Posted on 08/23/2006 7:00:28 AM PDT by yoe
TO end her opinion in American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency the case that enjoins President Bushs warrantless surveillance program Judge Anna Diggs Taylor quoted Earl Warren (referring to him as Justice Warren, not Chief Justice Warren, as if she wanted to spotlight her carelessness): It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of ... those liberties ... which makes the defense of the nation worthwhile.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Maybe the Time is distancing itself from Taylor Diggs because of the newly revealed conflict-of-interest?
The dumb judge also gives money to the ACLU who brought this lawsuit!!! Isn't that ILLEGAL???
Judge Diggs needs to be suspended from the bench until such time as her impeachment goes through. However we all know how this works.
We will go through months of BS, spend tons of money and when its all over she will still be sitting there making stupid decisions.
'A Law Unto Herself'? Isn't that the type of judge the libs want?
( No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)
"Discipline of the judicial process" not followed = waste of everyone's time.
Just add to the long list of false charges by liberals and malcontents like "Mission Accomplished". More stuff from the Hate Bush/Hate America psychos.
She's not just the judge, she's the palintiff too! how did she come to preside over this case? Did she do what she did with the Michigam Affirmative Action case?
" It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of ... those liberties ... which makes the defense of the nation worthwhile. "
Judge, you're standing on your head. That's why everything looks reversed. Turn yourself over and you'll see everything right-side-up.
It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of those liberties, we would sanction the subversion of our national defense which makes feedom possible.
That's what I was thinking....a little CYA move on the part of the NYT.
They should have gotten a clue when their partner in liberalism, the Washington Post did a negative story on Judge Diggs Taylor and left the NYT out there all by themselves. (That runs counter to the "herd mentality" of liberals.)
So then what?
Make ALL court rooms three judge pannels?
Keep in mind, when it comes to appeals, it can be upheld if it is "right conclusion wrong analysis."
I am so surprised.
Happily, such a travesty of an order will be reviewed by the Sixth Circuit and SCOTUS.
Note to goldstategop: I think you would sing a different tune if somehow a Democratic congress and president got elected and enacted and signed into law a bill that, e.g., prohibited people from owning more than 20 acres of land. Without judicial review (and Taylor's order was not "judicial review" -- it came out of a trial-level proceeding), you'd be hard-pressed to find a check and balance there, wouldn't you?
Taylor Conflicted?
The judge who ruled against the government and ruled the NSA terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional may have had an undisclosed conflict of interest. Anna Diggs Taylor also serves as a trustee and officer to an organization that donated $45,000 to the Michigan chapter of the ACLU -- which happened to be one of the plaintiffs in the case (via Hot Air):
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the governments warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylors financial disclosure statements.
According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a recent grant of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.
As Allahpundit notes, this does not appear to violate the legal canon of ethics, at least not explicitly, but it does seem rather too close for comfort. Many judges probably either belong to the ACLU or have given it support, but in this case it would appear unseemly for Taylor -- as an officer of an organization that is a major benefactor -- to have presided over a lawsuit the Michigan chapter brought. I doubt she will get any official sanction, but I also think it will dent her reputation than her opinion in the case has already done.
However, we should not get too triumphal about this development. The defendants of the lawsuit will almost certainly raise this question on appeal, but the real questions about the legality of the program still must find an answer. Even if the appellate court dismisses the decision on this basis, it only postpones a truly substantive review of the issue -- which Taylor didn't bother providing in the first place. The sooner that the Supreme Court reviews the issue, the better off we all will be.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007875.php
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.