Posted on 08/23/2006 11:03:49 AM PDT by 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
She's an AAA (affirmative action appointment)....
She is worse than a political hack. She is a hack with a robe and a lifetime appointment. She has to be removed from the bench.
Considering how the ACLU attacks anything pro good character and pro religion and supports pedophiles, any judges supporting this organization has major conflict of interest issues.
Don't expect a lot of coverage from the mainstream media.
No more lifetime appointments to the bench.
If this is true, I'm fairly certain the ethical rules concerning judges would have disqualified her. The judge should have recused herself on her own motion OR the ACLU of MI should have moved to disqualify her. At this stage, however, it is moot.
I am still in arrears from a ruling by a AAA liberal Democrat female ethnic judge in Florida. This AAA female ethnic ruled in favor of a lease company that bought fraudulent leases from a sign company and is making the buyers of the fraudulent leases pay the lease companies for the money lost by them. It made no sense to the thousands of pharmacists and veterinarians that had purchased the signs until I saw the same ethnic female judge rule on the 2001 election in Florida. She had to have been paid off.
"Many judges probably either belong to the ACLU or have given it support'
Then, ethically, none of these judges should sit on a case where the ACLU is a party.
Did CFSEM file an Amicus Brief in this case?
You can always count on a Democrat judge to NEVER recuse themself from a case that will allow them to fulfill their personal agenda.
in the mind of liberals, conflict-of-interest is only possible with conservatives - in fact, most liberals believe that conservatives only act under the influence of nefarious, outside interests.
Write your Senators and Representatives.
I just wrote to Jeff Sessions with the hope that, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, he'll put her on the docket.
Hopefully, there will be a "daily double" and the ACLU will get their hands slapped as well.
I was shocked to hear this earlier today on the local CNN radio station. It was only a 10 second soundbite, but at least it was mentioned.
I understand that they provide funding. But if they also filed a "friend of the court" brief, then her signature as Secretary and Trustee would be on it. It would be stupid to do so, but her arrogance knows no bounds.
I understand that they provide funding. But if they also filed a "friend of the court" brief, then her signature as Secretary and Trustee would be on it. It would be stupid to do so, but her arrogance knows no bounds.
Since when do appearances matter to a Dim? They are scum and they have no shame.
More from the democrat party of corruption.
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.