Samuel Alito - Recuse Me
By Denise Best | Related entries in In The News, Supreme CourtApparently a nugget has been found in the search for any skeletons, judicial or otherwise, in Alito’s closet.
Alito, trying to quell conflict-of-interest issues raised by liberal opponents, said he had been “unduly restrictive” in promising in 1990 to recuse himself in cases involving Vanguard Group Inc. and Smith Barney Inc. After the Senate confirmed him as an appellate judge and when he subsequently ruled on routine cases involving the two companies, he said, he acted properly because his connections to the firms did not constitute a conflict of interest under the applicable rules and laws.
Sounds like a non-issue, although some of the membership is chomping at the bit for something, anything, it would appear to rule against Alito.
Democrats and liberal groups have not suggested that Alito could have benefited from the rulings in the Vanguard and Smith Barney cases. Rather, they have questioned why he ruled in the matters after telling the Senate — in the 1990 confirmation process for his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit — that he would recuse himself in cases involving Vanguard, Smith Barney and his sister’s law firm.
Looks like Alito made the smart move here in providing a timely public response.
Specter’s vocal support and assurance of no impropriety demonstrated should assist Alito in moving past this issue.
Note to the wise (prospective Supreme Court nominees) …
Be careful what you promise!
This entry was posted on Friday, November 11th, 2005 and is filed under In The News, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 11th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
A non-issue? Listen, Alito should have done what he promised. Personal gain isn’t what’s at issue here. Integrity and professional ethics are. Hopefully this is all we’ll see.
November 11th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
Another POO, POO by the Best. ohh, he didn’t do what he said, oh well too bad, so sad.
And his defense for not recusing himself when he said he would recuse himself is because he didn’t have to recuse himself? Sounds as fishy as Frist saying that he didn’t have to sell his stock because there’s no conflict of interest then selling years later just before it tanked to prevent implication of a conflict of interest. It just doesn’t hold water. How did he rule in those cases? Oh yeah, for his interests. good thing he doesn’t see a conflict of interest. Yet, Delay wants his judge tossed because he’s a democrat! You people are a joke.
November 11th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
Was he required, by law, to recuse himself? No.
Did he stand to benefit financially by not recusing himself? No.
As to Alito’s record and ability to serve as a Supreme Court Justice? This instance would not appear to be a fundamental enough issue upon which to deny his nomination.
November 11th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
He did stand to benefit if he didn’t recuse himself. If he found against his investments, and quite substantial investments at that, there could be repercussions to his stock. How can you honestly not see any conflict of interest in that? Financial reasons are not the only you recuse yourself, there is recusal to avoid the implication of impropriety. That is what this is all about, this, and brace yourself Rightie, might not be about money.
This alone is not a reason to deny his nomination, but he has been far to the right on a number of things, even thought the Reps are trying to paint him as a mainstream conservative… Which is as confusing as a Compassionate Conservative, and giving how well that’s working out the US, that might be enough right there to deny his nomination.