1 posted on
08/22/2006 8:06:09 PM PDT by
motife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
To: motife
2 posted on
08/22/2006 8:07:53 PM PDT by
budanski
To: motife
3 posted on
08/22/2006 8:10:04 PM PDT by
budanski
To: motife
Of course it is a conflict of interest. She should be impeached.
4 posted on
08/22/2006 8:11:59 PM PDT by
doug from upland
(Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
To: motife
Of course she didn't disclose her affiliations or the Government lawyers would have filed a motion to have her removed.
5 posted on
08/22/2006 8:12:13 PM PDT by
tobyhill
(The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
To: motife
DON'T ANYBODY SEND A PENNY TO TOM FITTON
6 posted on
08/22/2006 8:12:37 PM PDT by
doug from upland
(Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
To: motife
The ACLU didnt go Judge shopping. Anna Diggs-Taylor did the shopping, She had already made a decision all she needed was someone to bring forth the suit. She needs to be impeached.
7 posted on
08/22/2006 8:13:18 PM PDT by
sgtbono2002
(The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
To: motife
CFSEM Secretary/ trustee Taylor Diggs probably sent a note with that $45,000 to the Michigan ACLU.
Dear ACLU -
Here's $45,000 to fight Bush's Terrorist Surveillance program.
Yours truly, and your always welcome in my court
- Justice Taylor Diggs
..... XoX
8 posted on
08/22/2006 8:13:25 PM PDT by
TeleStraightShooter
(The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)
To: motife
Judicial ethics do not just prohibit impropriety
The prohibit any appearance of impropriety.
Clearly, she should have recused herself. Absent judicial notification, at the time of case assignment, to both sides of her prior associations, it is clearly open for a nul verdict and remand.
9 posted on
08/22/2006 8:15:17 PM PDT by
MindBender26
(Having my own CAR-15 in RVN meant never having to say I was sorry....)
To: motife
.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest MAY??? MAY??? I would dare say this is definitely a conflict of interest
11 posted on
08/22/2006 8:20:31 PM PDT by
GeronL
(flogerloon.blogspot.com -------------> Rise of the Hate Party)
To: motife
This Commie [female dog] should be hung out to try. God Bless Judicial Watch!!!!
14 posted on
08/22/2006 8:24:35 PM PDT by
EagleUSA
To: motife
15 posted on
08/22/2006 8:25:28 PM PDT by
DCPatriot
("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
To: motife
Judges are simply human beings, not gods. They are as political and corrupted as other politicians. When will we have a president who has the nerve to tell a judge you are unelected, a human being, and if you want to enforce your ruling go do it but I do not agree and will not support your ruling. Andrew Jackson did and has been known favorably ever since because of it. I repeat. No judge or judicial court is god no matter what they think.
To: motife
“If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment.”The text of the ruling itself calls into question the competence and judgement of the affirmative-action appointment, judge Diggs-Taylor.
20 posted on
08/22/2006 8:48:47 PM PDT by
Nomorjer Kinov
(If the opposite of "pro" is "con" , what is the opposite of progress?)
To: motife
Of course everyone remembers her involvement in the Uof M racial preferences case? When she tried hard to get that cas assigned to her instead of to the next judge in line?
22 posted on
08/22/2006 8:51:27 PM PDT by
Redbob
To: motife
Surprise! Surprise!! The NY Slimes has actually published an article on this: http://tinyurl.com/ezx4f
Let us see if the TV channels (other than Fox) even cover this blatantly unethical behavior.
29 posted on
08/22/2006 9:21:06 PM PDT by
indcons
(Islam Delenda Est)
To: motife
Paging the U. S. Attorney General...
31 posted on
08/22/2006 9:24:19 PM PDT by
zot
(GWB -- the most slandered man of this decade)
To: motife
She should be thrown off the bench for this.
36 posted on
08/22/2006 9:31:00 PM PDT by
EternalHope
(Boycott everything French forever. Including their vassal nations.)
To: motife
39 posted on
08/22/2006 9:36:13 PM PDT by
doug from upland
(Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
To: motife
So long as the left gets the ruling they wanted, there is no conflict of interest. Just ask them.
41 posted on
08/22/2006 9:43:02 PM PDT by
DakotaRed
(The legacy of the left, "Screw you, I got mine.")
To: motife
Even if the "judge" isn't impeached...
at least her subversion of the judicial system has been exposed.
Before the wide-spread use of high-tech research tools (Internet),
there was a much greater chance of folks like the "judge" getting away
with her fraud on the court with ZERO consequence.
I wonder if lawyers entering her court now will be fighting to not have
her sit on their cases due to conflicts of interest.
42 posted on
08/22/2006 9:45:24 PM PDT by
VOA
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson