[yoe]

"Professor Althouse finds that Judge Diggs "did not follow the discipline of the judicial process." The column appears in today's New York Times, which celebrated the opinion last week as a "a careful, thoroughly grounded opinion." It's a devastating column, both for Judge Diggs and the Times."...via Power Line.

[Rummyfan]

Maybe the Time is distancing itself from Taylor Diggs because of the newly revealed conflict-of-interest?

[Suzy Quzy]

The dumb judge also gives money to the ACLU who brought this lawsuit!!! Isn't that ILLEGAL???

[sgtbono2002]

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.

[Rummyfan]

'A Law Unto Herself'? Isn't that the type of judge the libs want?

[goldstategop]

This only reinforces my view that judicial review should be scrapped. One man should not have the power to overturn a law or legally constituted policy. And who decides the limits of judicial review? Why, the very people who created it! As Lord Acton said, "when absolute power corrupts, it corrupts absolutely." And our judges are drunk on absolute power, with no way to restrain them or check their excesses.

( No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)

[CBart95]

"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.

[RoadTest]

" “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.”

[sionnsar]

Gee. An ethical lapse from a lefty judge.

I am so surprised.

[King of Florida]

Professor Althouse hits the nail right on the head. This was a sloppy, poorly reasoned order by a district court judge who made no pretense of hiding the outcome-determinative nature of her order. It would be one thing if her ruling were on solid legal grounds. I could and would accept that. But this thing was an embarrassment to read.

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?

[lowbridge]

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 government’s 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 Taylor’s 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

[george76]