Contents    Prev    Next    Last

Date: January 12, 2006

Senator: Hatch

Topic:

 Contents

SPECTER: Senator Hatch has stated his wish to reclaim at this point some of his reserved time.

Senator Hatch?

HATCH: I don't intend to be very long, but I really believe that bringing up Vanguard or the Princeton matter goes beyond the pale at this point in this hearing. And let me just make this case.

Some of your critics, Judge, have focused a lot of attention on the actions over the Vanguard matter. And I think most people who think think this is really a case of much ado about nothing.

Certainly no law required you to recuse yourself in that case. As a matter of fact, the law -- helped put together by one of the leading Democrat ethicist professors of law -- reads as follows: "Financial interest means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a, quote, 'financial interest,' unquote, in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund."

Now, you did not participate in the management of the fund, right?

ALITO: No, I certainly did not.

HATCH: OK. That's what the law says.

So what's this big case that's being made? It must be that since you signed -- among dozens of pages -- the committee form that says in the initial service, you agreed to recuse yourself in the Vanguard matter.

HATCH: And then you made a mistake 12 years later, which you rectified. In other words, you lived up to to your word in every sense of that term. Whether or not you considered that initial service or not, but anybody who looks at it would have to say, "My gosh, that doesn't mean 12 years from now."

But you even ignored that and said, "I recognize that I made a mistake; I recused myself even when I didn't have to recuse myself and did everything I could to live up to my word," which you did. In other words you lived up to your word.

That's a fair interpretation, isn't it?

ALITO: It is, Senator. I said, even if you read the answer as setting out a promise that would exist -- that would be binding on me for the entire term of my judicial service, I did disqualify myself in the only Vanguard case that ever came before me.

HATCH: And so to imply somehow or other that you were dishonest because you lived up to your word in the end I think is a little bit beyond the pale.

The ABA reviewed this matter and found that you have an excellent record for integrity. You earned, for the second time, the highest American Bar Association rating, of well qualified.

Now, I put in the record yesterday letters from several ethics professors who have examined this issue and found nothing improper.

They agree that you lived up to your word and you didn't have to, nor will you have to in the future. That's what that law says in 28 U.S. Code, Section 455(d)(4)(i). That's what it says.

Now, I might add that includes a letter from Professor Geoffery Hazard. Back when Justice Breyer was up for confirmation and questions were raised about the propriety of him hearing a case in which some argued -- falsely, I think -- that he had a financial interest, my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, favorably cited a letter from Professor Hazard that was favorable to Justice Breyer.

HATCH: And by the way, I'm not going to judge the two cases, but it was every bit as much a case as this weak thing that has been brought against you.

Now, what is going on here is nothing but an attempt to make a big deal about nothing, a small thing. And I think it's being done with a bit of old bait and switch, if you ask my opinion.

I might add that when Judge Breyer -- what happened there in the case of Breyer, I reviewed it, I investigated it, and when the facts showed that he did no wrong, as they show you've done no wrong, I came out of the blocks and defended him. And I'm glad I did because he, like you, is an honest man.

Neither Justice Breyer or you have gone into public service to make money. That's pretty apparent.

Now, to have this like you've done something wrong because you made a mistake and then you rectified it, my gosh, how many times do we have to beat that old dead horse?

With regard to the other thing, I have my own opinion as to why that's repeatedly brought up, when you have adequately explained that you didn't remember much about it or anything at all.

Now we find that the Rusher memoranda contained no reference to you. He never heard of you before now. And it makes you wonder: Why are they bringing that up? Well, I've got my opinions on that, and I think my opinions are right.

The fact of the matter is you've been straightforward here, you've honestly answered the questions, you've answered more questions than almost any Supreme Court nominee in my 29 years in the Senate and I don't think you've been fairly treated.

HATCH: And it makes everybody wonder: Why would anyone want to do these jobs?

I know Law Review graduates (sic) who will make more than the chief justice this year, new graduates from law school.

So it's apparent you're going into this because you love your country, you want to serve it. And you've done it well for 15 years. And anybody who knows you knows that, and I know you.

So I think it's just wrong to keep bringing these phony issues up. And you have to ask, "Well, why are they doing it?" Because they're so phony.

That's all I care to say. I reserve the balance of my time.

SPECTER: Thank you, Senator Hatch. Your 18 minutes and 9 seconds will be reserved.

HATCH: Thank you.

	Contents    Prev    Next    Last