[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I'm suggesting that the computer system wasn't used for this particular case, and so it is irrelevant.

As to why Vanguard wasn't on the list in 2002, I have no clue, but I don't think that suggests any deliberate or intentional act on Alito's part. It just suggests that the name wasn't on the list. It could have been intentional or deliberate, but it also could have been inadvertent or some sort of clerical error.

If you're going to say somebody did something intentionally or deliberately, there should be more evidence than just, "The name's not on the list."

this seems to be avoiding the issue. the fact that the list was not used for the case doesn't correlate to any explanation of the ommission of vanguard does it?

regardless of why the name "vanguard" wasn't listed, what explanation can you provide as to why alito didn't say "wait, I shouldn't be involved with the decision on this case" and recuse himself. Don't you believe that recusal would have been the correct course of action? isn't the fact that he didn't speak out an intentional, deliberate act in of itself?

I believe that he was responding to the second question and stating that out of an abundance of caution he would disqualify himself from Vanguard cases during his initial service as Justice on the Third Court of Appeals.

At best, you have a difference of opinion on what the Senate meant and Alito understood regarding the term "initial service."

so your suggesting that there was a "fuse" on his committment? that there would not be his involvement for a shorter period of time and then, even if there were no change in his having investments in a vanguard fund(s), he would subsequently be allowed to not recuse himself?
that's an odd position, if the facts producing the prohibition of his involement had not changed why would the agreed to limitation change?