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

To: jude24

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.


15 posted on 01/16/2006 4:11:26 PM PST by Enchante (Democrats: "We are ALL broken and worn out, our party & ideas, what else is new?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Enchante
it involved Vanguard in only the most distant and incidental way,

No, they were listed as co-defendants.

27 posted on 01/16/2006 4:37:21 PM PST by jude24 ("Thy law is written on the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not." - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | 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