Alito and Vanguard. Very troubling.

[techs]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi...1/03/plaintiff_alleges_alito_conflict/

Seems that Alito is a big investor in the Vanguard Mutual Fund. When Alito was seeking US Senate approval for his nomination to be a circuit judge (US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990), he said in written answers to a questionnaire that he would disqualify himself from ''any cases involving the Vanguard companies."
BUT
Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him from the case, court records show -- despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases involving the company.

Then:
After Alito ruled in Vanguard's favor in the Maharaj case, he complained about her efforts to vacate his decision and remove him from the case, writing to the chief administrative judge of the federal appeals court on which he sat in 2003: ''I do not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on my ownership of the mutual fund shares."

What ever happened to ethics? This is very disturbing to me.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: techs
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi...1/03/plaintiff_alleges_alito_conflict/

Seems that Alito is a big investor in the Vanguard Mutual Fund. When Alito was seeking US Senate approval for his nomination to be a circuit judge (US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990), he said in written answers to a questionnaire that he would disqualify himself from ''any cases involving the Vanguard companies."
BUT
Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him from the case, court records show -- despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases involving the company.

Then:
After Alito ruled in Vanguard's favor in the Maharaj case, he complained about her efforts to vacate his decision and remove him from the case, writing to the chief administrative judge of the federal appeals court on which he sat in 2003: ''I do not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on my ownership of the mutual fund shares."

What ever happened to ethics? This is very disturbing to me.

:roll: Talking points failed.

"[N]either Federal Statutes, Nor Federal Rules, Nor The Model Code Of Judicial Conduct Of The American Bar Association Provide That A Judge Should Disqualify Himself In Any Case Involving A Mutual Fund Company (E.G., Vanguard, Fidelity, T. Rowe Price) Simply Because The Judge Owns Mutual Funds That The Company Manages And Holds In Trust For The Judge."- Professor Ronald Rotunda

"In My Opinion Judge Alito?s Initial Participation In That Appeal Was Not Improper Under 26 U.S.C. §455, Which Establishes The Governing Rules." - Professor Geoffrey Hazzard, Jr.

BTW, he was on a 3 judge panel, then afterwords there was a different 3 judge panel that ruled on the appeal. Basically there is nothing here for you democrats and leftists to attack, but it's fun to see you flail around.:laugh:

 

[arsbanned]

I hope this gets shouted from the highest hill and it derails this crooked SOBs nomination. The Bush WH is truly going to be remembered as teh biggest criminal enterprise in the U.S. ever. The mafia has got nuting on these people.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: techs
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi...1/03/plaintiff_alleges_alito_conflict/

Seems that Alito is a big investor in the Vanguard Mutual Fund. When Alito was seeking US Senate approval for his nomination to be a circuit judge (US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990), he said in written answers to a questionnaire that he would disqualify himself from ''any cases involving the Vanguard companies."
BUT
Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him from the case, court records show -- despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases involving the company.

Then:
After Alito ruled in Vanguard's favor in the Maharaj case, he complained about her efforts to vacate his decision and remove him from the case, writing to the chief administrative judge of the federal appeals court on which he sat in 2003: ''I do not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on my ownership of the mutual fund shares."

What ever happened to ethics? This is very disturbing to me.

:roll: Talking points failed.

"[N]either Federal Statutes, Nor Federal Rules, Nor The Model Code Of Judicial Conduct Of The American Bar Association Provide That A Judge Should Disqualify Himself In Any Case Involving A Mutual Fund Company (E.G., Vanguard, Fidelity, T. Rowe Price) Simply Because The Judge Owns Mutual Funds That The Company Manages And Holds In Trust For The Judge."- Professor Ronald Rotunda

"In My Opinion Judge Alito?s Initial Participation In That Appeal Was Not Improper Under 26 U.S.C. §455, Which Establishes The Governing Rules." - Professor Geoffrey Hazzard, Jr.

BTW, he was on a 3 judge panel, then afterwords there was a different 3 judge panel that ruled on the appeal. Basically there is nothing here for you democrats and leftists to attack, but it's fun to see you flail around.:laugh:

HaHa. However, the law does state that a judge recuse himself whenever there would be impression of bias. Also, Alito said, IN WRITING, he would recuse himself on any case involving Vanguard.
So he is definitely a LIAR. And many people would consider a judge sitting on a case about a company he has a large financial stake in an impression of bias.
Morally bankrupt is the appropriate term for Alito.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

:roll: Talking points failed.

"[N]either Federal Statutes, Nor Federal Rules, Nor The Model Code Of Judicial Conduct Of The American Bar Association Provide That A Judge Should Disqualify Himself In Any Case Involving A Mutual Fund Company (E.G., Vanguard, Fidelity, T. Rowe Price) Simply Because The Judge Owns Mutual Funds That The Company Manages And Holds In Trust For The Judge."- Professor Ronald Rotunda

"In My Opinion Judge Alito?s Initial Participation In That Appeal Was Not Improper Under 26 U.S.C. §455, Which Establishes The Governing Rules." - Professor Geoffrey Hazzard, Jr.

BTW, he was on a 3 judge panel, then afterwords there was a different 3 judge panel that ruled on the appeal. Basically there is nothing here for you democrats and leftists to attack, but it's fun to see you flail around.:laugh:

Why is every word in your quotes capitalized? Did you just copy and paste it from some wacko's blog? (I'm not implying there's anything wacky about the quotes themselves; it's just that most people who use random capitalization that way are, in my view, screwy in one way or another.)

I believe you're misstating Judge Alito's involvement in the decision on the Vanguard matter. Do you have a source for that? The article says:

In April 2002, Alito, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled in Vanguard's favor.

Maharaj requested the judges' financial disclosure forms and discovered Alito's Vanguard holdings. She contacted Flym at Northeastern and he agreed to assist her in a motion that alleged that Alito's participation was unlawful under judicial ethics rules because of his Vanguard holdings.

In 2004, Anthony Joseph Scirica, the chief administrative judge for the circuit, vacated Alito's order and assigned the case to a new panel, which again ruled against Maharaj.

Even if a different 3-judge panel eventually concurred with the original holding, it appears Judge Alito wrongfully failed to recuse himself from ruling on the case.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: techs
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi...1/03/plaintiff_alleges_alito_conflict/

Seems that Alito is a big investor in the Vanguard Mutual Fund. When Alito was seeking US Senate approval for his nomination to be a circuit judge (US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990), he said in written answers to a questionnaire that he would disqualify himself from ''any cases involving the Vanguard companies."
BUT
Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him from the case, court records show -- despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases involving the company.

Then:
After Alito ruled in Vanguard's favor in the Maharaj case, he complained about her efforts to vacate his decision and remove him from the case, writing to the chief administrative judge of the federal appeals court on which he sat in 2003: ''I do not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on my ownership of the mutual fund shares."

What ever happened to ethics? This is very disturbing to me.

:roll: Talking points failed.

"[N]either Federal Statutes, Nor Federal Rules, Nor The Model Code Of Judicial Conduct Of The American Bar Association Provide That A Judge Should Disqualify Himself In Any Case Involving A Mutual Fund Company (E.G., Vanguard, Fidelity, T. Rowe Price) Simply Because The Judge Owns Mutual Funds That The Company Manages And Holds In Trust For The Judge."- Professor Ronald Rotunda

"In My Opinion Judge Alito?s Initial Participation In That Appeal Was Not Improper Under 26 U.S.C. §455, Which Establishes The Governing Rules." - Professor Geoffrey Hazzard, Jr.

BTW, he was on a 3 judge panel, then afterwords there was a different 3 judge panel that ruled on the appeal. Basically there is nothing here for you democrats and leftists to attack, but it's fun to see you flail around.:laugh:

HaHa. However, the law does state that a judge recuse himself whenever there would be impression of bias. Also, Alito said, IN WRITING, he would recuse himself on any case involving Vanguard.
So he is definitely a LIAR. And many people would consider a judge sitting on a case about a company he has a large financial stake in an impression of bias.
Morally bankrupt is the appropriate term for Alito.

Do you know exactly what he wrote or are you just going to continue to play one little snippet?
How about the fact that the 2002 case had nothing to do with Vanguard "losing" or "winning" monetarily. Not to mention the fact that 3 different times the ruling has been that Vanguard did the right thing. But yeah, somehow his mutual fund had to do with his ruling.:roll:
You people are pathetic.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: techs
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi...1/03/plaintiff_alleges_alito_conflict/

Seems that Alito is a big investor in the Vanguard Mutual Fund. When Alito was seeking US Senate approval for his nomination to be a circuit judge (US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990), he said in written answers to a questionnaire that he would disqualify himself from ''any cases involving the Vanguard companies."
BUT
Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him from the case, court records show -- despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases involving the company.

Then:
After Alito ruled in Vanguard's favor in the Maharaj case, he complained about her efforts to vacate his decision and remove him from the case, writing to the chief administrative judge of the federal appeals court on which he sat in 2003: ''I do not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on my ownership of the mutual fund shares."


HaHa. However, the law does state that a judge recuse himself whenever there would be impression of bias. Also, Alito said, IN WRITING, he would recuse himself on any case involving Vanguard.
So he is definitely a LIAR. And many people would consider a judge sitting on a case about a company he has a large financial stake in an impression of bias.
Morally bankrupt is the appropriate term for Alito.

Do you know exactly what he wrote or are you just going to continue to play one little snippet?
How about the fact that the 2002 case had nothing to do with Vanguard "losing" or "winning" monetarily. Not to mention the fact that 3 different times the ruling has been that Vanguard did the right thing. But yeah, somehow his mutual fund had to do with his ruling.:roll:
You people are pathetic.

You are trying to change the subject. Who cares what the decision was? Alito said, IN WRITING, he would recuse himself on any case involving Vanguard.
AND
Many (most) people would get the impression of a conflict of interest if a judge sat on a case involving a company (Vanguard) that they had heavily invested in. In fact ethical judges recuse themselves all the time in such instances.

 

[Genx87]

This is what you are pinning your hopes on?

Good luck with that.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

:roll: Talking points failed.

"[N]either Federal Statutes, Nor Federal Rules, Nor The Model Code Of Judicial Conduct Of The American Bar Association Provide That A Judge Should Disqualify Himself In Any Case Involving A Mutual Fund Company (E.G., Vanguard, Fidelity, T. Rowe Price) Simply Because The Judge Owns Mutual Funds That The Company Manages And Holds In Trust For The Judge."- Professor Ronald Rotunda

"In My Opinion Judge Alito?s Initial Participation In That Appeal Was Not Improper Under 26 U.S.C. §455, Which Establishes The Governing Rules." - Professor Geoffrey Hazzard, Jr.

BTW, he was on a 3 judge panel, then afterwords there was a different 3 judge panel that ruled on the appeal. Basically there is nothing here for you democrats and leftists to attack, but it's fun to see you flail around.:laugh:

Why is every word in your quotes capitalized? Did you just copy and paste it from some wacko's blog? (I'm not implying there's anything wacky about the quotes themselves; it's just that most people who use random capitalization that way are, in my view, screwy in one way or another.)

I believe you're misstating Judge Alito's involvement in the decision on the Vanguard matter. Do you have a source for that?

It's a quote I pulled. Sorry to pee in your wheaties. :roll:

Does it change what the quotes mean? No.

No, I'm not mistating his involvement. He was on a 3 judge panel that ruled that Vanguard was correct in freezing her dead husband's account due to alledged fraud. The case Alito was involved in was about the wife trying to get the accounts frozen due to fraud(a court ruled on that in 1991). She has not won a single case in atleast 3 attempts, so it's pretty disengenous to try to claim this is about Alito having some Mutual funds.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is what you are pinning your hopes on?

Good luck with that.

Yeah, it's a pretty desperate attempt, but then again, most of their BS recently has been due to desperation.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
:roll: Talking points failed.

QFT, I wonder if he was using Dean or Schumers' list?

I'm actually surprised the libbies haven't brought this up sooner -- ABC Radio did an expose of sorts on the entire dispute about 2 weeks ago and even their liberal spinners couldn't do much with it.

 

[Rainsford]

I don't see why simply having money managed by a fund company would disqualify a judge from ruling on a case involving said company. If a true conflict of interest existed, that is one thing, but I'm not sure Alito's interests would have been helped or hurt regardless of how he ruled. So I don't see why he would have been predisposed to rule one way or the other...but then again, I'm not a lawyer or a judge, so maybe I'm missing something.

On the other hand, impartiality is the cornerstone of our judicial process, and even the appearance of bias can hurt the system. I don't think Alito should have been forced to step aside, but if I had been in his position, I probably would have.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't see why simply having money managed by a fund company would disqualify a judge from ruling on a case involving said company. If a true conflict of interest existed, that is one thing, but I'm not sure Alito's interests would have been helped or hurt regardless of how he ruled. So I don't see why he would have been predisposed to rule one way or the other...but then again, I'm not a lawyer or a judge, so maybe I'm missing something.

On the other hand, impartiality is the cornerstone of our judicial process, and even the appearance of bias can hurt the system. I don't think Alito should have been forced to step aside, but if I had been in his position, I probably would have.

True. It doesn't disqualify him as he had no financial stake in any outcome, and neither did Vanguard. The case was about a frozen account(due to fraud) that a wife wanted to get back since her husband is dead. She's failed 3 times in court.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
True. It doesn't disqualify him as he had no financial stake in any outcome, and neither did Vanguard. The case was about a frozen account(due to fraud) that a wife wanted to get back since her husband is dead. She's failed 3 times in court.

That's not how the MSM reports it, of course. They make it sound as though Alito had some personal interest in denying her claim so as to benefit his holdings through Vanguard, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Expect more and more of this nonsense as Alito's hearings come.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
True. It doesn't disqualify him as he had no financial stake in any outcome, and neither did Vanguard. The case was about a frozen account(due to fraud) that a wife wanted to get back since her husband is dead. She's failed 3 times in court.

That's not how the MSM reports it, of course. They make it sound as though Alito had some personal interest in denying her claim so as to benefit his holdings through Vanguard, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Expect more and more of this nonsense as Alito's hearings come.

I don't know, the first I've heard about this was from that news article, and I came away with the impression I posted here. Is it possible that I just read through the bias? Maybe, but maybe your anti-liberal-media tin foil hat is a little too tight, eh?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't know, the first I've heard about this was from that news article, and I came away with the impression I posted here. Is it possible that I just read through the bias? Maybe, but maybe your anti-liberal-media tin foil hat is a little too tight, eh?

Me wearing a tin-foil hat? Nah, after I saw the recent warnings about them not doing the job effectively I decided against purchasing one.

I've found that I can see through the liberal media just fine without one :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't know, the first I've heard about this was from that news article, and I came away with the impression I posted here. Is it possible that I just read through the bias? Maybe, but maybe your anti-liberal-media tin foil hat is a little too tight, eh?

Me wearing a tin-foil hat? Nah, after I saw the recent warnings about them not doing the job effectively I decided against purchasing one.

I've found that I can see through the liberal media just fine without one :laugh: :laugh:

Whatever you say there, chief.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

It's a quote I pulled. Sorry to pee in your wheaties. :roll:

Does it change what the quotes mean? No.

No, I'm not mistating his involvement. He was on a 3 judge panel that ruled that Vanguard was correct in freezing her dead husband's account due to alledged fraud. The case Alito was involved in was about the wife trying to get the accounts frozen due to fraud(a court ruled on that in 1991). She has not won a single case in atleast 3 attempts, so it's pretty disengenous to try to claim this is about Alito having some Mutual funds.

Boy, I don't see it that way at all. By way of illustration, my mother is a judge in the jurisdiction in which I practice as a litigator. She would obviously recuse herself if I appeared before her, because it would create the appearance of impropriety. The same issue arose here, hence the fact that Judge Alito committed, in writing, to recusing himself if Vanguard appeared before him as a party. When it happened, though, he declined to do so.

I don't see this as the end of the world, but it doesn't speak well for his judgment (no pun intended), and it clearly contradicted his promise not to do exactly what he ultimately did.

So where did you "pull" your quote from?

 

[Helenihi]

There is absolutely no conflict of interest here. None whatsoever. It is not the appearance of improprierty, it has to be a reasonable inference, and no lawyer would really assume there was any impropriety (notice that her lawyer only made the motion for a new hearing AFTER he lost, its a tactical move for another try, not any real belief that his case was unfairly prejudiced) in this situation.

The two people quoted above, Rotunda and Hazzard, are basically two of the top guys in legal ethics. If you take a class in legal ethics, you're probably using one of their books. If they agree there's no conflict, there isn't.

As has been mentioned, the case did not affect Vanguard whatsoever, it wasn't Vanguard's money, and they were never going to keep it. It would either go to the widow or to her husband's creditors. It couldn't possibly affect Vanguard itself.

Additionally, its pretty dumb to say that owning mutual funds in a company means you automatically can't involve yourself with cases with that company. Mutual fund investments wouldn't be vulnerable to a lawsuit against the mutual fund company itself, so you wouldn't actually have a financial interest except in very rare instances. Considering how many people invest in large mutual fund companies you'd end up disqualifying huge numbers of judges if you made a rule that broad.

So without any actual conflict of interest issue, that leaves only one possible ethics issue, which is that he said he would recuse himself. He was very willing to recuse himself when people said they had a problem, so obviously it wasn't part of some nefarious plot. The reasonable inference is that he made the promise thinking that he was just promising to recuse himself if there was an actual conflict of interest, and assumed a situation like this didn't apply. Or the other possibility is that he made that promise a decade ago during a long hearing where he said a lot of stuff and forgot that he'd made such a sweeping statement. Without any pattern of doing this, you've got no evidence that it was anything other than the two innocent scenarios above.

 

[judasmachine]

apparently there is a conflict here. why else would he promise to recuse himself? he knows it looks bad, now we know it looks bad, regardless of any laws being broken.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
apparently there is a conflict here. why else would he promise to recuse himself? he knows it looks bad, now we know it looks bad, regardless of any laws being broken.

There isn't a conflict. What don't you get? There is no conflict. There has to be a possibility that the judge's financial interest will be affected by the litigation. There isn't any. It is absolutely impossible that his funds would be affected by this case so there is no conflict of interest.


The promise he made was very broad, and he obviously was not thinking of this exact scenario and more likely just thinking about scenarios where he might have had some conflict. It was 10 years ago during a long hearing, I really doubt he remember the exact wording of everything he said.


This is a really lame thing to try and scuttle his nomination on. You'll never find any expert on ethics and conflicts of interest who will agree this was bad.

 

[Thump553]

I'm siding with DonVito's views here. It certainly gives the appearance of impropriety especially where the judge previously expressly stated in writing he would recluse himself in this very situation. The judicial code of ethics is extremely strict and I think Alito blundered here. Whether that would disqualify an otherwise apparently highly qualified nominee I'm not prepared to opine on yet.

Alito also failed to recluse himself in a 1996 case involving Smith Barney mutual funds, where he again had agreed in writing in 1990 to recluse himself in that specific situation.

Most disturbing about this whole scenario is not Alito's assertion that he did not have to recluse himself because of his ownership of the mutual funds (it's a matter of differing opinions among legal ethics experts) but the White House's assertion now that the whole thing came up because a "computer glitch" failed to catch the conflict. What is it with the White House's bold-faced lying these days-being politely billed as "spin?" Vanguard was mentioned THREE times in the caption (ie, header) of the lawsuit. That is something Ailto would have to clearly see PERSONALLY on every brief and pleading he handled in relation to the case. The White House is hurting this candidate's chances with THEIR dishonesty.

Nina Totenberg did a very fair and excellent (as always) reporting of this issue, which you can listen to here:

NPR audio story on Alito conflict of interest cases

 

[judasmachine]

if i had to determine the well being of a company who has their grubby fingers on my money, then i would either hand off the decision to someone else, or get my money back first. it appears improper, i'm not calling for him to be burned at the stake, i'm just saying it looks bad, and in the court of public opinion that is all that matters.

 

[Genx87]

I fail to see how he had a conflict of interest in this case. He had no financial interest in the case. The case is about freeezing assets due to a fraud allegation and Vanguard froze the assets for future litigation. All he was doing was looking at the validity of Vanguards claim for freezing the assets. If he voted yay or nay it would have zero affect on his own assets.

I am too lazy to go back and read the article, but didnt Vanguard freeze the assets based on a court order?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

It's a quote I pulled. Sorry to pee in your wheaties. :roll:

Does it change what the quotes mean? No.

No, I'm not mistating his involvement. He was on a 3 judge panel that ruled that Vanguard was correct in freezing her dead husband's account due to alledged fraud. The case Alito was involved in was about the wife trying to get the accounts frozen due to fraud(a court ruled on that in 1991). She has not won a single case in atleast 3 attempts, so it's pretty disengenous to try to claim this is about Alito having some Mutual funds.

Boy, I don't see it that way at all. By way of illustration, my mother is a judge in the jurisdiction in which I practice as a litigator. She would obviously recuse herself if I appeared before her, because it would create the appearance of impropriety. The same issue arose here, hence the fact that Judge Alito committed, in writing, to recusing himself if Vanguard appeared before him as a party. When it happened, though, he declined to do so.

I don't see this as the end of the world, but it doesn't speak well for his judgment (no pun intended), and it clearly contradicted his promise not to do exactly what he ultimately did.

So where did you "pull" your quote from?

So Alito commited to what exactly? Do you know what he wrote and what it was in response to? You see, context of these quotes matters since it is possible that what he wrote was in response to financial gain/loss type questions, not necessarily a blanket statement like has been alledged in here.