Dobbs/Henry: "Alito recused himself on Vanguard"

Gabi Hayes

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 06:24 PM
Original message

Dobbs/Henry: "Alito recused himself on Vanguard"

they're going exclusively with ALito's side of the story: it was a computer glitch in the recusal screening process, and that when Alito found out who he was adjudicating, he RECUSED himself.

isn't that interesting.

why, then, am I reading here that he STRONGLY defended his STAYING on the case, seeing it through?

or am I having reading comp issues?

Dobbs also strongly accentuated the fact that the three judge panel who ruled on the case was unanimous against. was or was not Alito part of that panel?

help me out here

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hobbit709

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 06:34 PM
Response to Original message

1. If you recuse yourself

then you should not have ANYTHING to do with the case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Gabi Hayes

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. here's an earlier thread on it. check koko, whatever. post #11 for links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5324153&mesg_id=5324153

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

fooj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 06:38 PM
Response to Original message

3. I heard on Majority Report that he did not RECUSE HIMSELF.

Peace.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Gabi Hayes

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. same here, should have made it clearer in header.

by defending himself, I meant that he defended NOT recusing himself, so I can't help but wondering how this huge gulf in perception occurred, and what the real story was

I was stunned to hear only Dobbs' side of the story being related

NOT

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

in_cog_ni_to

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 06:50 PM
Response to Original message

5. It's just amazing how these computer fuck up, but ALWAYS in favor

of the repuke bastards. What a dumbass excuse. I hope the Dems can prove he's lying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kohodog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. Must have been a Diebold unit.

They're really good at reversing themselves.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Gabi Hayes

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 06:50 PM
Response to Original message

6. listen here. decide for yourself

Edited on Thu Nov-10-05 06:53 PM by Gabi Hayes

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4990865

click listen icon

two different cases, one in which he apparently recused himself AFTER he decided against the plaintiff!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

No Exit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 07:03 PM
Response to Original message

8. Computer glitch?????

:rofl:

Can't wait to hear some lawyer use THAT one as an excuse made to an angry judge!

Computer, phooey! He should KNOW whether or not he recused himself! It wouldn't be that hard for him to check into it or, more probably, remember it!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Gabi Hayes

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 07:04 PM
Response to Original message

9. CNN reading letter from him answering charges right now

Edited on Thu Nov-10-05 07:06 PM by Gabi Hayes

one thing in there: he said his holdings weren't big enough (between 399K and a MILLION!) to make a difference in recusal!!!

another: after the case, he went back and recused himself, and told them to appoint another panel

sorta like voting against something, then voting for it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Disturbed

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #9

10. Alito shouldn't be a Judge, period.

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."

"I do not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on my ownership of the mutual fund shares."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Gabi Hayes

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-05 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #10

11. ahhhh, but in his just-read-by CNN answer, he claims that in 1990...

Edited on Thu Nov-10-05 07:10 PM by Gabi Hayes

he only implied or somesuch to the senate that he'd only have to recuse himself in Vanguard cases for just a few years!!!

that's what the letter said!

can't wait for him to explain why the time frame matters, as long as he's still holding shares...up to a million friggin BUCKS

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 04th 2024, 02:53 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.