Posted on 01/12/2006 8:41:02 AM PST by wcdukenfield
Ethics expert Ted Kennedy is offended by Judge Alito's participation in a case involving the Vanguard mutual fund, in which Alito has been invested. When he became aware of Vanguard’s connection in the case, Alito immediately recused himself despite the fact he was under no legal obligation to do so and neither Vanguard nor he benefited from his ruling. After he informed the other judges on his court, a new panel reheard the case and issued the same ruling. Now, if this is a basis for denying Alito a seat on the Supreme Court, then I would think if a Supreme Court justice ruled in cases involving companies in which her husband was invested, that would be grounds for impeachment then, no? That’s exactly what happened with Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As reported by the New York Times ("The Husband Of A Justice Sells His Stock After Scrutiny," July 11, 1997):
The husband of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said today that he had ordered his broker to sell all the stocks in an individual retirement account after a news magazine reported that Justice Ginsburg had failed to disqualify herself from more than 20 cases involving companies his account held. Insight magazine … said in its July 28 issue that Justice Ginsburg might have violated Federal law as well as professional codes of ethics by participating in cases since 1995 in which her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, had a financial stake. The magazine said it was not clear, however, that her involvement affected the outcome of the cases, most of which it said were procedural rulings in which the Court formally decides whether to take a case. … Mr. Ginsburg issued the following statement in response to the report:
I had not appreciated that stocks held in an I.R.A. account managed by a third party professional raised the concern Insight has highlighted. After reading the article, I promptly instructed Smith Barney to sell all stocks in the I.R.A. account and to invest in mutual funds.
The reason Mr. Ginsburg had his investments transferred from an I.R.A. to a mutual fund is because mutual funds are exempted from conflict-of-interest implications because investors have no control over the companies mutual funds invest in. However, when you own an I.R.A., you can direct your investments. Justice Ginsburg’s oversight raised far more serious ethical issues than Judge Alito’s mutual-fund investment. According to the Washington Times, Mr. Ginsburg’s I.R.A. investments included stocks in such companies as Exxon, General Electric, AT&T, and Proctor & Gamble — all of which were involved in cases that Justice Ginsburg participated in. Somebody should wake-up the new ethics watchdog on the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask him to square his criticism of Alito with his silence on Ginsburg. 01/12 11:21 AM
Article is excellent..except for the impossible suggestion to "wake up" the Swimmer
Justice Breyer had similar conflicts in not recusing himself from cases that impacted Lloyds of London Insurance, where Breyer held a major financial stake in Lloyds.
It's difficult to wake someone when their brain is pickled.
The two are mutually exclusive. The only things Teddy would be an expert in are stupidity, booze, philandering and killing women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.