Posted on 01/16/2006 3:45:21 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
Did I hear FNC report that Specter caved again and the vote on Alito won't be this week but will be on the 27th instead?
I haven't heard that, but it wouldn't surprise me. Specter is a useless POS...
This article seems to suggest, which makes perfect sense, that Alito was not required to recuse himself in Vanguard cases that did not require his recusal.
In other words, Alito's agreement to recuse himself in
Vanguard cases could only reasonably be expected to cover those Vanguard cases in which a recusal was necessary.
I was half listening as I prepared dinner so I am hoping that I heard it wrong.
I dare you to say that again...differently :)
Not by law, anyway. He did promise to the Judiciary Committee, however, that he would do so. It is vaguely disturbing that he ignored that promise - but it is not a violation of judicial ethical rules.
"....why do his opponents continue to beat this dead horse?"
'cuz no horse is too dead to beat.
Sorry - I just couldn't resist
Apparently you heard correctly. I want to know where the Tower of Jelly Frist is since he said last week that he would cancel the scheduled recess week if Alito's vote did not occur on the twentieth , as scheduled?
:>)
If your employer says to you "I'll pay your expenses." then he probably means that he'll pay your legitimate expenses relating to your job.
He probably doesn't mean that he'll pay your kid's way through college.
He can only reasonably be expected to cover those expenses in which payment is necessary.
A mutual fund invests in the stock of many different companies. Should a judge who owns shares in a mutual fund have to recuse himself if a case comes before his court involving any of the companies whose stock is owned by the mutual fund?
Frist is useless. Worse than useless. If I heard correctly and the vote was delayed a week, and Frist lets them all go on vacation as planned, he's an even bigger arse than I thought he was.
At worst it was an oversight.
But, because he wasn't required to recuse himself by virtue of an interest in that particular case, then his pledge not to hear Vanguard cases can be taken only to relate to those cases which require him to recuse himself. (See #10)
And, Frist was the loser who allowed Arlen Specter to assume the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee!
I don't find anything remotely 'disturbing' about Judge Alito ruling (initially) in this case - it was not a case involving any substantive issue to do with Vanguard's operations, finances, etc. It was to do (so far as it has been described) with a widow fighting over control of her late husband's estate - thus, it involved Vanguard in only the most distant and incidental way, as the shares in question happened to be in Vanguard mutual funds, but if the legal contest had been over her late husband's shares of IBM, Microsoft, etc. judges need not recuse themselves just because they might happen to own stock in those companies.... this sounds (to me, anyway) like a purely private, personal dispute involving the widow and her late husband's estate, and not anything to do with Vanguard per se. Alito taking the later step of recusing himself and seeking a new ruling strikes me as completely unnecessary except in the "CYA" sense of our absurdly litigious society which can allow the most trivial minutia to become a courtroom battle.
After watching those toothless buffoons trying to get the better of Judge Alito, I wonder why so many of us were worried that the hearings might be an insurmountable hurdle for people like Janice Rogers Brown.
I'll never worry again that known conservative judges can't survive a grilling in the Senate.
It isn't caving..He cannot stop them..They only gave their word..and we know what that is worth..The rules allow it.
Frist shouldn't have made his threat then. It makes him look like what he is - ineffective at best.
Two people were fighting over the proceeds from Vanguard. It could have been any company on earth.
The two claimed and one was awarded the shares.
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPANY AT ALL BUT WHO WOULD INHERIT.
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.