One of the troubles with Kennedy and the Democrats is that they don't realize how far the "ownership society" has progressed.
Back when they were cutting their political teeth only they and other rich folks owned shares in the stock markets.
Today, the vast majority of people who vote have some sort of 401K or something and own shares in mutual funds. They understand that the value of a mutual fund has nothing to do with Vanguard (which, incidentally, is the primo low-cost mutual fund company -- so lots of average Joes use it), but with the companies whose stocks Vanguard holds in their portfolios.
Alito would in no way gain or lose money, regardless of how a case against Vanguard went. I think that Kennedy and the other trust-fund limosine liberals have no idea how many of us out in middle America who actually work for a living understand these concepts with a fairly high level of sophistication. They are so insulated.
IMPORTANT:
This was explained in further detail yesterday and when you understand the specifics of the case it is a total non-sequiter. Besides the relevant points about mutual funds & the distinction between them and holding stocks in an individual company or Vanguard itself - The fact is that while Vanguard was listed as a defendant in the case they had no real standing in the outcome. The case involved two litigants disputing over whom and how funds that Vanguard held were to be dispursed. Vanguard didn't care whether they paid plaintiff or defendant or whomever / whatever else. They were simply going to be directed by the judgment to pay (a) or (b). The case in no way involved Vanguard proper!