(OT) Lance Ito on the Supreme Court?!?

OK, I think the anonymous Kool-aid drinkers are right: GWB has obviously
gone off the deep end.

Woke up to the news that he's nominated Lance Ito to the SCOTUS.

That's just ridiculous.

I don't know how we'r---- {someone whispers in my ear}

Never mind.

Bill Sornson wrote:

OK, I think the anonymous Kool-aid drinkers are right: GWB has obviously
gone off the deep end.

Woke up to the news that he's nominated Lance Ito to the SCOTUS.

That's just ridiculous.

I don't know how we'r---- {someone whispers in my ear}

Never mind.

Bill Sornson wrote:
OK, I think the anonymous Kool-aid drinkers are right: GWB has obviously
gone off the deep end.

Woke up to the news that he's nominated Lance Ito to the SCOTUS.

That's just ridiculous.

Amazingly, we find it would have been a less problematic choice. Alito
promised the senate IN WRITING during his previous confirmation
hearings that he would recuse himself from all cases involving Vanguard
or Smith Barney mutual funds, or his sister's law firm. It turns out he
refused to recuse himself from cases involving all three. His
explanation? It keeps changing, but the most recent is that his promise
was not permanent. Yes, he still had major investments with the first
two at the time. He didn't even address the conflict with his sister's
law firm.

Scalito indeed. The parallels with Scalia get eerier and eerier..

41 wrote:

Amazingly, we find it would have been a less problematic choice. Alito
promised the senate IN WRITING during his previous confirmation
hearings that he would recuse himself from all cases involving
Vanguard or Smith Barney mutual funds, or his sister's law firm. It
turns out he refused to recuse himself from cases involving all
three. His explanation? It keeps changing, but the most recent is
that his promise was not permanent. Yes, he still had major
investments with the first two at the time. He didn't even address
the conflict with his sister's law firm.

When he realized the mistake he had the case resubmitted; subsequent ruling
upheld his.

Scalito indeed. The parallels with Scalia get eerier and eerier..

Good!

Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
41 wrote:

Amazingly, we find it would have been a less problematic choice. Alito
promised the senate IN WRITING during his previous confirmation
hearings that he would recuse himself from all cases involving
Vanguard or Smith Barney mutual funds, or his sister's law firm. It
turns out he refused to recuse himself from cases involving all
three. His explanation? It keeps changing, but the most recent is
that his promise was not permanent. Yes, he still had major
investments with the first two at the time. He didn't even address
the conflict with his sister's law firm.

When he realized the mistake he had the case resubmitted; subsequent ruling
upheld his.

No, that was his explanation of two or three days ago. He has since
dropped the computer glitch-mistake argument. Now he says it was a
mistake to have promised to recuse himself and that, realizing that
over the years, he just updated the promise in his own mind, and so did
nothing wrong in staying on in the first place; he only recused himself
after the plaintiff complained, and then he in turn complained about
that. And there are three specific cases, one each for those involving
his two brokerage firms, the other for his sister's law firm. He is yet
to address the case involving his sister's law firm.

Below are his most recent explanations. Let's not be surprised if they
change several times more.
----------------------------------------------------------
Alito denies breaking promise in 2002

November 11, 2005

BY JESSE J. HOLLAND

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said Thursday he
was ''unduly restrictive'' in promising in 1990 to avoid appeals cases
involving two investment firms and said he has not made any rulings in
which he had a ''legal or ethical obligation'' to step aside.

In a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, Alito said a 1990 questionnaire he filled out for the panel
covered his plans for ''initial service'' as a judge on the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.

''I respectfully submit that it was not inconsistent with my
questionnaire response for me to participate in two isolated cases
seven and 13 years later, respectively,'' he wrote.

Alito issued the letter one day after all eight Democrats on the
committee called for voluminous records involving a 2002 case in which
Vanguard was a defendant. They noted that Alito had promised at the
time of his confirmation to the appeals court to avoid cases involving
Vanguard, Smith Barney, First Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester,
N.Y., and his sister's law firm.

Democrats addressed their letter to the chief judge of the 3rd
circuit, and did not accuse Alito of bending his ruling to favor
Vanguard. Instead, they raised possible conflict of interest concerns,
and said he had violated the promise he made to the committee 15 years
ago.

Even so, the Democratic challenge prompted Specter (R-Pa.) on Thursday
to write Alito suggesting a quick response.

''I think it is important that the issues be addressed promptly since
a number of senators have expressed concerns,'' Specter advised.

When Alito listed the companies in the 1990 questionnaire, ''my
intention was to state that I would never knowingly hear a case where a
conflict of interest existed. ... As my service continued, I realized
that I had been unduly restrictive,'' he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41 wrote:
Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
41 wrote:

Amazingly, we find it would have been a less problematic choice.
Alito promised the senate IN WRITING during his previous
confirmation hearings that he would recuse himself from all cases
involving Vanguard or Smith Barney mutual funds, or his sister's
law firm. It turns out he refused to recuse himself from cases
involving all three. His explanation? It keeps changing, but the
most recent is that his promise was not permanent. Yes, he still
had major investments with the first two at the time. He didn't
even address the conflict with his sister's law firm.

When he realized the mistake he had the case resubmitted; subsequent
ruling upheld his.

No, that was his explanation of two or three days ago. He has since
dropped the computer glitch-mistake argument. Now he says it was a
mistake to have promised to recuse himself and that, realizing that
over the years, he just updated the promise in his own mind, and so
did nothing wrong in staying on in the first place; he only recused
himself after the plaintiff complained, and then he in turn
complained about that. And there are three specific cases, one each
for those involving his two brokerage firms, the other for his
sister's law firm. He is yet to address the case involving his
sister's law firm.

Below are his most recent explanations. Let's not be surprised if they
change several times more.
----------------------------------------------------------
Alito denies breaking promise in 2002

November 11, 2005

BY JESSE J. HOLLAND

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said Thursday he
was ''unduly restrictive'' in promising in 1990 to avoid appeals cases
involving two investment firms and said he has not made any rulings in
which he had a ''legal or ethical obligation'' to step aside.

In a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, Alito said a 1990 questionnaire he filled out for the panel
covered his plans for ''initial service'' as a judge on the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.

''I respectfully submit that it was not inconsistent with my
questionnaire response for me to participate in two isolated cases
seven and 13 years later, respectively,'' he wrote.

Alito issued the letter one day after all eight Democrats on the
committee called for voluminous records involving a 2002 case in which
Vanguard was a defendant. They noted that Alito had promised at the
time of his confirmation to the appeals court to avoid cases involving
Vanguard, Smith Barney, First Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester,
N.Y., and his sister's law firm.

Democrats addressed their letter to the chief judge of the 3rd
circuit, and did not accuse Alito of bending his ruling to favor
Vanguard. Instead, they raised possible conflict of interest concerns,
and said he had violated the promise he made to the committee 15 years
ago.

Even so, the Democratic challenge prompted Specter (R-Pa.) on Thursday
to write Alito suggesting a quick response.

''I think it is important that the issues be addressed promptly since
a number of senators have expressed concerns,'' Specter advised.

When Alito listed the companies in the 1990 questionnaire, ''my
intention was to state that I would never knowingly hear a case where
a conflict of interest existed. ... As my service continued, I
realized that I had been unduly restrictive,'' he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I heard you promised not to be an anonyomous Kool-aid drinking bloghead 15
years ago. Liar! LOL

BFD... N&F

Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
41 wrote:
Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
41 wrote:

Amazingly, we find it would have been a less problematic choice.
Alito promised the senate IN WRITING during his previous
confirmation hearings that he would re cuse himself from all cases
involving Vanguard or Smith Barney mutual funds, or his sister's
law firm. It turns out he refused to recuse himself from cases
involving all three. His explanation? It keeps changing, but the
most recen t is that his promise was not permanent. Yes, he still
had major investments with the first two at the time. He didn't
even address the conflict with his sister's law firm.

When he realized the mistake he had the case resubmitted; su bsequent
ruling upheld his.

No, that was his explanation of two or three days ago. He has since
dropped the computer glitch-mistake argument. Now he says it was a
mistake to have promised to recuse himself and that, realizing that
over the years, he just updated the promise in his own mind, and so
did nothing wrong in staying on in the first place; he only recused
himself after the plaintiff complained, and then he in turn
complained about that. And there are three spe cific cases, one each
for those involving his two brokerage firms, the other for his
sister's law firm. He is yet to address the case involving his
sister's law firm.

Below are his most recent explanations. Let's not be surprised if they
change several times more.
----------------------------------------------------------
Alito denies breaking promise in 2002

November 11, 2005

BY JESSE J. HOLLAND

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said Thursday he
was ''unduly restrictive'' in promising in 1990 to avoid appeals cases
involving two investment firms and said he has not made any rulings in
which he had a ''legal or ethical obligation'' to step aside.

In a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, Alito said a 1990 questionnaire he filled out for the panel
covered his plans for ''initial service'' as a judge on the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.

''I respectfully submi t that it was not inconsistent with my
questionnaire response for me to participate in two isolated cases
seven and 13 years later, respectively,'' he wrote.

Alito issued the letter one day after all eight Democrats on the
committee ca lled for voluminous records involving a 2002 case in which
Vanguard was a defendant. They noted that Alito had promised at the
time of his confirmation to the appeals court to avoid cases involving
Vanguard, Smith Barney, First Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester,
N.Y., and his sister's law firm.

Democrats addressed their letter to the chief judge of the 3rd
circuit, and did not accuse Alito of bending his ruling to favor
Vanguard. Instead, they raised possible conflict of interest concerns,
and said he had violated the promise he made to the committee 15 years
ago.

Even so, the Democratic challenge prompted Specter (R-Pa.) on Thursday
to write Alito suggesting a quick response.

''I think it is important that the issues be addressed promptly since
a number of senators have expressed concerns,'' Specter advised.

When Alito listed the companies in the 1990 questionnaire, ''my
intention was to state that I would never knowingly hear a case where
a conflict of interest existed. ... As my service continued, I
realized that I had been unduly restrictive,'' he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I heard you promised not to be an anonyomous Kool-aid drinking bloghead 15
years ago. Liar! LOL

And when did you promise to stop beating your wife? Anyrate, tough
luck, Alito was arrogant enough to put his promises in writing and to
contradict them on the record. h