Your Point?

Chalabi is the background to the use of intelligence issue.  The executive branch is responsible for figuring out the truth about foreign affairs.

Mr. Chalabi was lying to the U.S. and betraying our trust in him.  That he is now in Washington as an elected Iraqi politician simply shows how shrewd he is.

If Common Cause is going to make any serious impact on the use of intelligence issue, I doubt Mr. Chalabi will play much of a role.

The relevant players in that debate are politicians from the U.S. not Iraq.  Lets not lose sight of that.

Alito's Recusal "Mistake"

"In letters and private meetings this week, several Democratic senators asked Alito for fuller explanations of why he ruled, as a federal appellate judge, on cases regarding Vanguard and Smith Barney Inc. after promising to recuse himself from those cases. Alito had at least $390,000 in Vanguard mutual funds when he ruled in a 2002 case that favored the company. He also ruled in a 1996 case involving Smith Barney, which was his brokerage firm."

Perhaps more remarkable than Alito's failure to recuse are the weak excuses being offered to explain this.  From the same WP article:

"Alito has said that a court computer system failed to remind him to step aside in the Vanguard case. And the White House has argued that the court rulings could not have affected his personal finances in any meaningful way."

Even as a lowly second year law student, I can tell you these hold no water.  All law students take classes on the ethical statutes governing lawyers and judges.  That means Alito is familiar with the ABA's Canon of Judicial Conduct on which the following Federal statute is based:

28 U.S.C.A. § 455

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.

(4) "financial interest" means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:.."

Excuse 1) Alito says he didn't recuse himself because a computer system didn't remind him to do so.  How much money does Alito have if he needs a computer to remind him that he owns $390,000 worth of a company involved in a suit in his court?  Or that, "oh yeah, that Smith Barney company sounds familiar, aren't they the stock broker I used to buy $390,000 worth of that other company I can't remember the name of, Van something or other?"

This excuse is even less plausible in light of the fact that during his confirmation hearings to the 3rd Circuit, Alito acknowledged the potential conflicts presented by his Vanguard stocks and broker relationship with Smith Barney.  He promised to recuse himself from any cases involving these companies.  Maybe his computer system forgot to remind him of this as well.

In any event the law requires Alito to "inform himself" not to set up a computer to fulfill his ethical duties for him.  That the computer didn't work is no excuse.    

Excuse 2) The White House claims the rulings "could not have affected his personal finances in any reasonable way."  Even if this is true, 455(a) requires Alito to disqualify himself in "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Is there anyone who can say with a straight face that holding $390,000 worth of a company you are judging does not create a reasonable basis for questioning the judge's impartiality?  Or that having Smith and Barney as his personal broker does not raise the same issue?

It is imperative that the Supreme Court of the United States be absolutely impartial.  There are no higher courts for Supreme Court Justices to punt to.  There decisions to recuse themselves are not subject to review (cf Scalias non recusal from Cheney's energy policy committee papers case).

Judge Alito should be made to explain every last detail of what happened in these cases.  If he can not provide compelling reasons for his oversights his lack of ethics seems a proper grounds for filibustering his nomination under the "gang of 14" agreement in the Senate.