Unfortunately, it's obviously still too complicated for F.D. Khan to understand. No big surprise there.
1. That isn't what Alito has said. Alito has contended that his promise only applied to the starting period of time on the court. 2. Alito contends that his promise was just too restrictive. Furthermore Alito's prmose said cases involving Vanguard. The case did involve Vangaurd. His words weren't that Vanguard had to be a named client.
as major already attempted to explain...its irrelevant whether this is fraud or not. the fact that reasonable people can see that there could be appeance of impropriety is enough for him to have to recuse himself. when the hamdan case comes up roberts is not gonna be on the bench. maybe alito could learn a thing or two from roberts.
I never stated that he never said he wouldn't sit on a case involving Vanguard. My only statement was that there was NO FINANCIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHATSOEVER! I have knowledge on how the financial world and mutual funds work so I decided to share this information and am piled on by multiple posters and insulted for stating facts about how certain investments work. He had no financial interest in the court case, and to me it seems that Vanguard was complying with a court order. RocketMan Tex, Why don't you add something to the conversation. All you ever do is attempt to insult people and never add any value.
F. D. Khan... When you start posting something of value, I'll respond. Until then, I'll continue making fun of you, because you make it so easy to do. Carry on......
RMTex, Here are your inspirational posts from this thead which is the same type of garbage you always post. Why not add some value to the conversation, instead of trying to insult people constantly? "F. D. Khan...When you start posting something of value, I'll respond. Until then, I'll continue making fun of you, because you make it so easy to do" "Unfortunately, it's obviously still too complicated for F.D. Khan to understand. No big surprise there." "Lying is for wingnuts what drugs are for Courtney Love. They just can't live without it." "Trader_Jorge, the morning after the 2006 Congressional/Senate elections, hiding from reality: (Picture)"
FD Kahn....why not add some value to the conversation, instead of posting like your word is the word of G-d and cannot be challenged?
you weren't piled on for stating how investments work, you were piled on for using irrelevent facts as a defense for Ailto not once, but twice
Alito Refutes Conflict-Of-Interest Concern By JESSE J. HOLLAND The Associated Press Friday, November 11, 2005; 4:14 AM WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito says he never has violated conflict-of-interest guidelines as a judge, despite questions about two lower court rulings he made involving an investment firm and a brokerage house that handled part of his financial portfolio. "To the best of my knowledge, I have not ruled on a case for which I had a legal or ethical obligation to recuse myself during my 15 years on the federal bench," Alito said Thursday as an influential Republican senator urged him to publicly answer questions about his legal rulings concerning the Vanguard Group and Smith Barney, Inc. In an unusual letter prompted by Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Alito said he was "unduly restrictive" in promising the committee in 1990 to avoid appeals cases involving the two investment firms, First Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester, N.Y., and his sister's law firm. When he listed the companies, "my intention was to state that I would never knowingly hear a case where a conflict of interest existed. ... As my service continued, I realized that I had been unduly restrictive," Alito said. Alito said he only invests with Vanguard and Smith Barney and doesn't hold any interest in the companies. Alito issued the letter one day after all eight Democrats on the committee called for voluminous records involving a 2002 case in which Vanguard was a defendant. Democrats addressed their letter to the chief judge of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Alito has been a judge since 1990, and did not accuse Alito of bending his ruling to favor Vanguard. Instead, they raised possible conflict of interest concerns, and said he had violated the promise he made to the committee 15 years ago during his confirmation to the appeals court. Even so, the Democratic challenge prompted Specter on Thursday to write Alito suggesting a quick response. "I think it is important that the issues be addressed promptly since a number of senators have expressed concerns," Specter advised. Alito was nominated by the White House to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose judicial rulings sometimes have made her the deciding vote on the Supreme Court on issues such as abortion and affirmative action. Confirmation hearings for Alito are scheduled for Jan. 9, and Wednesday's letter from Democrats on the panel marked their first organized challenge to his nomination. Specter said he thinks "there has been no impropriety." But he added that "we have seen issues which may be minor, unmeritorious and even nonexistent proliferate into major controversies by those who are opposed for other reasons." In the 2002 case, Shantee Maharaj, who had lost a suit against Vanguard, sought a rehearing after learning Alito held investments with the mutual fund company. She sought to have the ruling erased and Alito disqualified from further proceedings. Alito said Thursday he did not believe he was required to disqualify himself on the basis of ownership of shares in a mutual fund but "voluntarily recused myself once my participation was called into question." The White House and senators have said there was a computer glitch that allowed the disqualification issue to slip through undetected in the first place, but Alito only mentioned an "oversight" in the letter to Specter. Alito's letter also said he decided a case involving Smith Barney, but added it did not fall under judicial conflict-of-interest guidelines. "Smith Barney is my brokerage firm and I hold no interest in the firm itself," the judge said in the letter. Senators will get more information about Alito when he gives them his answers to a 12-page questionnaire the Judiciary Committee sent him Thursday.
Filibuster worthy!!! Alito rejected abortion as a right By Bill Sammon THE WASHINGTON TIMES November 14, 2005 Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times. "I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III. The document, which is likely to inflame liberals who oppose Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, is among many that the White House will release today from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. In direct, unambiguous language, the young career lawyer who served as assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, demonstrated his conservative bona fides as he sought to become a political appointee in the Reagan administration. "I am and always have been a conservative," he wrote in an attachment to the noncareer appointment form that he sent to the Presidential Personnel Office. "I am a lifelong registered Republican." But his statements against abortion and affirmative action might cause him headaches from Democrats and liberals as he prepares for confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled for January. "It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly," he wrote. "I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." A leading Republican involved in the nomination process insisted that this does not prove Judge Alito, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, will overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made abortion a constitutional right. "No, it proves no such thing," said the Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "In fact, if you look at some of the quotes of his former law clerks, they don't believe that he'll overturn Roe v. Wade." Judge Alito sided with abortion proponents in three of four rulings during his 15 years as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, usually based on existing law and technical legal issues rather than the right to abortion itself. "The issue is not Judge Alito's political views during the Reagan administration 20 years ago," the Republican official said. "It's his 15 years of jurisprudence, which can be evaluated in hundreds of opinions. And in none of those opinions is it evident what his political philosophy is. "Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a long history of advocacy on behalf of liberal causes, but she was evaluated on her 13-year record as a federal judge and her jurisprudence, not her belief that there was a constitutional right to prostitution or polygamy." Although Judge Alito's conservatism has not been particularly evident in his legal rulings, it was abundantly clear in his job application 20 years ago. "I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values," he wrote. "In the field of law, I disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary of decision-making authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate," he added. The document also provides the clearest picture to date of Mr. Alito's intellectual development as a conservative. "When I first became interested in government and politics during the 1960s, the greatest influences on my views were the writings of William F. Buckley Jr., the National Review, and Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign," he said. "In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment." Republicans are relishing the opportunity to defend Judge Alito's support for judicial restraint, saying it puts him squarely in the majority of American public opinion. As evidence, they pointed to public outrage over a 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that said the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. More recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that government can seize property and give it to a private party for the sake of the "public good." Other Supreme Court rulings have cited international law. "We're delighted to have a debate over judicial philosophy and the proper role of courts in America," a Republican strategist said. "That's a debate the Republican Party wins every time." Republicans also pointed out that Judge Alito's devotion to Reagan administration policy was reminiscent of those of Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who also served in the Reagan administration and was confirmed in September by all Republicans and half the Democrats in the Senate. "The notion that working for the Reagan administration is a disqualifier for serving on the Supreme Court was decisively refuted by 78 votes earlier in the summer when John Roberts was confirmed," said the official close to the Alito nomination process.
