In 1990, Samuel Alito promised not to hear any cases involving the Vanguard company if confirmed by the U.S. Senate. He made this promise in writing to the U.S. Senate. In 2002, he broke his promise, hearing a case involving Vanguard, and ruling in favor of Vanguard.
Sounds like his word is not worth the paper is written on. And it sounds like he's another Bush-style Crony Capitalist. I assume this is why the right-wing is giving him such a vigorous dose of sultry loving.
link
<font color="green"> Plaintiff alleges Alito conflict
Says judge should have recused self
By Sarah Schweitzer and Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | November 3, 2005
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.
.
.
.
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."
The White House, asked about the seeming contradiction between Alito's two statements, said that Alito was put on the case due to an error by a computer system that should have warned that he was taking a Vanguard-related case, because the investments were listed in the database.
Asked why Alito did not recuse himself after learning that it involved Vanguard, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino criticized those who are raising questions about Alito's actions.
''Clearly there are some who are trying to tarnish the reputation of a lifelong public servant who is praised for his integrity, fairness, and temperament from people from all walks of life," Perino said via e-mail. ''These facts remain: Judge Alito had no financial interest in the company involved in this case, he immediately recused himself to avoid any hint of a conflict, his opinion was vacated and the plaintiff's case was taken up by a new panel, and his answer on the questionnaire obviously refers to any matter in which he would have a financial stake." </font>