A week after Harriet Miers withdrew her name from consideration for Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court, the search for a qualified candidate goes on. Yes, George Bush nominated Samuel Alito Monday morning, yes, Mr. Alito has experience as a constitutional lawyer and yes, 15 years behind the bench on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, but there are other considerations, like ethics.
According to Tuesday’s Washington Post, when Mr. Alito was nominated for the appellate post in 1990, he promised the Senate Judiciary Committee – in writing – to recuse himself from ruling on “any cases involving the Vanguard companies” a stock and mutual fund firm in which Mr. Alito has substantial holdings.
Flash forward 12 years and Mr. – now Judge – Alito is one of three judges hearing a case in which Vanguard was accused by a widow of seizing her late husband’s accounts and preventing her from obtaining his assets. Written promises to the United States Senate notwithstanding, Mr. Alito stays on the case and rules in Vanguard’s favor. After the widow and her attorney filed an ethics complaint with Mr. Alito’s boss, Mr. Alito withdrew his ruling and asked that the case be presented to a new panel.
What is that? “Do over! Do over! My skate was untied! I want to start again!” That excuse didn’t work for Tonya Harding in figure skating, why should it be acceptable on the U.S. Court of Appeals?
The Post reports that the consistently addled White House press office blamed Mr. Alito’s lapse on a “computer screening program” that failed to detect Mr. Alito’s conflict of interest in the Vanguard case. The ethics chip in Mr. Alito’s head must have been on the fritz that day, too. Documents in the case specifically name Vanguard Group Inc., Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Co. and Vanguard’s Morgan Growth Fund Inc. as party to the litigation. According to Mr. Alito’s financial disclosure statement for 2002, he owned shares in 17 different Vanguard funds at the time of his ruling, with a total value between $390,000-$975,000. That’s probably chump change to high-flying GOP types like Mr. Alito, but most Americans would remember if they left half a million in their other pair of pants.
Is Samuel Alito:
a) Stupid?
b) Inattentive?
c) Unethical?
d) All of the above?
Regardless of your answer, he seems unfit for the highest court in the land.
Like “Love Story,” a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court means never having to say you’re sorry. Unlike appellate courts, when a Supreme Court justice pulls an ethical fast one, there’s no boss to write to and complain.
People’s Exhibit A is Justice Antonin Scalia, the high court fixture Mr. Alito is said to most resemble in philosophy and author of its worst decision ever, Bush v. Gore (2000). This is not just sour grapes, you can’t find a legal scholar – even Antonin Scalia – who will defend the ruling that gave away the presidency. Aside from Bush v. Gore’s other defects, Mr. Scalia should have recused himself from the case as his son, Eugene, was a senior member of the Bush-Cheney election campaign. Mr. Scalia (fils) was paid off with a recess appointment as solicitor at the Bush Department of Labor (Senate Democrats blocked his confirmation).
Mr. Scalia (pere) failed to recuse himself again in 2004 when his duck-hunting partner Dick Cheney came before the Supreme Court in a fight to keep the proceedings of his energy task force hidden from public eyes. Mr. Cheney won that one; what happens when (more likely than if) some permutation of the I. Lewis Libby case goes to the Supreme Court? Will Mr. Scalia recuse himself? Will Chief Justice John Roberts (a Bush appointee)? Will Mr. Alito, should he be confirmed, or whoever finally makes it through if Mr. Alito follows Ms. Miers to the garden of ignominy?
The only lesson Mr. Bush took from the Miers debacle was to cater to the right wing. Nothing was learned about vetting candidates, nothing was learned about ethics. Five years into this administration, expecting ethics is expecting too much.
The Tonya Harding Defense
A week after Harriet Miers withdrew her name from consideration for Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court, the search for a qualified candidate goes on. Yes, George Bush nominated Samuel Alito Monday morning, yes, Mr. Alito has experience as a constitutional lawyer and yes, 15 years behind the bench on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, but there are other considerations, like ethics.
According to Tuesday’s Washington Post, when Mr. Alito was nominated for the appellate post in 1990, he promised the Senate Judiciary Committee – in writing – to recuse himself from ruling on “any cases involving the Vanguard companies” a stock and mutual fund firm in which Mr. Alito has substantial holdings.
Flash forward 12 years and Mr. – now Judge – Alito is one of three judges hearing a case in which Vanguard was accused by a widow of seizing her late husband’s accounts and preventing her from obtaining his assets. Written promises to the United States Senate notwithstanding, Mr. Alito stays on the case and rules in Vanguard’s favor. After the widow and her attorney filed an ethics complaint with Mr. Alito’s boss, Mr. Alito withdrew his ruling and asked that the case be presented to a new panel.
What is that? “Do over! Do over! My skate was untied! I want to start again!” That excuse didn’t work for Tonya Harding in figure skating, why should it be acceptable on the U.S. Court of Appeals?
The Post reports that the consistently addled White House press office blamed Mr. Alito’s lapse on a “computer screening program” that failed to detect Mr. Alito’s conflict of interest in the Vanguard case. The ethics chip in Mr. Alito’s head must have been on the fritz that day, too. Documents in the case specifically name Vanguard Group Inc., Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Co. and Vanguard’s Morgan Growth Fund Inc. as party to the litigation. According to Mr. Alito’s financial disclosure statement for 2002, he owned shares in 17 different Vanguard funds at the time of his ruling, with a total value between $390,000-$975,000. That’s probably chump change to high-flying GOP types like Mr. Alito, but most Americans would remember if they left half a million in their other pair of pants.
Is Samuel Alito:
a) Stupid?
b) Inattentive?
c) Unethical?
d) All of the above?
Regardless of your answer, he seems unfit for the highest court in the land.
Like “Love Story,” a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court means never having to say you’re sorry. Unlike appellate courts, when a Supreme Court justice pulls an ethical fast one, there’s no boss to write to and complain.
People’s Exhibit A is Justice Antonin Scalia, the high court fixture Mr. Alito is said to most resemble in philosophy and author of its worst decision ever, Bush v. Gore (2000). This is not just sour grapes, you can’t find a legal scholar – even Antonin Scalia – who will defend the ruling that gave away the presidency. Aside from Bush v. Gore’s other defects, Mr. Scalia should have recused himself from the case as his son, Eugene, was a senior member of the Bush-Cheney election campaign. Mr. Scalia (fils) was paid off with a recess appointment as solicitor at the Bush Department of Labor (Senate Democrats blocked his confirmation).
Mr. Scalia (pere) failed to recuse himself again in 2004 when his duck-hunting partner Dick Cheney came before the Supreme Court in a fight to keep the proceedings of his energy task force hidden from public eyes. Mr. Cheney won that one; what happens when (more likely than if) some permutation of the I. Lewis Libby case goes to the Supreme Court? Will Mr. Scalia recuse himself? Will Chief Justice John Roberts (a Bush appointee)? Will Mr. Alito, should he be confirmed, or whoever finally makes it through if Mr. Alito follows Ms. Miers to the garden of ignominy?
The only lesson Mr. Bush took from the Miers debacle was to cater to the right wing. Nothing was learned about vetting candidates, nothing was learned about ethics. Five years into this administration, expecting ethics is expecting too much.
© Mark Floegel, 2005