Alito’s Promises

A promise is a promise, right?

So beware of what you promise. Once you have made it, you cannot qualify it. Any qualifiers must be an expressed part of the promise at the time it is made.

In my view, to try to qualify it after the fact shows moral weakness and illuminates poor judgment.

That’s why this AP story leaves me shaking my head:

Alito serves on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and has most of his money in mutual funds. When he joined the court in 1990 he told senators he would avoid cases in which Vanguard Group was a party.

Senators questioned him about the 2002 Vanguard case, which was the subject of a conflict of interest complaint filed by the woman who lost her lawsuit. Alito withdrew after first ruling against her and the decision was reaffirmed without his participation.

Alito and the White House have offered several explanations: that a computer glitch allowed the disqualification issue to slip through undetected, that Alito’s 1990 pledge to stay out of Vanguard appeals only applied to his initial service, and that the promise was “unduly restrictive.”

“Unduly restrictive,” eh?

Amazing!

Ah, the frailties of man. (And nobody has a corner on that market!)

I wonder how soon till children start using “unduly restrictive” to explain away their failures to keep their promises.