[Cyber Liberty]

Only pledge I ever heard of has something in it about defending the Constitution, or something or other....

[Brilliant]

This is like you can't decide a case involving Coca Cola if you've ever consumed a Coke.

[Peach]

#1. Judge Alito pledged not to rule on any case involving Vanguard for his initial term. As was pointed out in the hearings repeatedly by Republicans, there is no one on the planet who would try to bend the term "initial" to mean 12 years.

#2. The Vanguard case was about two people who sold their stock and could not decide how to split the proceeds. It had absolutely zero benefit to Alito or Vanguard shareholders how the case was decided.

#3. Alito consulted with ethics attorneys to decide how to proceed and they told him there was no reason to recuse himself.

#4. For reasons I am not altogether clear about, Alito later decided the case should be re-heard with another judge and that judge or panel of judges came to the exact conclusions he came to.

[marty60]

Ah they're all po'd they don't invest in Vanguard. Real money maker fund.

[JasonC]

It is insane, Vanguard is an index mutual fund company. Judges put their assets in index funds precisely so it is obvious they are not showing favoritism to any company or sector because they are invested in it. Indexes passively invest in everything that exists. Vanguard as a company has nothing to do with the performance of those invested through it, in every company under the sun. The Dems are grasping at straws. Alito did exactly the right thing to prevent even the appearance of even the possibility of any financial conflict of interest, by putting all of his assets in passive indexes. Then they pretend he should have recused himself from a case involving the mutual fund parent. It is just nonsense, playing on people's financial ignorance.