Suitably Flip

Conference Call With Alito Advisor Ed Gillespie

Advisor to Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito and former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie will host a blogger conference call later today.  On the docket are recent attacks on the nominee by Ted Kennedy and the other Judiciary Committee Democrats on the recusal issue.

Watch this space for a detailed synopsis.

---

As promised (lightly paraphrased, except as noted):

On the call were Patrick Ruffini (RNC eCampaign Director), Brian Jones (RNC Communications Director), Matt David, and Ed Gillespie.

Ruffini kicked off the call and introduced Gillespie, who began by summarizing the recent ethical attacks levied at Judge Alito by Senate Democrats on the topic of his not recusing himself on past cases with which he had supposed conflicts.

He noted that scrutiny of Alito's actions has been dramatically stepped up recently and has yielded no basis for any such ethical concerns.  He also noted that the chief judge on the Alito's circuit has said as much.

Gillespie stated that the offensive is the result of Democrats having no grounds to attack the nominee on qualifications (declaring Alito one of the most qualified and certainly the most experienced nominee put before the Senate in 70 years) or procedural grounds (given the unusually drawn out confirmation calendar acceded by Chairman Specter).

Allegations suggesting Alito is ethically unqualified, he concluded, are "nothing short of outrageous."

Brian Jones then addressed the political dynamics at play, noting Nan Aron's (founder of the liberal group Alliance for Justice) declared "You name it, we'll do it" approach to defeating Alito.  Jones said that Aron has been meeting with members of Senator Kennedy's staff, to whom she is providing a steady stream of research.

Echoing Gillespie, Jones concluded that these "baseless, desperate attacks" are the result of Democrats being unable to oppose the nominee based on qualifications or procedural grounds, and not wanting to engage in a debate on judicial philosophy, because they know themselves to be on the wrong end of the issue.  He also noted that those Senate Democrats that are less influenced by the far left wing have very good things to say about Alito.

Matt David mentioned 3 letters from law professors that have been sent to Chairman Specter on the issue of Alito's recusal decisions.  The letters are available below:

- Professor Ronald D. Rotunda, George Mason University
- Professor Geoffrey C. Hazard, University of Pennsylvania
- Professor Thomas D. Morgan, George Washington University

Q&A

Tim Chapman: Why shouldn't conservatives be concerned that Judge Alito seems to consider Roe v. Wade such a strong Court precedent?

Gillespie: Roe is indeed the precedent of the Court, a point made by Justice Roberts during his confirmation process and by others before him.  As such it is deserving of the respect of any Supreme Court precedent.  That said, we have not heard Alito in his own voice on the topic, and we won't until the hearings begin.  All that we have heard to date comes from Senators characterizing their private meetings with the nominee.

Stephen Bainbridge:  Some Democrats are charging not that Alito was required to recuse himself in these cases, but that he declared he would do so in a 1990 questionnaire.

Matt David: You have to look very closely at exactly what was asked.  It was an assessment of potential conflicts of interest.  The Vanguard case did not represent a conflict, because the outcome of the case could not have a substantial effect on Alito's financial interest.  Once the issue was raised, Alito did recuse himself, at which point the panel was reconstituted and affirmed the unanimous decision.

John Hawkins: On these 3 cases, Alito volunteered that he would recuse himself, then didn't.  What changed?

Matt David:  Alito said he would abide by the rules of recusal, which he has indeed done for 15 years.

This Guy Right Here:  What details can you give us about the computer system that failed to remind Alito of potential conflicts?  Is this a system that is regularly used by judges?  What was the nature of the failure and can it be documented?

Matt David:  It is a system set up to flag potential conflicts of interest.  In this case, the system did not flag Vanguard as a potential conflict.  That's all we know.

- End of call -

I agree with the headline message here - that the whole ethical attack is a non-starter and the result of a lack of any genuine vulnerabilities for Senate Democrats to exploit.  Still, while it sounds like Alito didn't do anything troubling, the matter is complicated enough that it warrants being addressed.

And while it's in all likelihood not ultimately problematic, it's a very sloppy message that's being communicated.  This is how I'm hearing it:

In 1990, Alito pledged that he would recuse himself on certain cases, but then did not in fact recuse himself when such cases arose because he wasn't actually ethically obligated to do so, even though he did later recuse himself when the issue was spotlighted.

It seems to me that a more palatable, equally true, much less confusing characterization would go like this:

In 1990, Alito pledged (above and beyond the call of ethics) that he would recuse himself in certain cases that could present at least an appearance of conflict.  A dozen years and hundreds of cases later, when such a case came up, he forgot having made this pledge.  When a court computer system designed to remind judges of such things failed to do so, he went ahead and ruled on the case, without conflict and in line with ethical guidelines.  When he later realized that this was in conflict with a prior pledge, he recused himself and the case's panel was reconstituted.

Done and done.  Wham, bam, thank you Sam.  Wouldn't that go down easier?

Here's hoping they iron it out a bit.

Big thanks to Patrick Ruffini, Matt David, Brian Jones, and Ed Gillespie for coordinating and hosting the call.  Always a pleasure!

Elsewhere:  The Political Teen, Blogs for Bush, Decision '08

Comments

Conference Call With Alito Advisor Ed Gillespie

Advisor to Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito and former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie will host a blogger conference call later today.  On the docket are recent attacks on the nominee by Ted Kennedy and the other Judiciary Committee Democrats on the recusal issue.

Watch this space for a detailed synopsis.

---

As promised (lightly paraphrased, except as noted):

On the call were Patrick Ruffini (RNC eCampaign Director), Brian Jones (RNC Communications Director), Matt David, and Ed Gillespie.

Ruffini kicked off the call and introduced Gillespie, who began by summarizing the recent ethical attacks levied at Judge Alito by Senate Democrats on the topic of his not recusing himself on past cases with which he had supposed conflicts.

He noted that scrutiny of Alito's actions has been dramatically stepped up recently and has yielded no basis for any such ethical concerns.  He also noted that the chief judge on the Alito's circuit has said as much.

Gillespie stated that the offensive is the result of Democrats having no grounds to attack the nominee on qualifications (declaring Alito one of the most qualified and certainly the most experienced nominee put before the Senate in 70 years) or procedural grounds (given the unusually drawn out confirmation calendar acceded by Chairman Specter).

Allegations suggesting Alito is ethically unqualified, he concluded, are "nothing short of outrageous."

Brian Jones then addressed the political dynamics at play, noting Nan Aron's (founder of the liberal group Alliance for Justice) declared "You name it, we'll do it" approach to defeating Alito.  Jones said that Aron has been meeting with members of Senator Kennedy's staff, to whom she is providing a steady stream of research.

Echoing Gillespie, Jones concluded that these "baseless, desperate attacks" are the result of Democrats being unable to oppose the nominee based on qualifications or procedural grounds, and not wanting to engage in a debate on judicial philosophy, because they know themselves to be on the wrong end of the issue.  He also noted that those Senate Democrats that are less influenced by the far left wing have very good things to say about Alito.

Matt David mentioned 3 letters from law professors that have been sent to Chairman Specter on the issue of Alito's recusal decisions.  The letters are available below:

- Professor Ronald D. Rotunda, George Mason University
- Professor Geoffrey C. Hazard, University of Pennsylvania
- Professor Thomas D. Morgan, George Washington University

Q&A

Tim Chapman: Why shouldn't conservatives be concerned that Judge Alito seems to consider Roe v. Wade such a strong Court precedent?

Gillespie: Roe is indeed the precedent of the Court, a point made by Justice Roberts during his confirmation process and by others before him.  As such it is deserving of the respect of any Supreme Court precedent.  That said, we have not heard Alito in his own voice on the topic, and we won't until the hearings begin.  All that we have heard to date comes from Senators characterizing their private meetings with the nominee.

Stephen Bainbridge:  Some Democrats are charging not that Alito was required to recuse himself in these cases, but that he declared he would do so in a 1990 questionnaire.

Matt David: You have to look very closely at exactly what was asked.  It was an assessment of potential conflicts of interest.  The Vanguard case did not represent a conflict, because the outcome of the case could not have a substantial effect on Alito's financial interest.  Once the issue was raised, Alito did recuse himself, at which point the panel was reconstituted and affirmed the unanimous decision.

John Hawkins: On these 3 cases, Alito volunteered that he would recuse himself, then didn't.  What changed?

Matt David:  Alito said he would abide by the rules of recusal, which he has indeed done for 15 years.

This Guy Right Here:  What details can you give us about the computer system that failed to remind Alito of potential conflicts?  Is this a system that is regularly used by judges?  What was the nature of the failure and can it be documented?

Matt David:  It is a system set up to flag potential conflicts of interest.  In this case, the system did not flag Vanguard as a potential conflict.  That's all we know.

- End of call -

I agree with the headline message here - that the whole ethical attack is a non-starter and the result of a lack of any genuine vulnerabilities for Senate Democrats to exploit.  Still, while it sounds like Alito didn't do anything troubling, the matter is complicated enough that it warrants being addressed.

And while it's in all likelihood not ultimately problematic, it's a very sloppy message that's being communicated.  This is how I'm hearing it:

In 1990, Alito pledged that he would recuse himself on certain cases, but then did not in fact recuse himself when such cases arose because he wasn't actually ethically obligated to do so, even though he did later recuse himself when the issue was spotlighted.

It seems to me that a more palatable, equally true, much less confusing characterization would go like this:

In 1990, Alito pledged (above and beyond the call of ethics) that he would recuse himself in certain cases that could present at least an appearance of conflict.  A dozen years and hundreds of cases later, when such a case came up, he forgot having made this pledge.  When a court computer system designed to remind judges of such things failed to do so, he went ahead and ruled on the case, without conflict and in line with ethical guidelines.  When he later realized that this was in conflict with a prior pledge, he recused himself and the case's panel was reconstituted.

Done and done.  Wham, bam, thank you Sam.  Wouldn't that go down easier?

Here's hoping they iron it out a bit.

Big thanks to Patrick Ruffini, Matt David, Brian Jones, and Ed Gillespie for coordinating and hosting the call.  Always a pleasure!

Elsewhere:  The Political Teen, Blogs for Bush, Decision '08