the best part is to watch schmuck and fathead twist themselves into knots to try and paint him as a "radical" with all their "Im deeply troubled"s. Ted Kennedy lecturing on ethics is nauseating but somehow entertaining. "Ted Kennedy demands subpoenas - Mary Jo Kopechne unavailable for comment".
There is something very wrong about Ted Kennedy questioning another man's integrity.
i hear you on that. . .but Kennedy did raise a good point about Alioto's failure to recuse himself on the mutual fund matter even though he promised the judiciary committee he would during his court of appeal nomination proceeding.
I guess, but i mean, 12 years had passed, and even then there was nothing really requiring that he do so. Ethics commitees agreed on that, so what we have then is the fact that this dude broke a promise once. Wow, im sure none of the senators present have ever done something that bad!
article from the ABA:
In the middle of the third day of Senate hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court, a Wisconsin Democrat asked for a promise.
Sen. Russ Feingold asked Alito to pledge that, so long as the judge continues to maintain holdings in the mutual funds company Vanguard Group, he would recuse himself from any cases concerning the company.
To that, Alito said no. He used a few more words in his reply, explaining the difference between a recusal on a court of appeals, where there are plenty of judges who can take his place, and on the nation???s highest court, where a recusal changes the dynamics of the court.
"Any court with a fixed membership, recusal in that situation affects the decision-making process," Alito told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Judge Alito is right," says legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers, who teaches law at New York University. Although he advised one of Alito???s staunchest critics, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that Alito should have done a better job avoiding Vanguard cases in the past, Gillers nevertheless says it would be inappropriate for Alito to make such a blanket recusal pledge.
"It???s inadvisable for a prospective justice to make that pledge because there is no way to replace a recused justice," Gillers says. "Then you risk a 4-4 division of the court."
The exchange raises one of the thorniest unresolved issues facing judges, and especially Supreme Court justices. In one of the most recent and notable recusal disputes, Justice Antonin Scalia issued a 21-page memorandum in March 2004 declining to recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney, with whom he had gone duck hunting in Louisiana.
In the hearings, Alito???s involvement in a 2002 Vanguard case is one of the few areas in which Democrats have consistently attempted to trip up and size up the even-tempered judge. Alito had pledged to the Senate in 1990 during his appeals court confirmation hearing that he would avoid judging cases involving the company.
Indeed, the ABA???s Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, which gave Alito its highest rating, nevertheless mentioned the issue. The panel said it took Alito???s word that his failure to recuse himself was an oversight. The committee noted that Alito took pains to correct that, first by calling for the decision to be vacated and the case reheard; and second by establishing an internal system that would do a better job of catching potential conflicts of interest relating to Vanguard and other matters.
"Judge Alito explained to the satisfaction of the standing committee the special circumstances that resulted in the screen not working or otherwise not being applied in these limited matters, and he further accepted responsibility for the errors," the ABA panel reported to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chair of the Judiciary Committee. "We accept his explanation and do not believe these matters reflect adversely on him."
Yet NYU???s Gillers is hopeful that the recusal line of questioning in particular will finally prompt the Judicial Conference and Congress to more closely examine judicial ethics rules.
"Technically, Supreme Court justices are not bound by the ethics rules that constrain the lower court judges," Gillers says. "I think it???s time to look into that."
One way is to establish clearer ethics rules, but perhaps to be more lenient as they are applied to the Supreme Court. Another avenue, Gillers suggests, is to create a mechanism by which a lower court judge can be brought in to participate in the Supreme Court.
"That is not as revolutionary as it may sound," Gillers says, adding that many state supreme courts do just that. He suggests it???s possible to set up a system that randomly rotates the chief judges of the federal circuit courts to sit on the Supreme Court when a recusal comes up.
By deadline Thursday, the Judiciary Committee began hearing testimony from the ABA???s standing committee, which unanimously rated Alito well-qualified and characterized him as an individual who "sees majesty in the law, respects it, and remains dedicated to it to this day."
In its review of Alito, some members of reading groups assigned to examine around 350 opinions he wrote raised three primary concerns:
That the judge occasionally allows for "strident tones" to enter into his written decisions. That Alito???s personal beliefs have entered into his decision-making. That the results of some of his decisions tend to favor identifiable categories of litigants and reflect bias. Regardless, the standing committee determined that the concerns "do not have overriding significance in understanding Judge Alito and his otherwise demonstrated capacity for exemplary judicial temperament."
Comments
Sabadaba.. babadadada
Ha Ha Ha.
article from the ABA:
In the middle of the third day of Senate hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court, a Wisconsin Democrat asked for a promise.
Sen. Russ Feingold asked Alito to pledge that, so long as the judge continues to maintain holdings in the mutual funds company Vanguard Group, he would recuse himself from any cases concerning the company.
To that, Alito said no. He used a few more words in his reply, explaining the difference between a recusal on a court of appeals, where there are plenty of judges who can take his place, and on the nation???s highest court, where a recusal changes the dynamics of the court.
"Any court with a fixed membership, recusal in that situation affects the decision-making process," Alito told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Judge Alito is right," says legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers, who teaches law at New York University. Although he advised one of Alito???s staunchest critics, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that Alito should have done a better job avoiding Vanguard cases in the past, Gillers nevertheless says it would be inappropriate for Alito to make such a blanket recusal pledge.
"It???s inadvisable for a prospective justice to make that pledge because there is no way to replace a recused justice," Gillers says. "Then you risk a 4-4 division of the court."
The exchange raises one of the thorniest unresolved issues facing judges, and especially Supreme Court justices. In one of the most recent and notable recusal disputes, Justice Antonin Scalia issued a 21-page memorandum in March 2004 declining to recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney, with whom he had gone duck hunting in Louisiana.
In the hearings, Alito???s involvement in a 2002 Vanguard case is one of the few areas in which Democrats have consistently attempted to trip up and size up the even-tempered judge. Alito had pledged to the Senate in 1990 during his appeals court confirmation hearing that he would avoid judging cases involving the company.
Indeed, the ABA???s Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, which gave Alito its highest rating, nevertheless mentioned the issue. The panel said it took Alito???s word that his failure to recuse himself was an oversight. The committee noted that Alito took pains to correct that, first by calling for the decision to be vacated and the case reheard; and second by establishing an internal system that would do a better job of catching potential conflicts of interest relating to Vanguard and other matters.
"Judge Alito explained to the satisfaction of the standing committee the special circumstances that resulted in the screen not working or otherwise not being applied in these limited matters, and he further accepted responsibility for the errors," the ABA panel reported to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chair of the Judiciary Committee. "We accept his explanation and do not believe these matters reflect adversely on him."
Yet NYU???s Gillers is hopeful that the recusal line of questioning in particular will finally prompt the Judicial Conference and Congress to more closely examine judicial ethics rules.
"Technically, Supreme Court justices are not bound by the ethics rules that constrain the lower court judges," Gillers says. "I think it???s time to look into that."
One way is to establish clearer ethics rules, but perhaps to be more lenient as they are applied to the Supreme Court. Another avenue, Gillers suggests, is to create a mechanism by which a lower court judge can be brought in to participate in the Supreme Court.
"That is not as revolutionary as it may sound," Gillers says, adding that many state supreme courts do just that. He suggests it???s possible to set up a system that randomly rotates the chief judges of the federal circuit courts to sit on the Supreme Court when a recusal comes up.
By deadline Thursday, the Judiciary Committee began hearing testimony from the ABA???s standing committee, which unanimously rated Alito well-qualified and characterized him as an individual who "sees majesty in the law, respects it, and remains dedicated to it to this day."
In its review of Alito, some members of reading groups assigned to examine around 350 opinions he wrote raised three primary concerns:
That the judge occasionally allows for "strident tones" to enter into his written decisions.
That Alito???s personal beliefs have entered into his decision-making.
That the results of some of his decisions tend to favor identifiable categories of litigants and reflect bias.
Regardless, the standing committee determined that the concerns "do not have overriding significance in understanding Judge Alito and his otherwise demonstrated capacity for exemplary judicial temperament."
Mother-effer, PUH-LEASE.....[/b]
And you're much dumber than McCarthy.
Yes, but the "South" is too bland. Alabama strikes it home.