Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: airedale

#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.


5 posted on 01/11/2006 6:12:01 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: 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.

I know, but why did they extract this pledge? It's highly unusual for that specific a pledge.

Also what the heck does "first term" mean since federal judges are appointed for life. Was there something going on with Vanguard at the time that the senators were concerned with at the time? Did Alito or his wife (or her law firm) have ties to Vanguard that we don't know about that caused the Senate to extract this pledge?
9 posted on 01/11/2006 6:21:53 PM PST by airedale ( XZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Peach

So to follow that logic, if two kids buy candy from Wal Mart, then cannot agree how to split the candy, he should recuse himself because he stopped at Wal Mart on the way in to buy an ink pen?

That sounds logical.


17 posted on 01/11/2006 6:56:15 PM PST by JustAnotherOkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Peach
Bret Hume on Fox said that the promise was made to Kennedy during the hearings on his confirmation but no details were provided on why it specifically came up other than he had listed his investments on the questionnaire he had to submit as part of the confirmation process.

Why did Kennedy tie him down during his appellate court hearings with regards to Vanguard. I'd sure like to see a transcript of that.
21 posted on 01/11/2006 9:14:27 PM PST by airedale ( XZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson