totally complete. UNBELIEVABLE.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:03 amBlack is white. Up is down. In is out. And corruption is integrity.
Gee, I’m glad the new and improved republican party was able to explain all this too this lowly proletarius. :|
January 12th, 2006 at 1:39 amAre ye beginning to discern Alito`s Way?
January 12th, 2006 at 4:27 amThere’s not enough outrage. Something is amiss. Alito wants to “peck away” at Roe. This is the most damaging philosophy a judge can have. It is subversive on it’s face.
January 12th, 2006 at 7:21 amI agree. I find it amazing how people walk around blind to this stuff.
It only takes me 5-10 minutes of talking to anybody to get them to wake up.
Comment by Spudge_Boy #35
Hey Spudge,
I kid you not, the other day I asked a Bushite (well known in our bldg)…
“So what do you think?” I said, “Is the president involved?”
“Involved in what?” asks the Bushite…
“The Abramoff scandal, you know the lobbyist thing.”
“What’s that?”
I swear…these dumb, inbred sombiches are supporting things they know NOTHING about!
January 12th, 2006 at 8:04 amPecking away at Roe is bad for America and Big Government.
January 12th, 2006 at 8:07 amYou progressives don’t get it. Never mind about Alito’s qualifications, don’t you watch the hearings?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Mrs. Alito breaking down and bawling yesterday is being replayed every hour, on the hour on Faux News. This morning Fox Friends, Edie and the idots, were just appalled how the dems were attacking Alito and couldn’t help but take some cheap shots at democratic leaders who questioned Alito’s inconsistencies while heaping praise on the Alito’s cheerleading section of republican panel members.
Yesterday it was about Martha Alito. Bawling and squawling. Wonder what the dog and pony show has set up for today?
January 12th, 2006 at 8:12 amAlito argued in the 17-page document that stepping into the case, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , would be a more effective strategy for President Ronald Reagan than a “frontal assault” on Roe v. Wade.
January 12th, 2006 at 8:44 amhttp://www.tedkennedy.com/askalito
January 12th, 2006 at 8:48 amAlito refused to answer any questions about Roe, even though he answered questions about other issues… how does he know what issues might come before him? his using that as a reason for not answering is just a smokescreen… whereas, the CAP stuff is just a lie… one Senator pointed out yesterday that Alito can remember every detail of every one of his cases, but not a club he was in, and included on his resume…
I think we can get Alito to remember, with some help from the CIA…
http://blogdebogs.blogspot.com/2006/01/alito-on-wrack.html
January 12th, 2006 at 9:03 am#73 – Ms. Alito broke down and cried when Judge Alito was being questioned by a . . . . Republican! I’ll be Paux news doesn’t interject that particular fact. Nope, it wouldn’t be prudent. Not at this juncture.
Interesting how a Republican can make someone cry, and the Democrats are blaned for their actions. So much for the party of “personal responsibility”.
January 12th, 2006 at 9:49 amKennedy just hammered Alito for wanting exception for his mistakes, yet no exceptions for little guys in Alito courts.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:09 amBiden is thinking of dropping Hearings, by RNUT blogs, and AP news. However If one Connects BUSH, DELAY FALWELL, then one connects the group of Lawyers, like Federalist Groups, PNAC “fresh Meat” and the Roberston Falwell Schools, then Delay and Falwell, then the Russians, then one may have a CHANCE to Block Alito, a groupie.
However, Buschco neo-con Falwell ‘Fresh meat’ or ‘dupes College’ has more of their “reverse Conservatives’ lined up.
Group Thinkers for sure, yet groups expose themselves. Of course all these Think-Tanks, Falwellians, PACS are Funded by the Same ILK, or ‘Faith Based’ Dupes. The Me-Me groups of DiemoCreeps And Rethuglicans never hedge a Bet.
Ahh to be a Moderate..Isnt that eventually, where you ‘PARTY’ thinkers will be after another few Decades? Your Opinions split you, divide you, and the Herd Moves on, Grazing on the Foolish.
Bias Free and peaceful.
I do not laugh at you, but with you. I do not cry for you, but with you. I dont live for you, but cannot live without you.
Whatever shall we do? =)
January 12th, 2006 at 10:33 amHere’s my Cliff Notes take on Alioto.
He’s a very smart person who probably does a good job at his current status.
I object to him going to a higher status because he has shown, by his writings & rulings, that he isn’t mainstream. He supports Executive Branch tyranny, something that even libertarian republicans now distrust (including us progressives). He’s willing to be an activist judge from the extreme right wing. He wants to overturn a womans right to the birth control of her choosing.
Now, those grounds alone are all I need to say he isn’t fit to sit on my supreme court. I don’t need reichtwingnuts to agree with me over this point. So, you all who support him, tell us why he deserves to sit.
That’ll get us a whole lot farther than calling each other names. Mind you, I really thing that flaming liberals is why many of the reichtwingnutz come here. Their ego’s are infantile and they can feel big.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:33 amHere’s my Cliff Notes take on Alioto.
He’s a very smart person who probably does a good job at his current status.
I object to him going to a higher status because he has shown, by his writings & rulings, that he isn’t mainstream. He supports Executive Branch tyranny, something that even libertarian republicans now distrust (including us progressives). He’s willing to be an activist judge from the extreme right wing. He wants to overturn a womans right to the birth control of her choosing.
Now, those grounds alone are all I need to say he isn’t fit to sit on my supreme court. I don’t need reichtwingnuts to agree with me over this point. So, you all who support him, tell us why he deserves to sit.
I cannot give you a Reason WHY he should sit, given the record, A groupie would find no reason other than hes ONE of their OWN, which is the opposite of democracy at its core. Sure Mr. Alitos has his opinions, we all do.
I ask Mr Alito this.
“If you, Mr. Alito, you had not been a Part of these groups, as many have, then is it likely you would have attained the positions that you have? That is, had you stayed ‘Soverign’, would you be here today?
If a Judge judges each case on its own Merit, then wouldnt the Best judges be soverign?
It doesnt really matter, this is just TV hype anyway, they already know what they are going to vote before this even started.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:43 amWWF Congress.
Why even watch it?
High School Antics gone D.C.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:48 amThe Clik vs the Clik
I-RIGHT-I, I feel pity for you that you could live so disconnected from yourself and your fellow americans. You’re truly a tragic soul.
Comment by RightPunch
Don’t you know you represent a small minority of radical losers? The disconnect is all yours. Tragedy is the stock and trade of the progressive as history has clearly proven. The fact that you dipshits can’t win an election should tell you something.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:57 am…now you fake a crying jag when I give you the signal mrs.alito…got it? How low can they go…..no limits until we impeach the whole gang.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:59 amThink Progress is really, really stupid. There was NOTHING ethically wrong with not recusing himself in the Vanguard matter. Why? Because ruling in favor of Vanguard could not benefit him.
This is accepted practice by the legal community, who’s opinion’s actually matter… unlike the dunce Think Progress.
Alito is getting confirmed. Think Progress has failed. I’m laughing at you.
January 12th, 2006 at 11:04 amAlito is in, the Donks don’t get another Sandra WishyWashy O’Connor and all the American people are gong to take from this spectacle is what a class act Sam is…
Comment by I-RIGHT-I #3
I-’dsaysomethingsmartbutmymouthisfullabushba*ls-I,
Other than another pathetic opportunity to declare to this forum that “you’ve won”, please explain to us EXACTLY WHAT it is you’ll have gained personally from an Alito seat on the SC?
January 12th, 2006 at 11:51 amwhat’s up with the children, oops, I mean righties?
They seem to be a lot younger and more stupid than usual.
January 12th, 2006 at 11:57 amyet no exceptions for little guys in Alito courts.
Comment by Gus the Loving OBGYN #78
I-Triflina*s-I #3 and Byle #85
I hope you understand the nature of Gus’ post…
If your, ignorant, insignificant, powerless, trifling inbred a*ses (or your worthless progeny and kin) ever have to sue a huge corporation for some negligent act or harmful product, Alito’s going to stick his long arm of the law right up your sorry, know nothing a*ses…
He’s not for you, unless you happen to head multinational corporations, or are a member of the wealthy elitist class…
In other words, you’re celebrating the ascension of the plutocratic court, which will deleteriously affect your individual constitutional rights…
Inbred picture language versions of this message available upon request…
January 12th, 2006 at 12:01 pmAs it was, it was a case where Vanguard (and Alito’s investment) was at risk, and Alito voted for Vanguard. Why not discuss the actual factual basis at hand, rather than making up some imaginary case, where Alito’s failure to recuse would be (in your eyes, at least) less objectionable. Oh, yeah, because maybe that wouldn’t fit your desired conclusion….
January 12th, 2006 at 1:16 pmWell, the facts were that Vanguard froze the assets held in two IRAs because a Massachusetts state court ordered it to do so. The plaintiff (one of two individuals claiming ownership of the IRAs) in the case in which Alito ruled sued Vanguard saying it should not have frozen the IRAs. Vanguard’s own assets were never at risk. This was a fight between two people about who should get the IRAs. Vanguard was simply the custodian stuck in the middle. So those were the facts of that case.
More facts: Alito does not own stock in Vanguard. Vanguard is not a publicly traded company. Alito owns shares in Vanguard mutual funds, which are widely-diversified portfolios. So, let’s say Vanguard gets socked with a $200,000,000 in an employment discrimination class action. That judgment has no relationship to the stocks that make up the portfolio of investments in the Vanguard mutual funds.
I would argue that a judge who owns mutual funds is far less likely to be conflicted than a judge who owns individual stocks like GE, IBM or Exxon-Mobil.
Anyway, focusing on the Vanguard issues is grasping at straws and it that’s the best Senate democrats can do then they deserve to be in the minority.
I do not want Alito confirmed because of his views on executive power, deference to government, and his stance on abortion. Vanguard is a distraction from far more important issues.
Vanguard’s own assets were never at risk. This was a fight between two people about who should get the IRAs. Vanguard was simply the custodian stuck in the middle. So those were the facts of that case.
Vanguard was a named defendant. While you term it as a dispute as to two different private parties other that Vanguard, it also affects whether Vanguard has the money or not. Maharaj was trying to take it out.
More facts: Alito does not own stock in Vanguard. Vanguard is not a publicly traded company. Alito owns shares in Vanguard mutual funds, which are widely-diversified portfolios.
From here:
Cheers,
January 12th, 2006 at 3:46 pmI-RIGHT-I, I see from comment #83 that you’re still alive (though perhaps brain-dead) and trolling. Since you have called Ted Kennedy a “murderer,” why won’t you comment on Laura Welch Bush’s automobile accident that similarly caused a death? It seems you Busheviks, along with the Bush administration, avoid an answer or change the subject every time there is a question you can’t respond to in your favor.
January 12th, 2006 at 8:15 pmPs. #10, I apologize for putting you in with the trolls. Your comment was obviously not along those lines.
#57 – So you feel a 70/30 ratio (if that’s correct) means Alito is against the “little guy”? Would 70/30 in favor make you happy? Even if the “little guy” was wrong? Even if the case had no merit? Yep, that sounds like the proper role of a judge! If he was really out to stomp on citizens why isn’t it 90/10 or 100/0?
#59 – I understand very well what the thread purports to be about. I simply corrected what appeared to be a (very) widely held here misconception of what people think they are ranting about. When I feel the need to increase my ignorance I come here! Kinda like watching cartoons. It makes me laugh to see so many people getting so worked up based on such flimsy reasoning. Please don’t stop though! Then I’d have to join my kids watching Naruto!
January 13th, 2006 at 12:24 amPlease don’t stop though! Then I’d have to join my kids watching Naruto!
Comment by TheRef #92
b’Ref’t (of any intelligence),
Why not spend more time with people your own intellectual age…like your kids…
January 13th, 2006 at 12:12 pm- I reject your assertion that the “big guys” always manipulate the rest. Most, not all, people manipulate whoever they can regardless of their social or economic level. If you missed the point I’ll repeat it: cases should be judged on their merits relative to the law, not on what percentage of times the “little guy” wins versus wins by the “big guy”. The whining here over who wins rather than who was right is sad. I’m not angry at liberals. I find extremists of both sides more amusing than frightening. Your apparent assumption that my claiming whoever has the law on their side should win the case makes me right-wing is very telling. People supporting the views of the, ahem, articles here calling anyone else “out of the mainstream” is hilarious. This is one of the least mainstream sites around. I come here for comic relief and to see if anyone has invented a clever new way to spell republican. As for liberals being more peaceful and less of a threat…oops! Fell out of my chair laughing over that one! If the society expressed by the so-called liberals here is what you call civil then I decline to join it.
January 14th, 2006 at 2:04 pm- Actually I do spend more time with them than here. And you’re right…their “intellectual age” is considerably higher than yours. The b’Ref’t thing was cute though.
The bottom line is that Alito did not violate any ethical rule.
No one contends that Alito violated an applicable proscription. The Democrats contend only that he violated a purported “promise” he made in his confirmation hearing 15 years ago that he would recuse himself during the “initial period” of his judgeship from cases involving Vanguard. No rule governing federal appellate judges required recusal.
Despite not having initially recused himself (from a three-judge panel that issued a unanimous decision), Alito did subsequently recuse himself. The appeal was reargued before a different panel, which unanimously reached the same decision as Alito’s panel. No one can claim to have been damaged by Alito’s actions.
Having found Alito’s career completely free of any ethical violations, the Democrats were reduced to fabricating the Vanguard recusal “issue.” Americans saw the Democrats’ tactic for what it was: a contemptible smear.
As a result, Alito will soon be sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nice job, donkeys.
January 15th, 2006 at 9:40 am…Alito’s failure to recuse himself from a case involving Vanguard, a company in which Alito has invested between $390,000 to $975,000…
FEINGOLD: Is there any question, if you still have holdings in Vanguard and a case comes before the Supreme Court, that you should recuse yourself?
ALITO: Well, under the Code of Judicial Conduct, I don’t believe that I am required to recuse myself in Vanguard cases.
excuse me Sam, but
According to Congress, U.S. Supreme Court case law and Rhode Island’s canons of judicial ethics, a judge must bow out of hearing any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Conduct say that judges must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. “The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.”
Evidently, Sammie’s test for impropriety is only applicable if it doesn’t jeapordize profitability. (A moral code ((imean… lack thereof)shared by neocons worldwide).
With friends like these, who needs enemies?!!
January 23rd, 2006 at 1:31 am[...] First, I believe he’s unqualified for the position. He has a history of lying before the Senate to gain confirmation. [...]
January 27th, 2006 at 3:47 pm