ReFraming an Issue

One recent focus on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court has been whether he had a conflict of interest in ruling on several different cases, including one involving Vanguard. It seems to me that this issue can be framed in a different way. Let's look at a few details.

According to a Nov. 1 report in the Seattle Times (also reported on Nov. 3 in the Boston Globe as well as in other papers), "When Samuel Alito appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee 15 years ago as a nominee for the appellate bench, he promised in writing to disqualify himself from 'any cases involving the Vanguard companies,' a stock and mutual-fund firm in which he had substantial personal investments." Yet in 2002, he ruled (with two other judges) on a case involving Vanguard.

I will not argue whether Judge Alito had a conflict of interest when he ruled on a case involving the Vanguard companies. Perhaps it is a close call, perhaps not. But it seems to me that there is a more fundamental question to ask.

The more fundamental question to ask here concerns the sort of values should we require of our judges. Promising is to give one's word; breaking a promise is akin to lying under oath. There is a solemn obligation to keep one's promises. Now granted, there are some circumstances that might override keeping a promise; for example, if a substantial harm should befall an innocent party if the promise were kept. But it is not evident from the news reports that any such circumstance applied in Judge Alito's case.

We note that Judge Alito's promise was made in writing (not merely verbally) in the course of his earlier confirmation hearing. Presumably, this promise enabled his earlier confirmation to go through with little controversy. It is not likely that he simply forgot that he had made it. Perhaps there were other extenuating circumstances; if so, those need to be made public so we can understand his behavior. But to explain his failure to recuse himself in the Vanguard case by saying that he was assigned the case only because of a computer glitch is irrelevant to the question of keeping his promise.

While we have, perhaps, become inured to public officials breaking their promises, nevertheless that behavior should not be tolerated, and especially not from our judges. In particular, the highest judges in our government should be held to a higher standard and be required to be as good as their word. If Judge Alito is only as good as his word as reflected in this case, then we can infer that his word is not very good and neither is he.

Granted, this is only one instance; we all take moral missteps from time to time. But Judge Alito also broke his promise to recuse himself in another case involving Smith-Barney.

If he now promises to respect precedent (or super-precedent), do we have any reason to believe that he will keep his promise?

Call me a conservative if you will, but promise-keeping seems to me a core value. Just don't call me a Republican!

Mark Kirk-Environmentalist?

Congressman Mark Kirk styles himself as a member of the Congress sympathetic to environmental causes. On his web site, he claims that the League of Conservation Voters gives him an 80% rating as of December, 2003.

But is he really pro-environment? Or does he support environmental legislation when it is easy to do so (i.e., when the vote is clearly determined without his vote). And has his environmental record continued to be strong?

Well, the answer to the last question is "Kirk has been less than steadfast in his support of environmental issues." His current rating by the LCV has fallen to 50%.

What about hot environmental issues, such as drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge? Perhaps his voting record there could be summed up in words remeniscent of John Kerry's "flip-flop" description of his vote on funding the Iraq war: "Kirk voted against it before he voted for it." Kirk voted for the budget resolution, which allows oil exploitation in the ANWR.

We have been told that the drilling does not cause environmental damage. Who is foolish enough to believe that? We were told that single-hulled tankers were not necessary, and then the Exxon Valdez disaster occurred.

To say that drilling doesn't have a negative impact on the environment is at best a misleading kind of lie (as distinguished from an outright, baldfaced lie). To support drilling, there need to be roads, pipelines, and all the other supporting facilities for oilfield workers that oil exploitation entails. And Mark Kirk has voted to support this despoilation of a wilderness area! It's like Humpty Dumpty: Once it is spoiled, folks, there's no putting it back to its original state.

Let's elect a congressman in 2006 who is genuinely sincere about preserving the environment.

The silence of the Nine

As the screw turns on Tom "Ethically Challenged" DeLay and the evidence builds toward an indictment, where are the voices of our Illinois Republican Representatives? Why no cries of outrage over DeLay's outrageous behavior? Are our nine Republicans so timid or so indebted to DeLay that they are unable to speak out? Is their shame so great that they just don't want to address his mis-behavior? Or are they just part of the problem of Republican hubris and moral failing?

If the "exterminator" remains Majority Leader in 2006, there is a solution to ridding our Congress of him: vote the Republicans out! A vote for Kirk, Hyde, Biggert, Johnson, LaHood, Manzullo, Shimkus, or Weller is a vote for DeLay. And of course, a vote for Hastert is not only a vote for DeLay, it's a vote for Hastert. It is past time to insist on answers from the silent nine.

Morality in government

The mainstream media has finally recgnized that public ethics practiced by the the Republican leadership in House of Representatives satisfies at best minimal standards. At the focus is Rep. Tom DeLay, the majority leader, who has been reprimanded by the ethics committee three times in the last year, and three of his close political associates have been indicted in Texas. There are new reasons to look into DeLay's activities, having to do with a trip to Korea paid for by a registered agent of foreign principals (DeLay's defense: "I didn't know."), and a trip to England and Scotland paid for by an Indian tribe and a gambling services company just 2 months before DeLay, who has been hostile to gambling interests, helped kill a bill prohibiting betting over the Internet.

But this is not news, and that is not the focus of this post.

My interest is in the moral compass of the Speaker and those Illinois Republicans that support him and Mr. DeLay.

After having been spanked by the House ethics committee last year, Speaker Hastert removed its Republican Chair, Joel Hefley. The new Chairman, Doc Hastings, began his tenure by firing two top staffers who had the courage to investigat DeLay. The other two new Republican committeemen assigned by Speaker Hastert and his associates are interesting choices. Lamar Smith gave $10K to DeLay's defense fund and Tom Cole gave $5K. Smith co-hosted a benefit to raise money for a PAC DeLay founded (a PAC that is being investigated by ta Texas grand jury). Not exactly independent, impartial investigators to do the people's business of keeping members of the House honest.

Just to ensure that the ethics committee doesn't do anything useful, Speaker Hastert and the Republican leadership has tried to change the rules in the committee so that either party can block an investigation. Seems like ol' Denny has stacked the deck. Is that what it takes to protect an honest Congressman?

Finally, a bill to establish a bipartisan task force to make recommendations to restore public confidence in the ethics process was voted down by the Republicans. WE can forget about public morality in the House of Representatives; Speaker Hastert and his Republican colleagues have. If Denny Hastert has wrestled with these ethical issues, it's a match he has lost.

Where are the other Illinois Republicans on this? At least Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) has expressd some carefully guarded reservations about what is going on. Don't our Illinois Republicans have the courage to speak out? Or are they as morally compromised as Hastert?