I wish that Alito would make it clear (again) that the case with Vanguard involved two people who couldn't decide how to split their profits from the sale of their stock.
So Alito's ruling had ZERO effect on stock prices.
No kidding. Vanguard was going to give the money to one of the parties regardless. This was not a case of Vanguard having anything to gain financially.
Worse -- Kennedy is arguing that not putting it on the list was itself a violation of his promise, when the list does not force recusal, when he can recuse himself without it being on the list, and NO vanguard case came to him until 12 years later.
Alito has been trying to figure out why Vanguard was not on the list, and gave reasons why it might not have been on the list, and now Kennedy is suggesting that he was trying to lie and mislead the committee by providing possible explanations for what happened.
They can't attack him for the actual Vanguard case, because not only was their nothing ethical about him hearing the case, and not only was it a full decade after his promise, but when it was brought to his attention that it was a vanguard case, he actually DID RECUSE HIMSELF.
So instead he is being trashed for not having Vanguard on his list, suggesting that he purposely was trying to flout conflict rules when we all know he didn't.