It's Alito - Bush picks SCOTUS nominee

[Patroklos]

Pointing out that other well respected judges determined it was not a sound decision seems to be a classic appeal to authority.

How many of them, because is it wasn't all a "well-respected judge" did.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Pointing out that other well respected judges determined it was not a sound decision seems to be a classic appeal to authority.

And how would the appeal to authority invalidate that it was a well reasoned opinion? In MANY Supreme Court cases, I look at both sides of the argument (majority and main dissent) and see well reasoned opinions. Hell, that's what they DO, of course it will be well reasoned; it just may not carry 4 other votes!

[flash9286]

WASHINGTON — When Samuel Alito appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee 15 years ago as a nominee for the appellate bench, he promised in writing to disqualify himself from "any cases involving the Vanguard companies," a stock and mutual-fund firm in which he had substantial personal investments.

That is why several Senate aides said they were wondering Monday why Alito agreed to participate in 2002 with two other judges in an appellate case in which he ruled in Vanguard's favor, dismissing a complaint that the company had improperly seized some private accounts and blocked the owner's widow from obtaining the funds they contained.

Alito's ruling, issued on April 12, 2002, was withdrawn the following year by Anthony Joseph Scirica, the chief administrative judge for the 3rd Circuit where Alito worked. Scirica acted after the widow complained in a court motion that Alito's participation in the decision was "unlawful" under judicial ethics rules.

"It was improper for him to participate in the decision," said retired Northeastern University law professor John G.S. Flym, who helped prepare the court motion on behalf of Shantee Maharaj of Wayne, Pa. Her husband had established the accounts that Vanguard froze and then disbursed to others in settling a business dispute with her husband's former partner.

"The law was quite clear," Flym said, even though some controversy exists among judges about how to interpret the rules. "It's clear that [Alito's] ... holdings were substantial" in Vanguard company investments.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Alito had become involved in the case because a "computer screening program" at the 3rd Circuit had failed to pick up the potential conflict. She said that "as soon as the matter was brought to [Alito's] attention" by Maharaj's motion, he wrote a letter to Scirica requesting the verdict be withdrawn and the case presented to a new panel.

Perino said she did not have a copy of Alito's letter, and Scirica did not return a telephone call Monday.

The case, as presented to the appellate court, specifically names Vanguard Group, Vanguard Fiduciary Trust and Vanguard's Morgan Growth Fund as some of the litigants. The motion complaining about Alito's involvement, citing Alito's financial-disclosure statement for 2002, said he owned shares in 17 Vanguard funds at the time of his ruling, with a total value between $390,000 and $975,000.

Judicial ethics rules require disqualification whenever judges know they have "ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small" in a company that is party to a legal dispute. While the rule is meant primarily to cover direct holdings in the stock of one company, Flym noted the Vanguard Fund describes itself as being owned by the "fund's shareholders."

Perino said that after the decision was withdrawn, the case was heard by another panel of 3rd Circuit judges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101686.html

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos

How many of them, because is it wasn't all a "well-respected judge" did.

So now you are claiming Supreme Court Justices aren't well-respected judges?

That's just stupid.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Pointing out that other well respected judges determined it was not a sound decision seems to be a classic appeal to authority.

And how would the appeal to authority invalidate that it was a well reasoned opinion? In MANY Supreme Court cases, I look at both sides of the argument (majority and main dissent) and see well reasoned opinions. Hell, that's what they DO, of course it will be well reasoned; it just may not carry 4 other votes!

Well reasoned decisions don't get tossed. This one got tossed so the odds are it wasn't very well reasoned.

[Dinner]

Since the administration has such a long history of lies and unethical behavior it is a shame they couldn't find a judge who had a more ethical past the Alito.

[Patroklos]

So now you are claiming Supreme Court Justices aren't well-respected judges?

No, Oerdin, you did. Unless all the examples of his judgements being overturned were unanimous, there were in fact Supreme Court Justices, well respected ones, that agreed with him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Well reasoned decisions don't get tossed. This one got tossed so the odds are it wasn't very well reasoned.

YES, they DO! All the damn freaking time! Every judge, whose been on a District or Appellate bench for over 2 years, has had a case ruling 'tossed'. EVERY ONE.

For example, Gonzales v. Raich (the case where the Supreme Court ruled that medical marijuana can be banned by the federal government), which I know you disagreed with. The Supreme Court reversed (ie, "tossed") the Court of Appeals decision. Was the CoA decision lacking in well reasoned arguments because it was tossed?

Continuing this particular argument is just making you look foolish, Oerdin.

[DinoDoc]

What idiot web site is Oerdin parroting at us?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What idiot web site is Oerdin parroting at us?

God only knows.

[DinoDoc]

I only hope it is a web site and he really isn't that stupid.

[Jaguar]

Imran tends to be right about most things (football and Harry Potter are the two exceptions) and in this case I back him completely.

[Imran Siddiqui]

HEY! I was right about most of the stuff that happened in Book 6 (I just didn't guess who'd off AD)

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Imran tends to be right about most things (football and Harry Potter are the two exceptions) and in this case I back him completely.

And Star Wars.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Bill3000


And Star Wars.

Ah, yes, that too. Forgot about that one.