ScandAlito?
I've caught some heat for my defeatist attitude regarding Alito, but this could drag me into the fight. He sat on a case in which he had a financial interest, after promising not to, and complained about the effort to get him to remove himself. Oh, and then he voted in favor of his financial interests.
It's hard for me to see how this does not establish him as an unethical scumbag. Anyone out there have an explanation?
posted by Dan at 11/04/2005 07:50:00 AM
2 Comments:
I'm going to have to look up those cases and read them because here's what it looks like to me after reading the article you link to:
Two men are in litigation. One wins, but alleges the other is attempting to defraud him as a creditor by hiding or moving assets around. Those assets include a Vanguard Mutual Fund. A court orders the fund frozen to prevent it from being improperly disbursed. The loser in the litigation sues Vanguard to unfreeze the fund. He loses again.
I don't see the conflict. If Vanguard loses, the winner of the original litigation gets the mutual fund. If Vanguard wins, the loser of the original litigation gets the mutual fund. The only difference to Vanguard (and Alito as someone with a financial interest in Vanguard) is who is listed as the owner of the mutual fund.
If I'm wrong about this, I'll let you know. However, it looks to me like this is a smear campaign against Alito, not a real conflict situation. Do you see it differently? Wasn't this basically an interpleader type of situation?
RM
RM - I haven't been able to find the cases, have you? In reading this and other articles, though, it appears that she was seeking damages against Vanguard for freezing the funds, over and above the value of the assets themselves. So he did have a financial interest . . .
But, if you can find the actual opinions and it turns out I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it, though I'll be horrible disappointed if I'm not able to call him Scandalito!
Post a Comment
<< Home