NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems he thinks that conflict of interest rules don't apply to him, even after he promised that they would....

From Boston (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/03/plaintiff_alleges_alito_conflict/)


Judge Samuel A. 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.

The case involved a Massachusetts woman, Shantee Maharaj, who has spent nearly a decade fighting to win back the assets of her late husband's individual retirement accounts, which had been frozen by Vanguard after a court judgment in favor of a former business partner of her husband.

...

In 1990, when Alito was seeking US Senate approval for his nomination to be a circuit judge, he said in written answers to a questionnaire that he would disqualify himself from ''any cases involving the Vanguard companies."

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."



Really? You were asked if you would as part of your job interview. you promised you would. You got the job. You didn't adhere to your promise.

In other words, you lied on your job application.

Where I come from - those are grounds for immediate dismissal from your job.

Ouch. That's gotta hurt. Sounds pretty good to me. I don't know that this will have the power to keep him from getting confirmed, though.

I wish I could say I'm surprised by this, not because of any brief I have against Alito, but because most people, when given a chance to benefit themselves personally, do so.

I wish I could say I'm surprised by this, not because of any brief I have against Alito, but because most people, when given a chance to benefit themselves personally, do so.

Corrupt politicians in power will do anything to keep their own in charge, even blatantly hypocritical wrist-slapping. Don't be surprised if the Republic of Gilead moves to try and move the subject of confirmation away from this revelation.

Corrupt politicians in power will do anything to keep their own in charge, even blatantly hypocritical wrist-slapping. Don't be surprised if the Republic of Gilead moves to try and move the subject of confirmation away from this revelation.
Well, there's plenty of reasons in my mind to block his nomination--this is just sauce for the goose.

Well, there's plenty of reasons in my mind to block his nomination--this is just sauce for the goose.

The only problem you have now is that some of the members of the group of Democrats who helped avert the "Nuclear Option" are now saying that there is nothing about Alito that would qualify as something that they would help the Democrats filibuster over.

So there's no way to keep him from getting out of the committee, on to the floor, and there for an up or down vote. And not enough votes for a filibuster.

Nazz, I was just wondering - don't you believe the Commerce clause in the Constitution? Or is it there just for window dressing, and you believe that Congress can pass anything it likes?

Nazz, I was just wondering - don't you believe the Commerce clause in the Constitution? Or is it there just for window dressing, and you believe that Congress can pass anything it likes?
That's an awfully vague question, as is the Commerce clause in general--it can be stretched to cover an awful lot of stuff, and has been. But without something more specific to go on, I don't feel like I can give you a complete answer.

As to your point above about the gang of 14, to my knowledge, only one Democratic Senator has made any noise at all about Alito, and that was Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Now, that leaves 43 Democrats and 1 Independent to uphold a filibuster if it comes to that, which is 4 more than necessary, and I wouldn't be so sure that the nuclear folks really want a vote on getting rid of the filibuster, especially with the potential loss of the Senate in 2006 or 2008--they want to keep that weapon for themselves in case they're ever in the minority.

I look at the nuclear option as a win-win for Democrats--if the filibuster goes (and I know, they say only for judicial nominees, but if it goes there, it's a short step to the filibuster in general), then the next time there's a Democratic Senate, conservatives won't be able to stop any manner of tax increase, any sort of progressive legislation (universal health care, maybe?), etc.

That's an awfully vague question, as is the Commerce clause in general--it can be stretched to cover an awful lot of stuff, and has been. But without something more specific to go on, I don't feel like I can give you a complete answer.

As to your point above about the gang of 14, to my knowledge, only one Democratic Senator has made any noise at all about Alito, and that was Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Now, that leaves 43 Democrats and 1 Independent to uphold a filibuster if it comes to that, which is 4 more than necessary, and I wouldn't be so sure that the nuclear folks really want a vote on getting rid of the filibuster, especially with the potential loss of the Senate in 2006 or 2008--they want to keep that weapon for themselves in case they're ever in the minority.

I look at the nuclear option as a win-win for Democrats--if the filibuster goes (and I know, they say only for judicial nominees, but if it goes there, it's a short step to the filibuster in general), then the next time there's a Democratic Senate, conservatives won't be able to stop any manner of tax increase, any sort of progressive legislation (universal health care, maybe?), etc.


As per the Lopez ruling.

After respondent, then a 12th grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone," 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that §922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, §922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Second, §922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case by case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that §922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States. Pp. 2-19.

As per the Lopez ruling.

After respondent, then a 12th grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone," 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that §922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, §922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Second, §922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case by case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that §922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States. Pp. 2-19.Not being a lawyer, I have only a limited understanding of the case, so I could have missed something, but I don't think Lopez was decided wrongly. It seemed to me on a gut level to make that case under the Commerce Clause was a bit of a stretch, even taking into account how vague the Commerce Clause is in general.

Now something you have to realize here is that I don't come to my reading of the Constitution as a legal scholar--I come to it as an expert in the world of language. That's what my degrees are in, and it's a large part of the reason I marvel at the Constitution--it's so beautifully vague and abstract in parts that it's practically impossible to interpret in a single way.

Not being a lawyer, I have only a limited understanding of the case, so I could have missed something, but I don't think Lopez was decided wrongly. It seemed to me on a gut level to make that case under the Commerce Clause was a bit of a stretch, even taking into account how vague the Commerce Clause is in general.

Now something you have to realize here is that I don't come to my reading of the Constitution as a legal scholar--I come to it as an expert in the world of language. That's what my degrees are in, and it's a large part of the reason I marvel at the Constitution--it's so beautifully vague and abstract in parts that it's practically impossible to interpret in a single way.

This line here:
"To uphold the Government's contention that §922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States. Pp. 2-19."

is exactly the way Alito thinks. Not right or left - but a skeptic of the power of the Legislative and Executive Branches. He doesn't think that Congress should be able to loosely interpret its own powers - not without a check from the Judicial Branch.

The idea of balance of powers. This is the Supreme Court decision that he based his dissent on in another case - and wondered in that dissent whether the other justices had noticed that the Supreme Court had ruled that the Commerce clause was not as flexible as they believed.

Calling him names, or saying, "he's for machineguns" is an inaccurate oversimplification.

This line here:
"To uphold the Government's contention that §922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States. Pp. 2-19."

is exactly the way Alito thinks. Not right or left - but a skeptic of the power of the Legislative and Executive Branches. He doesn't think that Congress should be able to loosely interpret its own powers - not without a check from the Judicial Branch.

The idea of balance of powers. This is the Supreme Court decision that he based his dissent on in another case - and wondered in that dissent whether the other justices had noticed that the Supreme Court had ruled that the Commerce clause was not as flexible as they believed.

Calling him names, or saying, "he's for machineguns" is an inaccurate oversimplification.
Well, for starters, I haven't called him names, but secondly, if I read the excerpt of the decision that dealt with the machine guns correctly, he was taking Lopez about ten steps farther than the others on the appeals court did, and since the Supremes declined to grant cert, they must have felt similarly.

And your statement that he's not right or left is disingenuous at best. He's most certainly right-leaning at least, and that's reflected in his decisions. Look, I have no problem with justices taking political sides--it's ridiculous to assume that they won't. They're humans. What I want is for them to be honest about those biases so we know what we're getting.

It's part of the reason why I'm so largely in favor of divided government--where an opposition party controls at least one branch of government. It forces moderation. Would Alito have been proffered as a nominee if he had to get through a Democratic Senate? Not a chance. And when Clinton had to deal with a Republican Senate, he went to the Republicans and got names that they suggested and they sailed through as a result.

As a partisan, I'd love for Democrats to have the control that Republicans have right now. As an American, I look at it and see the potential for disaster, regardless of the party in power--no brake on the destructive tendencies of unchecked power.