Judge Alito ruled on a case involving a company that he had money invested in, even after he made a written promise to the senate that he would recuse himself in such cases. His excuses? He was being too restrictive on himself, and that promise only applied the start of his time as a justice. Is that the kind of legal reasoning that people have been praising from this guy? "too restrictive on himself?" That is like an alcaholic deciding that not drinking is just too restrictive on himself. Yes he made that promise but looking back on it, it was just too hard to keep, so he should be excused. And then the other excuse that his promise only applied to the beginning of his time as a judge? Do Marriage vows only count for the first 3 months of a marriage?
If you expect ethics and morality from this administration and those who are associated with the administration, you may as well wish the Sun rises from the west.
This is such nonsense. Saying Alito would vote in favor of Vanguard if he had some of their mutual funds is just complete ignorance. Vanguard is one of the top two largest mutual fund companies in the world. It is in probably 75% of all pension plans. The funds are mainly index funds, or funds investing (replicating) an index. There are dozens of companies that offer virtually the same product. Every vanguard share is identical and no one can have more benefits than others. Vanguard is actually a perfect tool for a judge that does not wish to have any conflict of interest, because they are predominantly non-actively managed funds. Many politicians use these funds as well.
FD Khan -- Thank you for injecting some rational thought into this mockery of a thread. The liberals once again are exposed for trying to cook up a conspiracy or evil scheme based on ignorant logic. Heck, if a judge owned a mutual fund that tracked the S&P 500, Dow, Russell 2000 and Wilshire 5000, then that judge couldn't opine on virtually any publicly traded company! Just absurd. Liberals -- It's threads like this one that give you no credibility.
I think they are reaching a bit here. There is no "ethics and morality" issues here. For this case, the ruling either way would have zero impact on the performance of Vanguard.
Perhaps he should have thought of that before he made his pledge. Given that he made this unique pledge for this particular company, I think it's easy to surmise that something was unique here, compared to other judges' ownership of various mutual funds. Besides which, I'm not sure you understand the idea of conflict-of-interest. Justice in this country is supposed to be transparent - the reason judges recuse themselves is not that they necessarily would be biased, but to remove any hint of the possibility of impropriety.
not a surprise that you avoided the actual topic here, but the point wasn't if holding the shares biased him - the point is that he made a promise to the United States Senate to recuse himself if a case with Vanguard came before him and he didn't - he also promised to recuse himself from any case where his sister's law firm was involved - and he didn't
ahh yes, we liberals are such babies for wanting honesty and accountability from our public servants, I forgot that conservatives don't value those traits
As flamingmoe, and Major have pointed out the main issue here is that Alito made a written pledge to the United States Senate and then broke his word, and used dodgy reasoning to try and weasel out of it. Let me also point out that the threshold for a federal judge to recuse himself isn't because he has a conflict of interest, but even the appearance of a conflict of interest. They are supposed to always err on the side of recusing themselves. Furthermore, Khan, and TJ, whether you believe it was a conflict of interest or not, Alito himself felt that he should recuse himself in such cases. That is why he made the original promise to the United States Senate. TJ, you have stood for so much that is unamerican lately, it doesn't surprise me that you would not take a written pledge to the U.S. senate seriously.
And Alito's remarks to Senators in private wrt the protection of privacy are all off of the record. Thus, in private Alito might say that Roe is a super-precedent while in public hearings he might not answer the question at all. If Alito does not feel bound to the higher standard of a written statement before Congress, ...
How surprising that tj fundamentally misunderstands or intentionally misstates the ethical issue involved here. What is it about wingnuts and lying?
A mutual fund is an investment pooled vehicle that changes price on a daily basis based on the movement of the held securities. With vanguard being primarily index funds, there are hundreds of stocks within each fund. The investors account value is based on the underlying value of those hundreds of securities minus a small percentage fee. If Vanguard had record earnings if would not affect the fund prices. If Vanguard went out of business it would not affect the fund prices, as a fund is not like a bank in that the securities are held in trust. Therefore the only way Alito would make money off of his investment is based on the performance of the hundreds of securities in the portfolios. I'm not being biased here guys, I just think this is reaching. Vanguard one of the top three pension managers (through their funds) and are in a great majority of pension plans and retirement funds. Usually when you check S&P 500 in your pension plan or stock index, it will invest it in the Vanguard S&P 500 index to give you an example. Now go ahead...jump on anyone thats not screaming conspiracy and fraud.
I understand, and I am not arguing whether it was actually a conflict of interest or not. The point is the nominee promised in writing to recuse himself of any cases involving Vanguard. He made that promise to the U.S. senate. His biggest problem is that lied to the U.S. senate and not that there was a conflict of interest.
Did Alito state this in writing? "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." Yes. Did Alito stand by his word and recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard? No. It's really that simple.
