Another Crack At Alito

The ASSociated Press sets it up:

Senate Democrats issued their first coordinated challenge to Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, seeking extensive records about his participation in a 2002 appeals case despite a six-figure investment with one of the defendants.

In a letter to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Alito had promised the panel in 1990 he would "disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies."

The letter requests the original opinion in the 2002 case, which was unpublished. It also seeks any communication "from or to the White House, the Justice Department ... or anyone else on their behalf" concerning Alito's decision to participate in the case, in which a three-judge panel ruled on behalf of Vanguard and other investment firms. The companies had been sued by a widow who claimed she was denied funds originally belonging to her deceased husband....

Apart from the written requests, several Democrats who have met privately with Alito in recent days told reporters they had raised conflict-of-issue concerns. "I asked him a lot of questions about Vanguard and there are going to be more," said Senator Russell Feingold, D-WI.

And the Baseball Crank knocks it down (via RedState):

I went and did some digging, though, and it turns out that the charge isn't illogical, just silly. The original Philly Inquirer story explains why the unusual nature of the Vanguard funds made this different from the usual claim against a mutual fund company:

Alito said he believed his Vanguard holdings did not constitute a conflict because they were investments in mutual funds. As such, he said, he was merely an investor in Vanguard, not an owner of the company.

Flym [Maharj's lawyer] said the judge, in fact, is an owner because Vanguard is owned by its investors.

In its corporate literature, Vanguard says: "The shareholders and owners are essentially one and the same at Vanguard. Vanguard shareholders own the Vanguard funds, which are independent investment companies that jointly own the Vanguard Group. The Vanguard Group provides management, administrative and marketing services to the funds."

The Judicial Conference of the United States has developed a checklist to help federal judges avoid conflicts. The instructions on that checklist say:

"Shares in some mutual funds may convey an ownership interest in the mutual fund management company in which case that company should be included on the [judge's] conflicts list."

Alito cited a separate advisory from the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts that says judges are not required to disqualify themselves from cases involving their mutual-fund management companies.

Libs will try to make this molehill (and even that is being excessively generous) into a mountain (see the comments following the aforelinked post), but that will just serve to highlight what a molehill it is. Even if there was an avalanche poised to rumble down on Judge Alito, this would only be the, if you will, "vanguard" pebble.

If, however, the McCain Mutineers (particularly Senators Graham and DeWine) let themselves be spooked by this gambit into retreating from the Constitutional option - which seems to be its only practical objective....

Nah. This wouldn't be enough to accomplish that. At least not by itself.

How long until the Alito hearings begin? Two months?

Drip, drip, drip....