Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. said yesterday that he did nothing improper when he ruled in cases involving two financial firms in which he held accounts, although he had told the Senate 15 years ago that he would step aside in matters involving the companies.Unduly restrictive? What the hell does that mean? It means when he promised not to do something, under oath I believe, he didn't really mean it. That's what unduly restrictive means.
Alito, trying to quell conflict-of-interest issues raised by liberal opponents, said he had been "unduly restrictive" in promising in 1990 to recuse himself in cases involving Vanguard Group Inc. and Smith Barney Inc. After the Senate confirmed him as an appellate judge and when he subsequently ruled on routine cases involving the two companies, he said, he acted properly because his connections to the firms did not constitute a conflict of interest under the applicable rules and laws.
Son, promise you'll never lie to me. I promise, dad. But son lies to dad anyway. But under the new Alito standard, it's not really a lie. Son was simply being "unduly restrictive" when he promised he wouldn't lie. What kind of crap is that?
Is there anyone associated with this White House who doesn't lie and then turn the truth upside down in an effort to defend it?
Hey, Patrick Fitzgerald. Let Scooter go. He was simply being "unduly restrictive" when he swore on the Bible that he'd tell the truth.
And another thing. How can any Senator trust a single thing Alito now says during his confirmation? Sure, Alito said the other day that he has "great respect" for the precedent of Roe v. Wade. But just wait until after he's confirmed, overturns Roe, then tells us he was just being "unduly restrictive" when he mentioned that "great respect" thing.
Think about it. Alito didn't just go unduly restrictive once - he did it 3 times. He promised Congress THREE TIMES (under oath we presume) that he'd recuse himself from various cases, then each time he didn't. Three different times the guy outright lied.
Then again, maybe Alito didn't lie three different times to Congress. Maybe, as he said tonight, he simply got it wrong, albeit three different times. And maybe what happened here is that Alito simply screwed up his analysis of the law and regulations governing judges and ethics, and he totally botched the application of those judicial ethics laws to a specific fact pattern (in this case, his own), on three separate and rather high-profile occasions.
You see, Alito's not a liar. He's just an incompetent who can't put the law and the facts together to save his life. Now don't you feel better about him being nominated to the Supreme Court? Harriet's not looking so bad now, eh?
Again, is there anybody associated with President Bush who can simply tell the truth?
PS Maybe we can send Alito to those ethics classes the White House staff is taking this week...