Daily Kos

View Story | 284 comments

  •  more like attempts at self-restraint (none / 1)

    it's worth it to be skeptical.  A poorly planned indictment is worse than no indictment at all.  

    see TANG documents for the bad case scenario, see Fitzgerald for the good case scenario.

    people are just making sure this is not going to come back to bite us.  the self-correcting blogosphere in action.

    that's what this site does.

    (and I appreciate your laying the counterarguments out clearly, by the way... my first reaction to this was similar to those downthread; it's helpful to have you lay it out more clearly.)

    by emptypockets on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:25:32 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's one thing to be skeptical (4.00 / 3)

      and another to continue to question a position even after shown to be wrong about the skepticism. I think its more like people become invested in a position, and make judgement solely based on their personal opinion. Yesterday, I believe it was Hunter who put out an excellent diary about fact versus opinion. For example, there are clear standards for the judicial ethical canon. There no need to even speculate about whether or not he  had a conflict. He can be looked up as a matter of the rules, and the fact that indeed apparently some judge actually did have a problem with his involvement in the case indicates that the skepticism isn't well founded here.

      by bruh1 on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:31:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, the posts weren't "skeptical" (none / 1)

        per se.

        I'm not counting the posts that posed questions--"Are you sure that....?"  "How does it work when...?--or those that examined conflicting media reports. I agree, that kind of skepticism is what the blogosphere is best at.

        I'm talking about the derisive dismissals based on ignorant assumptions that were contrary to fact--dismissals that often continued even after their assumptions were openly debunked.

        I'm starting to think we could benefit from the insights of mental health professionals who have worked with abused women or kidnap victims. Some people have a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome.

        by Smallbottle on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:44:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think we are in agreement (none / 0)

          with each other. I have read this and other threads, frankly, where what you say is the case. I also agree healthy skepticism is a good thing. But, the real issue is how to figure out whether the skepticism is merited or not. Unjustified skepticism is as bad as unsubstantiated claims. I am actually a lawyer, and I don't pretend to understand all the facts or legal ethical questions here, BUT, I do have a problem with the way that some here have passed their opinion off as fact or as the rules of judicial ethics. The things I do know about the rules made me post in response to some general points- such as de minimis claims which I didn't think had anything to do with questions of conflicts of interest. For example, again in agreement with you, I find it odd that people keep saying there is nothing here even when presented with a judge having found a conflict. That's not healthy skepticism- it's just willful indifference to facts that do not comport with ones own opinion. For example, you have one person saying below that they are convinced that there is nothing here. My question to them is how can they can be convinced of anything. At best, especially from a skeptics perspective, you woould want to know more. And, as a partisan, your job would be  to want to know more rather than come to a quick conclusion on something as important as a S Ct nomination.

          by bruh1 on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:55:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've seen this in the fraud diaries (none / 0)

            True, one side may be prone to overuse of tinfoil or shoddy logical argument. However, the other side has some adherents who are prone to utterly irrational dismissal, going far beyond what is necessary to point out logical flaws and actively seeking to discredit the entire line of inquiry into voting integrity.

            Take the discussion of the GAO report. This report indicates that many machines produced erroneous results and they are easily tampered with. One might reasonably argue whether the evidence even suggests a circumstantial case that fraud occurred.

            But at this point, it's irrational to claim, as some still do, that the entire burden of proof still rests on those who call the machines unreliable. We're past that point, and ought to be moving on, but many are still adopting the posture of smug dismissal. Hard to explain.

            by Smallbottle on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:16:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think that maybe the case, but I see (none / 1)

              this as unlike the fraud situation in that there has apparenlty already been a judicial ruling here based on the actual canon of ethics which says that Alito did violated his ethical obligations. That's what that ruling means. For those of you who are interested-that's what conflicts of interests are- a violation of an attorney or judge's ethical obligations. Lawyers and judges are each required to follow these rules with varying degrees of effect in terms of what it means to the invididual lawyer or judge. It's not saying that Alito didn't inadvertantly violate the rules, but the fact is he did violated the rule. It can't be the argument- as I am seeing here, that there was no breach of ethics.

              I also think what is missing here is that a breach of ethics is definitely a potential issue of corruption. Also, the rules don't require as some people keep saying here for some high level of financial interest. These are all concepts being added here rather than required in the ethical rules as I generally know them.

              What I can't figure out is why this isn't a fair game question to ask? One can accept or not accept Alito's explaination, but it's a question that definitely needs to be addressed and would be so even if this were a Democratic nominee. I am going to sound like an ass, but I have been asking this a lot, but is this because people don't get the subject matter they are talkign about? Not everyone's knowledge of concepts is equal. For example, I know enough to know when someone is bullshitting on the subject of legal ethics, but I don't pretend to be an ethics expert. I am admitting here by limits in the debate, but I don't sense the same is true of everyone. That's why I said to you that I think some of this is that people have become vested in theory own theories. And example of this is where people kept saying that it was likely Fitzgerald would indicted for the underlying crime despite the high burden required under the statute. There were a  lot of diaries of pure speculation- and there is here a lot of analysis of pure speculation about what conflict of interest means. These things are concepts that are clearly laid out. I can't say 100 percent did Alito intentionally or not violated the rules.

              I do know, however, if a judge has decided on the matter, then there is a lot more to this than smoke, and I also know that as partisans its the job of the left to figure out why and act as check on the process. It's not our job to come up with explanations for Alito.

              by bruh1 on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:36:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We're in agreement (none / 0)

                Some people, lacking subject-matter expertise or a solid command of the facts, are embracing unsupportable conclusions for irrational reasons, and then defending those conclusions without respite.

                What's odd is that, on a partisan Web site, their irrational sympathy goes instinctively to our opponents. It's just weird.

                by Smallbottle on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:51:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  On that I think we are also in agreement (none / 1)

                  that the list of reasons why, none of them about healthy skepticism about the diary's claim, come out of one or more of the following a) trolls b)the basic instinct on the left to be contrary for contrary sake c) some version of the stockholm syndrome in a political sense d) the need to be the smartest guy in the room syndrome (this used to be a big issue for me- but in last year I have really pushed to say that I maybe wrong on things, and I want people to counter what I say with supportable positions) e) some need to believe they are "better" than the other side even if it's at the expense of the truth (below someone argues Dems should be "better" than this) or f) they are working of totally emotive arguments so facts don't play a factor (the fact is Dems are as faith based as Republicans and these sorts of things can often point out the fault lines that exist because although they should be on our side- they end up arguing solely from their believe systems rather than facts or objective standards. there is a canon of judical ethics here that has nothing to do with whether people personally believe there was a conflict or not. really, our personal believe about the question is in an objective sense is irrelevant to whether there was a reasonable issue of conflict of interest here).

                  by bruh1 on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 12:09:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  The "ignorant assumptions" (none / 1)

          The ignorant assumptions in this discussion would appear to be those that Chief Judge Scirica somehow ruled that Judge Alito had acted improperly and ordered him off the case.  In fact, once the asserted conflict was raised, Judge Alito recused HIMSELF, which resulted in the case being reopened and another judge being assigned to the panel.  (The second panel ruled the same way as the first one, and the Supreme Court has now denied certiorari.)  

          There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose Alito's confirmation, but his supposed "corruption" based on this case is far from being one of them, and if this gets pushed, we'll lose enormous amounts of credibility.

          "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

          by leevank on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:38:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For further details (none / 0)

            For further details of my basis for saying this, please see my Comment of Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 02:29:20 PM EST.

            "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

            by leevank on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:41:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's not what the Globe says (none / 0)

            WaPo reported it as you describe, based on White House sources. The more recent Globe article, based on the litigant's statement, says no: Alito resisted.

            by Elwood Dowd on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 12:06:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I quoted the official docket entried (none / 0)

              I would agree that the Boston Globe trumps the White House on just about anything, but it seems to me that the official docket entries in the case have to trump whatever ANY newspaper has to say about the case.

              The docket entries are available online from the Administrative Office of the Courts (although you've got to register and get a mailed password), and that's where I got the quote, not from any newspaper, and most assuredly not from the White House.

              "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

              by leevank on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 12:25:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You didn't just quote, you interpreted (none / 1)


                The docket does not say that Alito did not oppose the recusal. He did, and continued to defend his taking the case in an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer.

                I admire all the energy spent in making sure no one asks Alito difficult questions.

                by Smallbottle on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 12:30:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It says Alito recused HIMSELF! (4.00 / 2)

                  Nobody ordered him recused.  There is simply no such order in the docket.  He recused HIMSELF.  That's what the docket says, in so many words.  If you want to base the opposition to him on the theory that he actually opposed something that he himself did, that is your privilege, but I don't think you'll get far.

                  As for spending energy on preventing him from being asked tough questions, I WANT to see him asked tough questions about some of his opinions that I see as very problematic, and as indicating not nearly as much concern for individual rights as I'd like to see.  But asking him about an instance of alleged corruption that was simply nothing of the kind isn't a tough question -- it's a question that simply makes the questioner look either uninformed, or unfair, or both.

                  "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

                  by leevank on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 12:36:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think my doubts (none / 1)

                    about your motivation have been resolved.

                    You may want people to pretend that Alito did not hear and rule on a case in which he had ownership interest in one of the parties, in violation of his written confirmation documentation as well as explicit judicial ethics standards, and that he repeatedly defended such action, but I doubt you'll get many other takers on this side of the aisle.

                    by Smallbottle on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 12:58:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  leevank, do you oppose Alito? (none / 0)

                    It would be best to be clear which side of this you're on.  If you're pro-Alito--fine, but just come clean in the spirit of full disclosure....

                    .

                    by MKS on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 02:36:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  From what I've seen thus far, I'd vote against him (none / 0)

                      As I wrote in my comment, there are a number of his opinions that I think are very problematic, and that reveal what seems to be a disturbing (at least to me) lack of concern for individual rights.  If I were in the Senate, I'd wait until after the hearings to make up my mind for sure, but I'd definitely want to ask him some probing questions about the basis for some of his opinions, and if he didn't have very good answers to those questions, I'd certainly vote against him.

                      And that's my concern about this entire "corruption" argument -- it detracts attention from other issues that I think are entirely legitimate bases to oppose his confirmation.

                      "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

                      by leevank on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 03:55:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  I am unpersuaded by your descriptions (none / 0)

            of your motivations for excuse-making.

            Alito took the case in direct violation of judicial ethics standards, as he had both a financial and larger ownership interest in a party before him.

            Period.

            He took the case in direct violation of his prior, written promise to recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard.

            Period.

            He did not disclose this conflict to the plaintiff. He did not raise the issue sua sponte. In fact, he resisted recusing himself.

            Period.

            So, your portrayal of Scalito as a judge shocked, shocked to discover a million-dollar financial interest in a party before him is simply specious.

            by Smallbottle on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 12:11:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  this is the frustration (none / 0)

            the argument keeps changing. below people were arguing "there is no conflict." that's the ignorance related argument that is being addressed here. they didn't even know or understand what is the standard for conflicts of interest under the judical canon of ethics.

            now, you are arguing a separate point. your argument is if we were in a court of law would be called a factual argument. you aren't arguing whether the situation meets the standard, indeed, you can't a judge already said that it does despite what some posters here said. what you are arguing is that factual alito didn't have a conflict of interest because he recused himself. but thats a quesiton of fact. a fact that one person has already disputed in jus ta response to you. these are the facts of the situation that need to be understood.

            it's not going to be understood by saying as you have said "if we bringing up, we will look foolish." that statement isn't about figuring out what happened in this situation- it's about fearing the concesquences of askign the question.

            by bruh1 on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 12:15:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

View Story | 284 comments