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?

Recently, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appointed himself the “arbiter of ethics.” Here is a sampling of what Gingrich had to say about Congressional ethics in the last few days:

“The system has grown, I think, so out of whack”¦And you now have this kind of really intermeshed relationship between incumbents, staffs and lobbyists in a way that I think is very unhealthy.” [Fox News, 1/5/06]

“I think that the Abramoff scandal is the latest signal of just how unhealthy and how dysfunctional Washington, DC, has become and the political process has become, the lobbying process.” [CBS, Evening News, 1/4/06]

“I think this whole system has grown, frankly, a little sick with insiders raising money for insiders to re-elect insiders to do favors for insiders.” [CBS, Face the Nation, 1/1/06]

How quickly we forget. Gingrich was beset by serious ethical problems as Speaker during the 1990s. Below is a summary of Gingrich’s actions that brought him a rare House rebuke and a $300,000 fine:

HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE PENALIZED GINGRICH $300,000 FOR THE “INTENTIONAL OR”¦RECKLESS” DISREGARD OF HOUSE RULES: “The House ethics committee recommended last night that House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) face an unprecedented reprimand from his colleagues and pay $300,000 in additional sanctions after concluding that his use of tax-deductible money for political purposes and inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented ‘intentional or . . . reckless’ disregard of House rules.” [Washington Post, 1/18/97]

Read more

“One way people can help as we’re coming down the pike in the 2006 elections is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm’s way.” — President Bush today. (Via Hotline)

As provided by Senator Kennedy’s Office:

Chronology of Exchange Between Kennedy and Specter Offices on Rusher Documents

November 30, 2005: Senator Kennedy requests Congressional Research Service to ask Rusher’s permission to examine CAP documents at Library of Congress.

Week of December 5, 2005: Rusher turns down CRS request.

December 22, 2005: Senators Kennedy sends letter to Senator Specter asking for Committee request of Rusher documents. Delivered by hand to Judiciary Committee.

Date unknown prior to 1/5/06: Kennedy staff and Specter staff discuss December 22 request.

January 5, 2006, 7:29 pm: Kennedy staff request status report from Specter staff on request regarding Rusher documents.

January 5, 2006 7:50 pm: Specter staff replies that they are not inclined to grant request because they are personal documents.

January 6, 2006, 12:01 am: Kennedy staff asks Specter staff to reconsider on basis that there are not personal documents but business records of a very public organization.

January 11, 2006: Senator Specter says he’s unaware of the request.

After all this, Specter lectured Kennedy about his conduct regarding the request.

Pew poll has Bush ratings unchanged since December: 38% approve, 54% disapprove. (Via Atrios)

This morning, Sens. Arlen Specter and Ted Kennedy sparred over Kennedy’s request to subpoena documents related to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton.

Specter insisted, on multiple occassions, that he had never received a letter from Kennedy, and used that point to disregard the request. “If it’s really a matter of importance — you and I see each other all the time — you’ve never mentioned it to me, and I do not ascribe a great deal of weight [to it],” Specter said.

Except Kennedy had sent a letter, and Specter’s office not only received it, but issued a response to Kennedy’s office. Watch Kennedy call Specter’s bluff:

Watch in Quicktime streaming

UPDATE: Specter admits he discussed Kennedy’s letter in a phone call with his Chief-of-Staff. He rejected the request then but said if it was really important Kennedy should have mentioned it to him at the gym. (Kennedy explained he hasn’t been to the gym since before Christmas.) Specter has now agreed to get the records.

to Kennedy’s request to subpoena Concerned Alumni of Princeton documents, as soon as Kennedy returns to the hearings.

Just now, Sen. Kennedy requested that Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter issue a subpoena to the Library of Congress for documents related to the right-wing group Concerned Alumni of Princeton, of which Alito was a member. The documents contain “clipping files, background information, correspondence and memoranda, financial records, fund-raising material, lists of supporters, minutes of meetings, issues and other items.” The documents are critical because Alito now claims he can’t remember anything about his involvement with the group.

Specter refused to rule on the request, claiming it’s the first time the request had even been made. Actually, Sen. Kennedy sent a letter on December 22 making the request:

It is likely that a formal request for access directly from you on behalf of the Committee would be received with more cooperation than the CRS has received so far, and we urge you to make such a request as soon as possible.

The letter was also reported widely by the Associated Press.

When Kennedy noted that he had sent the letter, Specter replied that there is a big difference between “sending” a letter and someone “receiving” it. He then banged his gavel loudly.

UPDATE: Sen. Kennedy just introduced Specter’s reply to his December 22 letter into the record. So there is proof that Specter did get the letter.

UPDATE II — VIDEO: We’ve got the video of the heated exchange. Watch it in Quicktime streaming here.

any TV station that runs a new TV ad critical of him. (Via TPM)

UPDATE: Watch the ad.