# Alito and the nuclear option: Is he an "extremist"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 31, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778 "2005-10-31T20:34:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/81 "2005-11-02T16:15:28Z")
I think that the group of people who favor overturning RvW based _entirely_ on the niceities of constitutional protocol…that is, those who favor overturning it based entirely on a poor choice of grounds, completely divorced from potential consequence…is vanishingly small. The great majority of those who crave such an overturning are motivated by a desire to make abortion illegal. That they, or their opponents, are misinformed is small beer. I think the Trog Right would vastly _prefer_ to have their way by a massive and overwhelming majority of agreement. But do you doubt that they are willing to assert their will regardless? ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/82 "2005-11-02T16:26:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No, because a police officer doesn’t have to have a warrant to search you, he just has to have probable cause. The circumstance under which a warrantless search can take place simply due to probable cause are limited, and rightly so. The search of the mother and daughter was not pursuant to an arrest, and did not involve the search of a vehicle. If you’re aware of another class of warrantless searches allowed under probable cause which applies here, by all means enlighten me. I’m pretty sure “just because they’re standing in a crack house” isn’t on the list (sorry **SteveG1** ). And if there isn’t a class of warrantless search which covers it, then we fall right back to the question of what was covered on the warrant, which even Alito admits didn’t include searching other occupants of the premises. > [@](#): > > Since the cops referenced the affidavit in the “probably cause” section of the warrant form, and the magistrate accepted the warrant w/o modificiation, it is REASONABLE that the cops felt they could assume they had established probable cause. You may disagree with that, but it’s not an outrageous position. Yes I do disagree with that, and I’m nowhere near as sanguine about it as you seem to be. If we’re going to simply let police officers do whatever they think is reasonable and invoke “qualified immunity” whenever violate someone’s rights but say they thought at the time they weren’t doing anything wrong, then what is the point of warrants in the first place? It is the responsibility of police officers to ensure that their authority is properly wielded, and there is good reason to hold them to a high standard. Exceeding the scope of the warrant because they felt the magistrate was OK with that, or because their forms were too short, is not a responsible use of their authority and power to seearch. But, as I’ve stated previously, what really freaks me about Alito’s dissent is how he seems to think that his guesses as to the motivations of the magistrate after the fact seem to constitute a legal standard that trumps what the warrant says on its face. Again, what is the point of warrants at all? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/83 "2005-11-02T18:26:40Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > Yes I do disagree with that, and I’m nowhere near as sanguine about it as you seem to be. If we’re going to simply let police officers do whatever they think is reasonable and invoke “qualified immunity” whenever violate someone’s rights but say they thought at the time they weren’t doing anything wrong, then what is the point of warrants in the first place? This cannot be construed as a license to let police officers do “whatever” they think is reasonable. There must be some basis for that claim by the police, and it seems to me that they did have a good basis. They didn’t just say, after the fact: “Hey, we thought it was OK”. They had outlined their position in advance and had reason to believe that the magistrate was OK with it. Note: I’m only addressing this point in your post, because the other points are things we’ve already discussed at least once, and there really isn’t any reason to go at it again. But keep in mind that the real issue here is not so much whether you agree with Alito’s opinion in this case (that’s what the other thread is for). This thread is simply to focus on whether or not there are things that constitute “extraordinary circumstances” wrt his comfirmation. Frankly, this and the “spousal notification of abortion” are things that most Americans probably agree with. If the Dems want to try to sell the “extraodrinary circumstances” on that basis, I wish them luck. As I’ve said many times before, I’m not even sure I’d rule the same way as Alito did in _Goody_, but his legal argument isn’t “way out there in left [or right :)] field”. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/84 "2005-11-02T19:23:03Z")
Okay, I realize that nobody has responded most likely because it isn’t of interest to other people, but I’m going to try once more. Am I the only one that sees the attempt to require the woman to notify her husband about her effort to get an abortion (rather than specifying that she must notify the man who impregnated her) as an attempt to force at least some adulterous women to have to confess to their husbands? If not, why be so specific that the woman has to notify her husband? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/85 "2005-11-02T19:49:11Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Am I the only one that sees the attempt to require the woman to notify her husband about her effort to get an abortion (rather than specifying that she must notify the man who impregnated her) as an attempt to force at least some adulterous women to have to confess to their husbands? I don’t see it. Remember, this rule isn’t something Alito dreamed up, it was part of the law passed by the PA state legislature. The only thing Alito had to consider was, does the state legislature have the authority to pass such a law-- not whether a better law could be written. He may even have thought personally that the law was bad public policy, but felt he couldn’t import his own feelings about that into his ruling. > [@](#): > > If not, why be so specific that the woman has to notify her husband? Well, keep in mind that’s the way the law was written. He wasn’t asked to rule on whether non-married fathers should be notified. I haven’t read the entire opinion. Did he say anything specifically that he would not have ruled the same way regarding unmarried partners? If so, I suspect that he probably presumed that the marriage contract places an extra level of responsibility to each others on the partners-- something that most Americans would agree with and is generally supported by our legal tradtions wrt the institution of marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/86 "2005-11-02T20:00:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t see it. Remember, this rule isn’t something Alito dreamed up, it was part of the law passed by the PA state legislature. The only thing Alito had to consider was, does the state legislature have the authority to pass such a law-- not whether a better law could be written. He may even have thought personally that the law was bad public policy, but felt he couldn’t import his own feelings about that into his ruling. I guess I was less concerned about Alito in particular than about the particular law (nevertheless I recognize that the issue did arise in a thread about Alito). > [@](#): > > I haven’t read the entire opinion. Did he say anything specifically that he would not have ruled the same way regarding unmarried partners? If so, I suspect that he probably presumed that the marriage contract places an extra level of responsibility to each others on the partners-- something that most Americans would agree with and is generally supported by our legal tradtions wrt the institution of marriage. I haven’t read the opinion either, although I understand that he did go to some effort to mitigate a potential “undue burden” argument by suggesting that the law would only apply to about 5% of women (using a statistic that 95% of women would discuss it with their husbands regardless). Is that really a common way to consider “undue burden”? Whether it is an undue burden on the population as a whole? I would hope not. Again, I’m not considering circumstances of unmarried partners. I’m considering circumstances in which a married woman becomes pregnant by another man (to whom I would not typically think the term “partner” would apply. Do you really think that most Americans would agree and that our legal traditions with respect to marriage would say that a woman should be legally compelled to confess adultery to her husband? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/87 "2005-11-02T20:17:00Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > I haven’t read the opinion either, although I understand that he did go to some effort to mitigate a potential “undue burden” argument by suggesting that the law would only apply to about 5% of women (using a statistic that 95% of women would discuss it with their husbands regardless). Is that really a common way to consider “undue burden”? Whether it is an undue burden on the population as a whole? I would hope not. It isn’t now, since the SCOTUS ruled on _Casey_, but that’s after Alito issued his opinion. I can’t fault him for not guesssing what the SCOTUS might do in the future. And, keep in mind that 4 SCOTUS justices agreeed with him, so it’s not like it was some whacky idea, completely out of the mainstream. It might as well have come down to a coin toss, since justice Kennedy originally planned to vote to uphold the ruling, but switched sides only at the last minute. IOW, this just ain’t one of those cut and dried decisions. > [@](#): > > Again, I’m not considering circumstances of unmarried partners. I’m considering circumstances in which a married woman becomes pregnant by another man (to whom I would not typically think the term “partner” would apply. Do you really think that most Americans would agree and that our legal traditions with respect to marriage would say that a woman should be legally compelled to confess adultery to her husband? I think the reasoning was that the law had provisions for the woman to obtain an exepmtion if she had fear of reprisal if her husband is informed, or something along those lines. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/88 "2005-11-02T20:47:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > This cannot be construed as a license to let police officers do “whatever” they think is reasonable. It can DEFINITELY be construed to mean police officers can strip-search ten year old girls without a warrant. Because that’s exactly what it does. That’s gonna bug a lot of people. Maybe it’s “mainstream” up in Canada, but here in the US, I don’t think it’s gonna fly. > [@](#): > > There must be some basis for that claim by the police, and it seems to me that they did have a good basis. They didn’t just say, after the fact: “Hey, we thought it was OK”. They had outlined their position in advance and had reason to believe that the magistrate was OK with it. Yes, the judge read their mind and understood that. Jeebus, is it too much to ask that warrants have things written on them describing what they’re about instead of asking us all to get into the mind-reading business? > [@](#): > > But keep in mind that the real issue here is not so much whether you agree with Alito’s opinion in this case (that’s what the other thread is for). This thread is simply to focus on whether or not there are things that constitute “extraordinary circumstances” wrt his comfirmation. You are right, this is the heart of the matter. > [@](#): > > Frankly, this and the “spousal notification of abortion” are things that most Americans probably agree with. Ummm, no. They don’t understand it the way you do, so they don’t agree with it. Some do, but it would be a small percentage. > [@](#): > > If the Dems want to try to sell the “extraodrinary circumstances” on that basis, I wish them luck. Thanks, we won’t need it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/89 "2005-11-02T20:50:11Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It isn’t now, since the SCOTUS ruled on _Casey_, but that’s after Alito issued his opinion. I can’t fault him for not guesssing what the SCOTUS might do in the future. And, keep in mind that 4 SCOTUS justices agreeed with him, so it’s not like it was some whacky idea, completely out of the mainstream. If two of those four justices were Thomas and Scalia, they’re out of mainstream so he is too. As for the two who sided with Alito besides Thomas and Scalia, I don’t know WHAT they were smoking, but they shouldn’t have been smoking it while making Court decisions. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/90 "2005-11-02T20:51:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I think that the group of people who favor overturning RvW based _entirely_ on the niceities of constitutional protocol…that is, those who favor overturning it based entirely on a poor choice of grounds, completely divorced from potential consequence…is vanishingly small. The great majority of those who crave such an overturning are motivated by a desire to make abortion illegal. That they, or their opponents, are misinformed is small beer. This just in… [Aliot’s history voting for abortion rights](http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1102/p01s04-usju.html): > [@](#): > > The best evidence of his work as a judge are his published opinions. They contain a few surprises and some ammunition - for both the left and the right. > > For example, of the four abortion cases in which he participated as an appeals court judge, he voted on the pro-choice side in all but one. A 1995 Alito vote striking down a Pennsylvania abortion restriction in particular is raising eyebrows among some legal scholars. > > “That [1995 case] strongly seems to indicate that Alito is not a policy-driven true-believer who’s used every possible opportunity to advance one side’s preferred outcome, but instead a judge who has indeed come down on both sides, in different cases,” says David Garrow, a constitutional historian and expert in reproductive rights cases at the high court. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/91 "2005-11-02T23:15:59Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > If two of those four justices were Thomas and Scalia, they’re out of mainstream so he is too. As for the two who sided with Alito besides Thomas and Scalia, I don’t know WHAT they were smoking, but they shouldn’t have been smoking it while making Court decisions. Any definition of “mainstream” that excludes two sitting SC justices (one of whom was confirmed unanimously by Congress) is, to use a technical term, bonkers. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/92 "2005-11-02T23:20:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Any definition of “mainstream” that excludes two sitting SC justices (one of whom was confirmed unanimously by Congress) is, to use a technical term, bonkers. If that’s your criteria, “mainstream” is a wide, wide river indeed. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/93 "2005-11-02T23:34:40Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > If that’s your criteria, “mainstream” is a wide, wide river indeed. I’m not so concerned with the width, but the depth. IOW, I don’t care how many differnent philosophies are encompassed as long as any given philosophy has a non-trivial number of adherents, and is recognized in the larger legal community as having legitimacy. Would you feel comfortable making the claim that Scalia is outside the mainstream of judicial thinking? Would he, for instance, be laughed out of most law schools? How about Roberts? Is he outside the mainstream? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/94 "2005-11-02T23:38:44Z")
> [@](#): > > IOW, I don’t care how many differnent philosophies are encompassed as long as any given philosophy has a non-trivial number of adherents, and is recognized in the larger legal community as having legitimacy. You’d be surprised, I think, at the sheer scope and variety of legal philosophies and opinions having some legitimacy in the larger legal community. Would you think of someone who said that _Brown v. Board of Education_ was wrongly decided as being outside the mainstream? > [@](#): > > Would you feel comfortable making the claim that Scalia is outside the mainstream of judicial thinking? Would he, for instance, be laughed out of most law schools? Those are two very different things. Ronald Dworkin is decidedly outside the mainstream. He would not be laughed out of any law school. > [@](#): > > How about Roberts? Is he outside the mainstream? Not as far as I can see. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/95 "2005-11-02T23:40:05Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Ummm, no. They don’t understand it the way you do, so they don’t agree with it. Some do, but it would be a small percentage. I don’t understand why you would assert this. Alito didn’t write the law and impose it on the unsuspecting citizens of Pennsylvania. It was passed by the Pennsylvania state legislature. If only a small percentage of Pennsylvania citizens thought the law was a good idea, why did a majority of the Pennsylvania state legislature vote for the law? Why didn’t the Pennsylvania legislators fear for their jobs? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/96 "2005-11-02T23:47:39Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > You’d be surprised, I think, at the sheer scope and variety of legal philosophies and opinions having some legitimacy in the larger legal community. Would you think of someone who said that _Brown v. Board of Education_ was wrongly decided as being outside the mainstream? I frankly don’t know the answer to the question, but I think it would depend not just on saying it, but what precise arguments were used to back up the assertion. > [@](#): > > Those are two very different things. OK, then answer them as two seperate questions. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/97 "2005-11-03T00:13:44Z")
> [@](#): > > I frankly don’t know the answer to the question, but I think it would depend not just on saying it, but what precise arguments were used to back up the assertion. Why does this matter? > [@](#): > > Would you feel comfortable making the claim that Scalia is outside the mainstream of judicial thinking? No, although his earlier writings – particularly the stuff about how judges should pretend that the law is more determinate than it is – and his general dismissal of the absurd results doctrine are certainly orthogonal to conventional thinking. My personal problem with Scalia is more his tone – which I think damages the court as an institution in several ways – than with his jurisprudence. > [@](#): > > Would he . . . be laughed out of most law schools? Certainly not. Almost nobody with intellectual chops would be laughed out of most law schools. Actually, let me rephrase that: I don’t know about _most_ law schools; it’s possible that many of the diploma mill schools would want no truck with theoreticians on their faculty. But the top law schools, which are generally more academically-minded, view idiosyncratic legal philosophies as a bonus rather than a detriment when it comes to faculty members. As long as you can back up your views with research and more-or-less coherent English, you’re assured of being able to publish vast reams of law review articles – which is one of the things the top law schools care about most. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/98 "2005-11-03T01:32:07Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Why does this matter? I think it would matter in almost any instance, not just this one. I don’t claim to know all the legal angles, and when dealing with something as complex as this there are probably has several different legitimate legal arguments that could be made. > [@](#): > > …My personal problem with Scalia is more his tone – which I think damages the court as an institution in several ways – than with his jurisprudence. Good point. Pompousness is a negative for anyone in government-- especially someone appointed for life. > [@Lemur866](#): > > > [@Evil Captor](#): > > > > Ummm, no. They don’t understand it the way you do, so they don’t agree with it. Some do, but it would be a small percentage. > > I don’t understand why you would assert this. Alito didn’t write the law and impose it on the unsuspecting citizens of Pennsylvania. It was passed by the Pennsylvania state legislature. If only a small percentage of Pennsylvania citizens thought the law was a good idea, why did a majority of the Pennsylvania state legislature vote for the law? Why didn’t the Pennsylvania legislators fear for their jobs? With respect to gauging the political beliefs of Americans, I suggest that \*\*EC \*\*keep his day job. 🙂 > [@](#): > > [percentage of adults who would favor the following laws or proposals:](http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-15-abortion-usat_x.htm) > > Requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion: 72% > > **Source** : USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/99 "2005-11-03T20:30:05Z")
Update on the Gang of 14. Not surprising. [Key group of senators withhold judgment on Alito](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051103/pl_nm/usa_court_alito_dc) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/100 "2005-11-03T20:47:58Z")
And this just in… (By way of decidedly lefty blog _Atrios_, but the follow up links are provided, I am just too lazy and easily…oooh! shiny!..) [http://atrios.blogspot.com/](http://atrios.blogspot.com/) > [@](#): > > Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him from the case, court records show – despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases involving the company. > > The case involved a Massachusetts woman, Shantee Maharaj, who has spent nearly a decade fighting to win back the assets of her late husband’s individual retirement accounts, which had been frozen by Vanguard after a court judgment in favor of a former business partner of her husband. > > Her lawyer, John G. S. Flym, a retired Northeastern law professor, said in an interview yesterday that Alito’s ''lack of integrity is so flagrant" in the case that he should be disqualified as a Supreme Court nominee. > > Maharaj, 50, discovered Alito’s ownership of Vanguard shares in 2002 when she requested his financial disclosure forms after he ruled against her appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. > > … > > 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." (emphasis added) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778.md?page=6)