Posted on 01/16/2006 3:45:21 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
Judge Samuel Alito’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week confirmed his integrity and character. Patiently and clearly answering senators’ questions of all kinds, hour after hour, he also proved his judicial temperament. Now, as their hopes of defeating this nomination diminish, Judge Alito’s opponents are left trying to hype fake issues.
One of these attacks focuses on Judge Alito’s initial failure to recuse himself in the so-called Vanguard case. It is time to set the record straight.
Preserving both justice and judicial independence requires that judges avoid conflicts of interest. To that end, federal law requires that a judge step aside from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” including when he has a financial interest in the subject matter or is a party to a case. The law, however, states that ownership in a “mutual or common investment fund” does not qualify as a financial interest.
When he joined the Appeals Court in 1990, Judge Alito owned shares in several Vanguard mutual funds. In his Judiciary Committee questionnaire at that time, he said he would avoid “potential conflicts-of-interest during [his] initial service” by disqualifying himself from any cases involving “the Vanguard companies.”
In 2002, the appeals court, including Judge Alito, unanimously ruled against a widow in a dispute over control of Vanguard mutual fund shares in her late husband’s estate. She later claimed that Judge Alito should have recused himself because of his investment in Vanguard mutual funds. Judge Alito agreed, asking that the initial decision be vacated and that a new panel of judges reconsider the case. The new panel came to the same unanimous conclusion and again upheld the trial court decision against her.
This situation raises both a legal/ethical and a political question. The legal/ethical question is whether Judge Alito’s participation in this case was improper. The answer is unequivocally no. Shares in Vanguard mutual funds are not an ownership interest in the Vanguard company, and the outcome of the case could not have affected the value of his investment. The fact that Judge Alito recused himself anyway, going beyond what he was legally or ethically required to do, should be applauded, not attacked. But Judge Alito went even further than that, creating an entirely new system for his own office to flag potential conflicts.
Several prominent judicial ethics experts have concluded that Judge Alito committed no ethical breach and handled the situation properly. The American Bar Association specifically examined the Vanguard situation before unanimously giving Judge Alito its highest well-qualified rating. Integrity is one of the ABA’s three rating criteria.
Unfortunately, the merits of a situation can become judicial confirmation roadkill, which brings us to the political question raised by this Vanguard case. Grasping at straws, Democratic senators and left-wing groups charge that Judge Alito’s initial failure to recuse himself from the 2002 case broke the so-called “promise” in his 1990 questionnaire.
Suppose for a moment that, immediately upon taking judicial office, Judge Alito sold his Vanguard mutual fund shares and never purchased another. Would these critics still have demanded that Judge Alito recuse himself forever from any case involving Vanguard because his 1990 questionnaire statement was framed in perpetual terms? Of course not. That statement cannot have the kind of rigidly literal meaning these opponents demand.
Instead, Judge Alito said he would do what every judge must do, namely, recuse himself whenever he is legally or ethically required to do so. Prof. Thomas Morgan, co-author of the most widely read legal ethics textbook in America, agrees. He examined this situation and concluded that Judge Alito’s statement cannot be seen to cover “more than the law governing disqualification requires.” Since the law did not require Judge Alito’s recusal in the Vanguard case, his responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest was fully satisfied.
No one has identified even one of Judge Alito’s nearly 5,000 cases in which he was required to recuse himself but failed to do so. Since the facts so clearly demonstrate Judge Alito’s integrity, character, and fairness, why do his opponents continue to beat this dead horse? Exploiting this situation is a desperate political stunt, no doubt at the behest of left-wing groups, a gambit the Senate should reject.
If Senate floor debate starts on the 25th, the day after the committee vote and during the week of the 23rd when they are supposed to be on recess then Frist is doing what he said he would do. If they don't then I agree with you 100%...
I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but in the post you made a few posts back has Frist saying this:
"If Democrats delay final action past January 20th, he will cancel the recess for the week of January 23rd which he had previously scheduled with the knowledge of Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)."
then how is delaying the vote until after January 20th sticking with what he said?
I know your not being argumentative - I've enjoyed your posts here over the years. I'm not trying to be either. :^)
The way I read what Frist said was - fine you can use the rules to delay the committe vote until next week (the 24th). But if you do - don't expect to be home next week - we will just have the floor debate during the week when we should be on recess.
Thanks, Chesterbelloc. So I wonder if Frist will or has cancelled their recess?
I specifically looked for and haven't seen anything in the stories I've read about whether the recess has been cancel or not, but he better...
Thanks for looking; we'll see what Frist does now.
The point I was making is that you cannot avoid the "appearance of impropriety" - the people who create the "appearance" are not under your control. All you can do is avoid the actuality of impropriety - and point out that the appearance is controlled by journalists.
"Specter is a useless POS..."
That about sums it up. Earned in my mind during the Ruby Ridge hearings.
You know, come to think of it, it would be nice to see the Bork and Brown hearings dusted off and aired on Fox for a historical perspective. Cheers.
Sitting on courts listening to cut throat shysters thru nearly 5,000 cases seems like the ideal training before going before the Judiciary Committee. Alito is inured to the hateful bravo sierra rhetoric; it rolls off his back. Tango Sierra, Dims!
bump
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.