The Indiana Homeschool Blog has an interesting excerpt from an interview with Douglas Gresham (the step-son of C.S. Lewis) in The Old Schoolhouse magazine this month.

Then what do we do? We take the child and remove him from this carefullly designed support group of parents and close family members, all of whom share a genetic bond with the child, and plunge him into a mass group of his peers, all of whom are as ignorant and as demanding as he is, with one adult stranger supervising. In terms of the psycho-emotional development of the child, this is complete madness.

Check out the rest.

According to the RNC:

The Newsday story “Alito’s Judicial Ethics Questioned in Cases,” by Tom Brune, was inaccurate, unfair, and biased.

- The Newsday story misrepresents the facts and law in the cases involving Vanguard and Smith Barney.

- Judge Alito did not have to recuse himself from either case.

- Judge Alito wrote in his 1990 Senate Judiciary questionnaire that he would follow the law with regard to recusing himself from cases. He followed the law in both cases.

- In the Vanguard case, Judge Alito’s primary interest was in his mutual funds 2 which had nothing to do with the lawsuit 2. He also had a de minimus (insignificant) interest in Vanguard itself, and the law required Judge Alito to recuse himself only if the outcome of the case substantially affected his interest in Vanguard, which it clearly did not.

- In the Smith Barney case, Judge Alito had no financial interest in Smith Barney 2. They are his broker and hold his investment portfolio. There is no obligation under the law for a judge to recuse himself from a case involving his brokerage firm. For example, a judge has no obligation to recuse from cases involving his auto insurer, his cell phone provider 2, or his health insurer 2 simply because he is a customer.

-With regard to both cases, Legal Ethics Professor Ronald Rotunda said, “These charges of ethics violations are absurd. The ethics rules do not provide for disqualifications in either case because he is not an owner. Twenty years of ethics opinions and case law are uniform in reaching this conclusion.” (Professor Ronald Rotunda, 11/4/05).

- Clearly, there are some who are trying to tarnish the reputation of a life-long public servant who is praised for his integrity, fairness, and temperament.

Legal Background For Vanguard:

- Based on the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and the federal statute governing recusal, Judge Alito was not required to recuse himself from the case involving Vanguard.

- According to the Code of Conduct and parallel language in 28 U.S.C. 455, the federal statute governing recusal, “The proprietary interest of a policy holder in a mutual insurance company 2, or a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a ‘financial interest’ in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest.” Canon 3C.(3)(c)(iii) and parallel language in 28 U.S.C. 455(a)(d)(4)(iii) (emphasis added)

- Any interest that Judge Alito has in the Vanguard entities that were named in the suit qualifies as a “similar proprietary interest” under the statute because Vanguard has an ownership structure similar to that of a mutual insurance company or mutual savings association. Judge Alito’s principal financial interest is in the mutual funds he owns, which have nothing to do with this lawsuit. By virtue of his ownership of these mutual funds, he also has a de minimus (insignificant) ownership interest in Vanguard Group Inc.

- Thus, Judge Alito should have recused himself only if the “outcome of the proceeding could have substantially affected the value of the interest.”

- The outcome of the Monga v. Ottenberg case, in which Vanguard was sued as a stakeholder in a dispute between two other parties over a Vanguard IRA, could not have had any effect on the value of Judge Alito’s Vanguard mutual funds. The value of his mutual funds instead correlated almost exclusively with the value of the underlying securities in the funds.

- Thus, Judge Alito did not have to recuse himself from the case because his financial interest in Vanguard, apart from the value of the underlying securities in his funds, was trivial.

- Judge Alito’s participation in this case is consistent with his 1990 questionnaire answer which stated that he would adhere to the applicable standards for disqualification in the Code of Conduct and disqualification statute for federal judges.

- After the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court in Monga v. Ottenberg 2, the plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify Judge Alito.

- Judge Alito immediately wrote a letter to Judge Scirica explaining that he owned shares in mutual funds but did not own shares in any “party” to the case. Nevertheless, Judge Alito voluntarily recused himself to avoid any appearance of conflict.

- Judge Alito requested that a new panel be reconstituted to consider the pending motion to vacate judgment. Pursuant to Judge Alito’s request, a panel was reconstituted. Like the original panel, the reconstituted panel affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Legal Background For Smith Barney:

- Based on the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and the federal statute governing recusal, Judge Alito was not required to recuse himself from the case involving Smith Barney.

- There is no obligation for a judge to recuse from a case involving a brokerage firm simply because the judge does business with the firm.

- Neither the Code of Conduct nor the disqualification statute imposes such an obligation on account of a customer relationship.

- In Johnston v. HBO Film Management, there was no financial interest at stake.

- Judge Alito’s participation in this case is consistent with his 1990 questionnaire answer which stated that he would adhere to the applicable standards for disqualification in the Code of Conduct and disqualification statute for federal judges.