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

To: Aussie Dasher; jude24; P-Marlowe

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.




4 posted on 01/16/2006 3:55:12 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: xzins

I dare you to say that again...differently :)


6 posted on 01/16/2006 3:57:06 PM PST by Aussie Dasher (The Great Ronald Reagan & John Paul II - Heaven's Dream Team!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
Alito was not required to recuse himself in Vanguard cases that did not require his recusal.

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.

7 posted on 01/16/2006 3:58:52 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 4 | 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