Judicial Watch Smears Judge Who Ruled Warrantless Wiretapping Is Illegal, Media Takes The Bait
Judicial Watch Smears Judge Who Ruled Warrantless Wiretapping Is Illegal, Media Takes The Bait
Last week, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional. Subsquently, Taylor was attacked by the conservative group Judicial Watch which claimed that she had a “conflict of interest” because she “serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case.”
Judicial Watch’s allegation has garnered extensive media coverage. It’s a bogus charge. Here are the facts:
– Over the last two years the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan has donated about $50 million to charitable causes. Its $45,000 in grants to the ACLU represents just .09% of their total giving.
– The money to the ACLU had nothing to do with their activities relating to this litigation or government surveillance. The grant funded “a gay rights project.”
– Judge Taylor is one of 50 community members on the foundation’s board. It wasn’t a personal decision by Judge Taylor.
None of this information was disclosed by Judicial Watch. Once you know the facts, there is not a “reasonable question about [her] impartiality” based on the foundation’s activities. That hasn’t stopped the media (or the blogosphere) from breathlessly reporting the “story.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
They know they can’t win on an actual debate, so they try to smear the people on the other side.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:03 amThat doesn’t shock or surprise me. What I can’t stand is the media latches on to this like they did the Swift Boat thing.
They don’t even have to acknowledge that its true. Just the mere fact of repeating it is enough to play into Republican hands.
(YAWN)
i’m so tired of this crap. ACLU can do what they always do… go shop somewhere else under the radar and then pop again… they got it pushed through this time so congradulations… and they get to go and prove their “case” again based on her weak opinion, which will get struck down in appeals. Can we go back to Carr now?!
August 24th, 2006 at 10:05 amYeah reminds me of Dan Rather.. (hmm)
August 24th, 2006 at 10:06 amjoneser is such a bowser. Ugly dog at that.
For those of us who HAVE watched this case & the outcome… go to Glenn Greenwald’s site Unclaimed Territory as he covers this one more in depth than I’ve seen elsewhere.
Clue to bowser jonesie (you loser)….the opinion wasn’t written up well but is on very solid legal foundation. We won, you and your fascist lovers now get to defend it, not the judge. & you’ll lose again.
Go lick those boots some more jonesie. Tramp.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:13 amWhy people think the ACLU is a political party I will never know. They defend anyone whose civil liberties have been threatened.
The smear campaign is so hypocritical it is almost not worth mentioning. The Neocons put right wing judges in power who are beholdig to corporations and rule ni their favor and I hear no complaints. Oh that’s right, corporations are all good and civil rights groups are all bad.
What has happened to the America I grew up in?
August 24th, 2006 at 10:14 amJudge Gibbs is one of 50 community members on the foundation’s board. It wasn’t a personal decision by Judge Gibbs.
I think that should say “Taylor”.
Cheers,
August 24th, 2006 at 10:19 am4)
Nah i think corporations are completely amoral just like the ACLU… whatever gets them where they want to be… they both use the law to theeir advantage… one just creates jobs…
at anyrate..
Kindness, it amazes me how you get up in the morning with your “progressive” mindset…. like REgressive…. but hey… i’ll say a prayer for you tonight…
(so angry, therapy will clear that up)
bowser, boot licker, loser, tramp… very original though i’ll give you credit for that… well maybe if we were in 5th grade…
but i do appreciate the oxymoron with your name.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:21 amI do not recall Judicial Watch being so piously outraged when Cheney and Scalia went hunting together shortly before Scalia ruled on the Cheney/Energy case. OOPs, I forgot Richard Mellon Scaife funds Judicial Watch and he likes Cheney and Scalia.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:22 amI guess I’m missing the whole conflict of interests thing… isn’t it also the responsibility of judges to uphold our civil liberties?
August 24th, 2006 at 10:22 amThey can’t argue with the decision, so they dig up non-existent conflicts of interest.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:27 amLame…but, sadly enough, fairly effective with the sheeple.
Smearing and judging judges is a way of life now. Elect better people and call out the Democrats who don’t aggressively support the constitution.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:31 amDo the words Warrant and Due Process mean anything to anyone anymore? Oh yea we have a president who doesn’t believe in science or facts, unless it’s to build a bigger bomb.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:32 amIf only she’d just gone hunting with the ACLU, everthing would have been fine.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:35 amThat is why this judge is so brave. She knew she woudl be subject to such savagery, but that didn’t scare her from following the law.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:38 am[...] Source…. « A Little Poverty Never Hurt Anybody [...]
August 24th, 2006 at 10:45 amAt least the ruling will finally get some air time.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:52 amSmear and Fear their biggest weapons.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:53 amone just creates jobs…
Comment by joneser
If thats what people on sweatshops do.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:15 amLame…but, sadly enough, fairly effective with the sheeple.
Comment by Zooey — August 24, 2006 @ 10:27 am
Law will always impress people. So neat, so pompous, so right…
August 24th, 2006 at 11:18 amAnd Justice?
(My girlfriend is a lawyer, so she finds out what I think, she kills me, so sssshhhhh)
Hello, Zoo. :)
I remember when Judicial Watch was a government watchdog group, filing lawsuit after lawsuit against the government.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:25 amWait, that was back when a Democrat was President wasn’t it?
Now Judicial Watch is into Swift Boating judges that rule against the government.
Some government watchdog group, eh?
I guess they’re non-partisan too, right?
Well, they can’t attack the ruling, because it was the only ruling that could be handed down as far as what the DoJ brought up (nothing, they only went after the standing issue and the National Security issue). Judge Taylor told them many times that the plaintiffs had standing and that National Security need not be breached as all the info needed was already admitted by the administration and written up nationally in newspapers. So they go after the judge.
btw – it was the NATIONAL ACLU that brought this. Judge Taylor was a member of the Michigan chapter. Two wholly different entities. Yes, they are linked but not the same. So the idea that she couldn’t be impartial is just another Swift boating.
Jonesr – you haven’t commented on the merrits, only the swift boating the judge. So what if I (and probably many others) think you’re a troll. Say something intellegent and maybe we’ll think more of you next time. Till then, kiss my ass troll.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:43 amDo you reckon that Judicial Watch will advocate that judges who belong to the Federalist Society should disclose that?
August 24th, 2006 at 11:43 amJudges who have ties to the comunist party don’t need to be smeared- just run for office as liberal democrats.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:44 amI guess it is true what they say about liberals- they support the rights of terrorists. hey the next time we are attacked you can thank this ultral liberal judge for not allowing the information to thwart the attack to be used.
18) juan
am i to assume you are wearing homemade burlap attire today?
August 24th, 2006 at 11:47 amthey support the rights of terrorists
Every time I hear this kind of statement I picture a homeless person walking a busy street carrying a sign reading The End is Near!
Terrorists want to kill us and convert us to Islam. Yawn…
August 24th, 2006 at 11:47 amPlease Reddog rules,
Explain to me why FISA could not have been followed by this administration.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:53 amSeems like the media paid more attention to the smear than to the judicial decision. either way im sure its bad press for the republicans so i dont think they will continue to push the smear.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:58 amam i to assume you are wearing homemade burlap attire today?
Comment by joneser — August 24, 2006 @ 11:47 am
What? Oh, nevermind. Whatever you say.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:06 pmWe are back to shooting the messenger again! Fortunately, the Bushco has been reduced to blanks–to match DUHbya’s brain.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:08 pmIt is interesting that the Bush fanatics here think that FISA can’t be followed to track down terrorists, bu the latest terror plot was foiled using FISA.
Hmmmmm, that’s math that don’t add up, unsless you are really spying on citizens and political opponents.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:34 pmin June the supremes ruled that W had violated the 3rd Geneva convention ,and assumed powers not granted by the constitution .The supremes decision says in effect that the president is a war criminal,and that’s now an indisputable FACT !
August 24th, 2006 at 12:41 pmlast week the federal court system ruled that the executive branch does not have the right to violate the constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens even after the authorization to use force and so has violated FISA laws which carries I believe specific penalties!
The catch here remains only this ,that a sitting president can not be prosecuted without being impeached first .After impeachment, the president can be tried for war crimes , and federal crimes.
The supremes have already ruled that this president has overstepped his powers under our constitution and for the same reason the Judges ruling last week is on very sound legal ground .
I predict rigged elections in November ,the neo cons have had a lot of practice and there is no way of proving it without a paper trail.In any close race the results can be fixed by diebold !
August 24th, 2006 at 12:50 pmAfter reading John Dean’s book, I noticed that he is correct…the Reichwing never uses facts for any case…they only distort the truth and attack the facts that the Left uses to substantiate issues.
The conservatives are not really smart people, they are just angry bigots.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:00 pm#21 “kindness”
i haven’t said anything intelligent?… if i am to use comment #4 as precedent, where should i start may i ask?
But since you have limited your response to me with an unoriginal name (troll) this time i will try to elevate my language and approach intelligently…
Where does one weakly sighted opinion dripping with activism clearly trump what the FISA reviewers have already said is justified as inherent powers of the executive branch? Either way at the end of the day the administration would have to bring it’s case before the defense.
What good is it, and where does it work for america? the best theoretical example the ACLU could supply is an argument that Lawyers and Journalists who want to defend and coorespond with people who threaten the national security and lives of americans and not have them tapped?! There is only a fraction of a fraction of Americans cooresponding oversees with suspected terrorists… and even that fraction can number in the 1000’s. Yet a judge has decided in an opinion dripping with activist overtones, that their public “good” is more important than the public good of national security and safety. To seek thousands of warrants for plots that can be occur in a heartbeat rather than stop it in a heart beat? Why do i need to go to the store and get a permit buy a thousand hooks for piranahs in my pond… when a can go get a big net and sift through it and take the piranhs out and put the good ones back in?
if you can argue for me where it is for public good not to warrantless wire tap one of thousands potential terrorist plots coming in from overseas, potentially targeting my sisters school because the New York Times and the ACLU wants to be able to talk with them in private about the plot and how their defense can be mounted after, go right ahead.
I am sure there have been quite a few plots that have been stopped by this program that you and I don’t need to know about… and nevermind the ones we have stopped because you animosity for George W. Bush keeps you from seeing the forest from the trees… the office of the president was established by the constitution and his or her excutive powers whether you like the guy in office or not. And if it wasn’t, where is lovable, huggable Teddy and his friend Chucky calling down from the mountain to put an end to it and pass bills amending the constitution and presidential authority and precedent?
As the saying goes, the constitution is not a suicide pact.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:02 pm[...] The judge who ruled against the wire-tapping program has come under fire for her involvement in a organization which donated funds to the plaintiff, the ACLU. Considering the sources of the outing (JudicialWatch) and that of this article (ThinkProgress), try to stay objective and come to your own conclusions. [...]
August 24th, 2006 at 1:14 pmjoneser sez:
Well…that’s refreshing…
Well, that didn’t last long.
(By the way, unconstitutional trumps illegal.)
There’s a lot more baseless crap in joneser’s rambling post, but I have neither the time nore the inclination to address it all. I’ll just close with this:
That’s entirely true. If you can’t hack the whole ‘freedom’ thing, you can leave whenever you like. We won’t stop you.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:21 pmOne more thing, joneser: The FISA Court of Appeals did NOT find that Bush had “inherent authority” to conduct wiretapping outside the FISA scheme. The Court said, in what we lawyers like to call “dicta” (meaning it is not part of the holding of the case and has no precedential value) that the executive branch has some “inherent authority” to act to protect national security, but it failed to cite a single case which actually held that the president does not have to comply with either FISA or Title III of the Onmibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act in order to intercept communications within the U.S. In fact, the only case the FISA Court cited, in a footnote, was an opinion by the D.C. Court of Appeals which, in fact, held the opposite.
Furthermore, the FISA Court opinion to which you refer made it clear that the 4th Amendment applies to all forms of government wiretapping, including wiretapping under FISA. Simply put, the Court held that the president is bound by the 4th Amendment even when acting in a national security capacity.
The whole issue in the FISA case was whether an order entered by the lower court was appropriate or placed too many restrictions on the government. The need for a FISA order, in and of itself, was never challenged. The FISA Court of Review never had the opportunity to consider whether the president could act outside FISA – but FISA is plain on it’s face: No one, not even the president, can authorize wiretaps other than through either the FISA or the Title III statutory framework – and to do so is, in fact, a FELONY.
Cheers!
August 24th, 2006 at 1:23 pmJudge Diggs-Taylor ahould have recused herself….PERIOD. Please note recent Supreme Court recusals – and they had nothing to do with hunting, poker playing, or midnight basketball.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:33 pmSome of the responses to this ruling show just how narrowly republicans think these days. All they can say is that the ruling helps terrorists. Apparently they have no clue that the ruling hinders terrorist because one of those freedoms they are said to hate so much has been preserved. Of course the ruling also is a pat on the back to the constitution saying that it is still, or should be still in good standing. The logic that you don’t have civil liberties when your dead is foolish also because if you take them away while you are alive, then you don’t have those freedoms and protections alive or dead. The logic of the constitution not being a suicide pact is also rather narrowly construed. If this administration used the tools at hand properly rather than making new ones that have no basis in US law, they would still be able to fight the war on terror effectively. All we have from them are their assurances that they are only monitoring terrorists conversations and communications. Thus far there has been no oversight to verify this fact. And for those law abiding republicans out there, simply telling congress “we are doing this” is not oversight it is notification. On top of that it is notification of a law being broken, yet congress still sits on their hands.
To trash the judge because she was appointed by Carter or because she belongs to this organization or that organization is absurd. It is an insult to the entire legal system, and that is a heartening thing for the terrorists who, according to our president, hate our freedoms. It can only serve to embolden them and make them stronger to know that the republican party is pulling down those freedoms the terrorists supposedly hate.
My actual take on this is that the republican party is simply projecting their own self loathing and fears onto the terrorists. They see what they hate in America and sell the terrorists as being the guys who want to destroy these things, then they go about doing what they say is the terrorists work.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:36 pmOkay, MA, I’ll bite. What ethical rule required Judge Diggs-Taylor to recuse herself in this situation? Not that I’m not utterly fascinated by your reflexive opinion, but how about citing a specific rule or court opinion that would require recusal under these circumstances?
Anything?
August 24th, 2006 at 1:36 pm#4 – “….the opinion wasn’t written up well but is on very solid legal foundation. ”
Comment by kindness
******Dear kindness, It was written on “solid legal foundation”? Without the “kitchen-sink” of plaintiffs having standing?? Perhaps you were referring to the Separation of Powers? (You were a tad vague….a “new and improved” progressive legal ploy?) Were you absent from law school the day they taught law?
August 24th, 2006 at 1:40 pmThis ruling is an extension of the ruling by the supreme court which said in JUne that Bush does not have the power to violate the constitution or our laws even after the vote to authorize force .The opinion of the Judge is on very sound legal grounds ! Bush must abide by the US constitution and that is now decided .
August 24th, 2006 at 1:54 pmViolations of the Geneva conventions are a war crime ,plain and simple because the executive does not possess special new powers as asserted by this white house ! Say what you will the prez is not above the law and the myth of expanded Presidential powers is over !
Impeach then try for international and federal crimes .There is little doubt the Neo cons are worried and for good reason ! Ignore the laws of the US at your own peril !!!
No powers not granted by the constitution !
August 24th, 2006 at 1:58 pmThe executive does not have the right to violate our countries laws and treaties even after the authorization to use force ,THE SUPREME COURT OF THE US !
Signing statements represent a serious threat to our democracy ….The American Bar Association !
August 24th, 2006 at 2:00 pmE VOTING IS NOT SECURE …..Numerous computer science experts !
August 24th, 2006 at 2:01 pmThe PNAC of which most of Bushes cabinet are members planned pre 911 to invade the mid east inorder to control the rest of the world !!!!
August 24th, 2006 at 2:03 pmREAD ALL ABOUT IT !!!!
A sitting president can not be tried without being first impeached !
August 24th, 2006 at 2:05 pmthe US constitution !!
People are criticizing this judge for her ruling, but you know what? you don’t need a lot of fancy legal arguments to be able to tell the difference between right and wrong.
Bush/Cheney have a fleet of lawyers writing about how torture and eavesdropping can be legal, sometimes it takes one person to say y’know what? this fails the bullsh*t test, and these arguments shouldn’t even be diginfied with a legalese response.
common sense was good enough to lay the foundation of our constitution, and common sense should be good enough to tell when a program such as this runs completely against our national values.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:06 pmThe NSA is not complicit in itself, but when used as a ruse to help hide and cover the trail of disinformation initiated by the Bush administration early on, their task in sheltering lie upon lie, upon lie is to flip sanctity and reason on it’s head so justice becomes blind and unheard in the common constitutional ranks. So Bush can stay right and never wrong, the NSA is “pumped up” as the cure all for everything potentially threatening which always equals to some form of terror. Peel back all the skins and you’ll find find a scared little boy wearing the costume of a man called George Bush. True justice is another victim in the mismanagement of the Bush reign of God-talker politics. Mind you, no slander on the Bible or Christianity. When you have nothing too loose, the liberal and conservative tags of disparity disappear. We become the ranks of human kind, brother to brother, one species, one planet welcoming our differences as an opportunity to learn and share. Fear as a tactic will always be a waste of energy. And true wisdom will fall on deaf ears.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:09 pmAMEN !!!
August 24th, 2006 at 2:09 pm36 tripmaster monkey
thanks, that set me straight. i almost thought i had a point. glad to know one of the twelve of you could swoop in and save the day by slinging bananas and feces at a differing opinion. but play on playa thanks for the discrourse.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:11 pmLook what Rove is Saying about the Decision
“Imagine if we could have done that before 9/11. It might have been a different outcome,” he said.
Well guess what TurdBlossom, we COULD do this before 9/11 and you and Bushy blew it!!! Wake up America!
August 24th, 2006 at 2:12 pmWrite your congress people E Voting is a crime against the American people in its present form !
August 24th, 2006 at 2:15 pmDon’t wait till Nov.,vote at the gas pump now ,Boycott Exxon , the bigget corporate profit taker in history .Send the upper crust an unmistakable message !
CLEAN UP YOUR ACTS OR YOUR NEXT !
Don’t bother keeping up with the Jonesers !
August 24th, 2006 at 2:24 pmIf after all thats happened here in the last 6 years he can bother defending an administration which the suprene court has said has acted outside the law and who the American Bar Association has said represents a serious threat to our democracy then he is beyond hope and not worth debating .
I haven’t bothered reading MA’s posts for weeks and I don’t believe I’ve missed anything at all .
The myth of the unified executive is over and the president is now recognized as officially a criminal for ignoring our laws ! It only remains to put the snakes in the bag without being bit ,which will be tricky .
Isn’t anyone writing about the flagrant conflict of interest shown by Scalia, Thomas, and Alito? Or for the appellate court justices appointed by Bush?
August 24th, 2006 at 2:32 pmTrue to form, FEAR and SMEAR.
If the Government felt the judge had a conflict of interest, the Government attorneys could have asked for a different judge.
Mighty Aphrodite, #38 – as a lawyer you should know better than to make such a claim.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:37 pmI don’t understand the persistent ignorance of the public about the ACLU.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:37 pmThe ACLU aggravates conservatives because it usually points out the unfairness of their thinking.
I don’t like that the ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh, or that they defend the rights of the Nazi party, but that is the mission of the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union; it is to defend the freedoms for all Americans as demanded by the Constitution. It has been vilified by the loud-mouthed conservative bigots in the media; it has been sneered at by the ignoramuses who have never taken the time to investigate what it really stands for – when the fact is that it stands for you and me, as well as “them” (whomever you think of as “them.”)
Flagrant violations smeared in legalese are all this administration has to offer .Their offences are so numerous that their house of cards has already fallen and they are terrified because if they don’t manage to rig the elections they are doomed ! The fact that E voting can proceed when so many computer science experts have said that it’s not secure is disgusting and treasonous .
August 24th, 2006 at 2:44 pmBut hey when you can over see the killing of 100’s of 1000’s whats the rigging of a few elections ?
Voting fraud or a massive attack on the US ( followed by martial law ? )are about the only cards these people have left to play.The world is a much morre dangerous place than it was pre Bush .Even if we clean house we will have to deal with the ramifications of this presidency for years to come .
contol of congress and there by of our gov’t, is not secure ,because of E voting ! That is treasonous and the final act of a criminal administration, bent on tyranny ! The democrats and the MSM have been virtually entirely complicit . Time to take our country back before we end up in the 3rd world war or MAJOR civil unrest domestically .
August 24th, 2006 at 2:53 pmWrite your representitives and get out the vote .Make an example of Exxon FAST or you may cease to have the luxury of blogging from your arm chairs !The administration must be held accountable or the dream of democracy is over !
#40 – “Okay, MA, I’ll bite. What ethical rule required Judge Diggs-Taylor to recuse herself in this situation?” Comment by Dave von Ebers
******Dave, you’re an attorney – why don’t you explain to the uninformed JUST when a judge should recuse him/herself. And if you do bite, Dave, try to miss your own a$$….
August 24th, 2006 at 3:03 pmDave, you’re an attorney – why don’t you explain to the uninformed JUST when a judge should recuse him/herself.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 24, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
Well, Mighty Aphrodite, you have stated many times how good an attorney you are. And being it your claim that Judge Diggs Taylor should have recused herself, it is upon you to explain why she should.
The burden is on you, don’t try to pass the buck.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:20 pmMighty A, #41, kindness never represented him/herself to be a lawyer, but you have.
And since you have, and you brought up the judge recusing herself, it is incumbent upon you to prove your assertion, and state the Rule of Court that supports your argument.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:22 pm#61 –
:-)
seems we posted the same thing at the same time!
August 24th, 2006 at 3:24 pm#57- Dear Marie – I understand your ideological love for the ACLU – what’s NOT to love – IF you’re a prog? Founded by Communists, continued by secular humanists, they despise the free exercise of religion. (I don’t want religion shoved down anyones throat, but I am NOT offended when people practice their religion. It’s NONE of my business…) They stupidly take on cases of people they hate to demonstrate how FAIR they are in their “application and understanding” of Constitutional Law.
Your assignment is a complete essay on Roger Baldwin,Crystal Eastman and Albert De Silver. (I have a feeling you’ll identify with Crystal Eastman’s “take on things”.)
August 24th, 2006 at 3:25 pmFounded by Communists, continued by secular humanists, they despise the free exercise of religion.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 24, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
Being a communist is not illegal and whoever wants to follow that ideology is well within their rights. That you use the expression “secular humanist” to disparage anyone is bizarre.
As for the free exercise of religion, I find it interesting that you, as an attorney, don’t know about the ACLU’s involvement in cases defending the Jehova’s Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, and some Christian groups precisely to protect their right to follow their religion.
Your assignment is a complete essay on Roger Baldwin,Crystal Eastman and Albert De Silver.
And your asignment is a complete essay on the reasons why Judge Diggs Taylor should have recused herself. I won’t hold my breath, though…
August 24th, 2006 at 3:44 pmFirst of all, MA, you are the one who asserted that Judge Diggs-Taylor should have recused herself. It is less than surprising to see you were not able to come up with a single legal citation to support your position. Instead, in typical Republican fashion (typified, that is, by the inability to take any responsibility for your actions or to find legal authority for your positions), you try to shift the burden back to me.
I presume you are just as able to read the Code of Judicial Conduct as I am. You will find the full text here: http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch1.html.
I doubt, however, that you’ll take the time to do so, so I’ll do your work for you.
Canon 3(C), which provides the basic standard for disqualification on account of a conflict of interest, provides:
“C. Disqualification.
“(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
“(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
“(b) the judge served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness;
“(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
“(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person:
“(i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
“(ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
“(iii) is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or
“(iv) is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
“(e) the judge has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”
None of these rules would appear to apply.
Canon 4 provides that judges may engage in extra-judicial activities to further or improve the law:
“A judge, subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, may engage in the following law-related activities, if in doing so the judge does not cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before the judge:
“A. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.
“B. A judge may appear at a public hearing before, or otherwise consult with, an executive or legislative body or official on matters concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice to the extent that it would generally be perceived that a judge’s judicial experience provides special expertise in the area. A judge acting pro se may also appear before or consult with such officials or bodies in a matter involving the judge or the judge’s interest.
“C. A judge may serve as a member, officer, or director of an organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. A judge may assist such an organization in planning fund-raising activities and may participate in the management and investment of funds, but should not personally participate in public fund-raising activities. A judge may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting agencies on projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. A judge may solicit funds from other judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority. A judge shall not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.
“D. A judge should not use to any substantial degree judicial chambers, resources, or staff to engage in activities permitted by this Canon.”
Again, I see no violations here.
Moving on. Canon 5 provides, in part:
“B. Civic and Charitable Activities. A judge may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon the judge’s impartiality or interfere with the performance of judicial duties. A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization not conducted for the economic or political advantage of its members, subject to the following limitations:
“(1) A judge should not serve if it is likely that the organization will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or will be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.
“(2) A judge should not solicit funds for any educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of the judicial office for that purpose, but the judge may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee of such an organization. A judge should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.
“(3) A judge should not give investment advice to such an organization, but may serve on its board of directors or trustees even though it has the responsibility for approving investment decisions.”
So, now that I’ve done all the work (there’s a surprise), how about it, MA? What Canon do you believe Judge Diggs-Taylor violated, and why? And, by the way … try to be specific, please?
August 24th, 2006 at 3:46 pmBy the way, I didn’t bite my ass, MA. Thanks for your concern.
And, if you’ve read James Joyce at all, you should get this: KMRIA.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:49 pmDave von Ebers,
That was some fine work, but I am afraid it was a waste of time. Not to mention that, as you say, it was 100% her responsibility to come up with the facts.
You see, in all the time I have been posting comments in this board, never once has MA come up with well-reasoned explanation to anything from a legal perspective -even when the topic was a legal one. This is why several of us think she is not a lawyer, and that she only claims to be one. Like George Costanza who always wanted to pretend he was an architect, Mighty Aphrodite always wanted to pretend she is a lawyer.
Mighty Aphrodite: ThinkProgress’ own George Costanza.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:57 pmBraid Fair – You’ve represented yourself to be a law school graduate – “with high honors”….and that is evidence of????? Hint: Rules of Ethics…..
August 24th, 2006 at 4:01 pmGregor – Thanks for the heads-up. And, thanks for referencing both Seinfeld and Kafka at the same time!
My favorite George Costanza line comes from the episode where he is pretending to be a marine biologist, until a group of people on the beach ask him to save a beached whale. Relating the story to the usual suspects at the diner, he begins: “The sea was angry that day, my friends, like an old man trying to send back soup at a deli.”
Oh, well, I’ve got plenty of time to do MA’s research for her … Not!
August 24th, 2006 at 4:05 pmOkay, MA – take a look at No. 67. There’s no where to hide now. Give us, oh brilliant one, your in-depth legal analysis.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:07 pm“I presume you are just as able to read the Code of Judicial Conduct as I am. You will find the full text here: http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch1.html.
I doubt, however, that you’ll take the time to do so, so I’ll do your work for you.”
Dave, Esq
Dear Dave, Esq, You Insufferable Prig/Prog – I suppose you were the same kind of weasel who did other students’ briefs – for a fee…
“(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding….” Yep, that just about covers the basis of my argument….
Busy afternoon…..
August 24th, 2006 at 4:19 pmP.S. Dear Dave Esq. – I’m not a huge oyce fan – I’m not into chic stream of consciousness “authors”. PSS. I HATED HOWL by Ginsburg – I’m sure you LOVED it ….
August 24th, 2006 at 4:21 pmGee, MA, your insults really hurt! (As an aside, I now know for certain you are not a lawyer. Or, at least, you’re not a litigator. With those meager verbal “skills” you’d be eaten alive in a court room. And, if you were a lawyer you’d know that your brothers and sisters at the bar have skin that is far too thick to be impressed by your juvenile little missives.)
So, now that you’ve learned how to cut and paste, why don’t you provide some real, honest-to-goodness legal analysis? How do you know the judge was biased or prejudiced, or had personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding? You know, some actual facts to support your position? How about I give you a week. By then, you’ll have listened to enough Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Rielly to piece together a lame-ass argument, right?
Oh, and please, please, spare me from your Mighty Righteous Sarcasm!! I’m afraid I’ll faint next time!
August 24th, 2006 at 4:28 pmI remember when Judicial Watch was a government watchdog group…Now Judicial Watch is into Swift Boating judges that rule against the government…
Comment by OxyCon — August 24, 2006 @ 11:25 am
CREW: citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington
August 24th, 2006 at 5:01 pmhas come along just in time… they’ve been very busy, and getting good cred…
http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php
Dave von Ebers,
Welcome! I’m glad to read your posts. I agree with Gregor regarding Mighty A. I notice it didn’t take you long to accurately assess her legal analytical and writing skills! But Mighty A almost got it right on one thing, I did graduate from an ABA law school this spring “with distinction” (as opposed to her “with high honors” phrase above) I’m waiting on the results of the California Bar right now.
What state do you hail from?
August 24th, 2006 at 5:04 pmDear DaveESQ – Didn’t you practice criminal defense before you went over to commercial litigation???
“(As an aside, I now know for certain you are not a lawyer. Or, at least, you’re not a litigator. With those meager verbal “skills†you’d be eaten alive in a court room. )
******I guess I’ve just been lucky…..I have found that DA’s who come in the court room and act like they’re “just a little superior to everyone else”….usually aren’t.
“And, if you were a lawyer you’d know that your brothers and sisters at the bar have skin that is far too thick to be impressed by your juvenile little missives.” -DaveESQ.
****** Would that it WERE so….Unfortunately, it has been my experience that attorneys who aren’t sitting around hoisting one, can become offended ON CUE…it is too precious to watch…. Since the majority of people who visit TP aren’t lawyers, my “missives” are directed to Joe and Jenny Americana.
“….lame-ass argument”?? DaveESQ
August 24th, 2006 at 5:22 pm*******The only “colleague” I know who came close to using a similar expression in chambers went to Matchbook U…..I guess you didn’t make Law Review or attend an Ivy League school….
#84 – “… since the Right Wing NeoCons are a bunch of greedy, child molsesting, lying, thieving, murderous criminals, anyone they oppose must be upstanding and of good moral character.” – Comment by Bookend Dano
****Dear Mr. Bookend – You must be an alumnus of the DaveESQ School of Law. Your logical, concise argument sounds as though you may have graduated “with distinction”. You certainly add a great deal to the discourse……welcome to Think Progress….
August 24th, 2006 at 7:04 pmUm, so, Mighty A, you’re not gonna answer my last question, are you?
Nope, didn’t think so.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:57 pmThat sound you just heard? MA getting owned by Dave. Thud!
August 24th, 2006 at 9:00 pmBriseadh na Faire, I’m an Illinoisan myself.
As MightyA astutely observed, I did not go to an Ivy League law school … Just the University of Illinois. Sorry to disappoint you, Mighty A.
Anyway, Briseadh na Faire, good luck with the bar results … and best of luck in the practice!
August 24th, 2006 at 9:01 pmDave Von Ebers,
Mighty Aphrodite was also advocating -several days ago- separate check-in lines for Muslims at international airports.
I am still waiting for her to explain under what laws doing so is legal, and constitutional. Or what laws need to be changed if it is not.
Oh, and that episode with the beached whale… pure genius…
August 24th, 2006 at 9:03 pmErnesto, I would, but according to MA I’m an “insufferable prig” … so I really can’t help myself.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:26 pmAugust 24th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Judicial Watch; a more truthfull name would be “Judicial Pocket Watch” a partison damage control group.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:36 pmThe MEDIA should be reporting the facts, but instead are told to smear. Here’s the real story …
The bush administration is breaking the law by not getting a warrant before they spy on people. I, along with every american think we should wiretap suspected terrorist conversations. All they have to do is ask for a WARRANT. Very simple. But they are not. So what does that tell you? What are they hiding? Who are they spying on? You? Me? Political opponents?
We expect our elected officials to obey the rule of law. They are currently breaking the law by not getting a warrant to wiretap. Who will hold them accountable? Why do they refuse to get a warrant?
August 24th, 2006 at 9:36 pm#91 – Thanks.
#93 – “she is just a pretty dumb domestic lawyer” I think you give MA too much credit.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:44 pmSure Chenney isn’t listening in on you …Ha Ha Ha. This public is so stupid to believe this program isn’t illegal. Wake up America, the pres is above the law and there is nothing you can do about it. He who makes the laws can break the laws. Really do you think one judge can stop a whole crimal organization. She’ll crack from just the media pressure. I applaud he for standing up and try to let americans know what is going on is Illegal.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:11 pmErnesto- the Mighty Moron pretty? EEEEEWWWW! Probably looks like Godzilla. Definitely not too bright either, here’s the proof in the pudding.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
bill o’rielly on judge anna diggs taylor-
“Does she want dead people on the streets here in america, because im sure that she would not only oppose the nsa program, she would oppose ‘coercive interrogation’ (torture), profiling at the airport (federally supported racism), she would oppose every anti-terror measure that the bush administration has put in just because it is the bush administration.”
Do you see something wrong here? Why is she being vilified for opposing unwarranted wiretapping, torture, and racism. Ok forget wiretapping thats subject to debate depending on who you talk to, but torture and racism? Shouldn’t she oppose those things regardless of the administration that enabled it to happen?
August 24th, 2006 at 10:37 pm“(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
“(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person:
“(i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
Close enough, I think…
Point is, what’s more important: making the ruling, or avoiding any semblance of a conflict of interest?
August 24th, 2006 at 11:13 pmI’ve come to expect that kind of dishonesty from Judicial Watch, but it really ticks me off when law professors like Ann Althouse join them in piling on in their ideological crusade defending the divine right of kings to spy on their subjects..
Althouse’s hypocrisy is especially egregious this time. I know it’s easy to poke fun at her — like shooting fish in a barrel — but I can’t help contrasting her words in a NYT Op-Ed last November with her Op-Ed this week, when she lambasts Judge Taylor for, among her other sins, “carelessly” referring to Earl Warren as “Justice Warren,” rather than “Chief Justice Warren.”
WTF? Not only is her analysis idiotic, but Althouse was just as “careless” in November’s Op-Ed, when she wrote about “Justice Burger,” rather than “Chief Justice Burger.”
But for Althouse, any old ad hominem attack will do — she doesn’t have to be consistent.
August 25th, 2006 at 12:07 amrw – close enough for what? a smear campaign? Because that’s all the Republican party has left. Fear and Smear. Forget the message, smear the messenger. Forget truth. Forget the Government had its day in court to make its case. Trump up some way, any way, to smear the judge. Can anyone document anytime where this administration and/or its supporters has NOT smeared an opponent?
August 25th, 2006 at 12:46 amIf her association with one of the plaintiffs was such an issue, why wasn’t it raised when she was assigned to hear the case. I’m not aware of any protest prior to her ruling against the administration, perhaps I’ve missed something.
August 25th, 2006 at 12:52 amBecause if the ruling went the other way, she could have been the brother to the prosecutor and it would have been alright.
August 25th, 2006 at 3:48 amEstaban- I guess it’s true,there is NO accounting for taste.
August 25th, 2006 at 7:16 amThis country is going down very quick and unfortantely I’m afraid that is the only way we as people are going to change.America has lost its sense of rationality. common sense,and reason.All in the name of FEAR.Hitler used this tactic also,where did it get him and his people.I never realized how stupid we Americans really are and it is very scary.You can’t give me that patriotic b/s cause I am a U.S. war veteran.I really pray and wish one day the Sheeple wake up and realize there is a bigger plan to all this.It’s called the New World Order.”They” want total control over your lives and we are giving it to them without any THOUGHT.We have lost our way and that is going to be our downfall in due time if we don’t change. This judge is following the U.S.Constitution,Bill of Rights, but I guess Americans don’t really give a damn about these things as I have come to see.We are too worried about American Idol,Brittany Spears,having that lexus,e.t.c. Just remember every empire falls and it’s going to happen faster than you think.This country is going down fast and we have no one to blame but ourselves.Good Luck
August 25th, 2006 at 9:32 amSo, when the Repubs were trying to push Alito through to the Supreme Court, all we heard was that we needed to look past his previous decisions and personal beliefs because when he ruled he was always impartial.
Now, we have a decision the Repubs don’t like, and all of that is thrown out the window.
How does this work? How are these people able to get away with just MAKING STUFF UP?
August 25th, 2006 at 11:21 am#92 – “Mighty Aphrodite was also advocating -several days ago- separate check-in lines for Muslims at international airports.” Comment by Gregor Samsa
*******Dear Grgrrrrrr, Unfortunate people suffering from diminished capacity deserve our patience – otherwise, I would be forced to point out what a LIAR you are – and that would be unfair to the rest of those with such limited retention abilities.
I did NOT advocate separate check in lines for Muslims. On 22 Aug. ‘06 I posted:
“Previously I suggested “search-free flightsâ€. ANYONE (White, Arab, Black, Asian, etc.) can opt to board “search-free flightsâ€. Law-abiding Muslims who object to capricious searches, progressives who wish to identify with the downtrodden, and terrorists who wish to carry out a militant form of jihad, can fly unfettered. Any of you who wish to travel with those who have subjected themselves and their baggage to searches, please be patient while we screen you and your fellow passengers. For the rest of you, Good LUCK and Bon Voyage…..”
Of course, I ACCEPT your heartfelt and SINCERE apology for mischaracterizing my statement…..Not all of us round the learning curve…..
August 25th, 2006 at 1:32 pmFirst all of this doesn’t matter, the biggest terrorist in the world comes from this administration ,period. I will not go into detail for I see most of the sheeple here are reacting on emotion. Look at the history of these United States and what they ahve done around the world and to it’s citiizens, WTC, Oklahoma, Waco, Tuskegee, Anthrax, and the list goes on. Stop talking about nothing and start r4eading so we can get this WORLD together. No terrorist was involved in 9-11 that wasn’t supposed to be involved, the administartaion knew.
Look into the history of the Bushes. One last thing they did nothing to stop a terrorist attack so-called over the Atlantic. The bombs the so- called terrorist were to make could ever be made in a bathroom. Bush and Blair know that so they are just blatanly lying. Read sheeple and get off your asses.
August 25th, 2006 at 2:19 pmJeez, sorry I logged off early last night. (No off-color jokes, please.)
To rw (no. 104), she was not involved as a member or a trustee of a party to the litigation. You should read the original article before posting. She was on the board (one of 50 board members, mind you), of an entirely different, unaffiliated organization, the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan, that, on ONE occasion, gave a tiny percentage of its annual donations to the Michigan chapter of the ACLU (which was, indeed, on the the plaintiffs in this case), for purposes entirely unrelated to the subject matter of the case.
I’ve been a lawyer for more years than I can remember, but I’ve got to tell you – if this is your argument, it doesn’t pass what I call the “blush” test.
Nor is there any “appearance of impropriety” here, at least without any proof that she was aware of the prior grant to the Michigan ACLU, was involved in the decision to make that grant (which accounted for less than 1% of her foundation’s donations that year), or any other OBJECTIVE FACTUAL EVIDENCE that her involvement in that foundation resulted in any bias whatsoever.
By the way, I’m still waiting for your friend Mighty A to respond to my questions from last night …
August 25th, 2006 at 2:25 pm#I118 – “I’ve been a lawyer for more years than I can remember, but I’ve got to tell you – if this is your argument, it doesn’t pass what I call the “blush†test.”
Comment by DaveESQ
******Good day, DaveESQ, “The blush trest”??? That sounds a bit like pornography – you’ll recognize it when you see it…
I posted my response to you – if you did not agree with my argument or if my post was dropped by an administrator, I don’t know – nor do I care… As I mentioned before, visiting this post-modern prog site is a charitable form of community service – compassionate and thoughtful conservatives WORRY that your eyes will begin to glaze over with the constant diet of, “WE HATE GEO. BUSH…. and his evil minions…” so we endeavor to break the painful monotony….
P.S. Mercifully, your contention about being “eaten alive in the courtroom” generally demonstrates a lack of trial experience. (I’m not saying you’re not the greatest patent attorney or nuisance letter writer in history.) Great litigators know their case, their opponents case and the IMPORTANCE of relating to a jury. (And the funny thing, juries HATE lawyers who are condescending a$$h*les – they seem to like people most like themselves…we call it “mirroring the jury”.) Hope this tip conmes in handy. I’m due in a conference at 1:30…..
August 25th, 2006 at 3:52 pmGee, MA, I must’ve really hurt your poor widdle feewings …
August 25th, 2006 at 5:39 pmOh, and by the way, for those of you scoring at home … MA still didn’t answer any of my questions. Sigh.
August 25th, 2006 at 5:41 pm122 – Her idea of an answer is to deride you and call you names.
Then there’s, “. I’m due in a conference at 1:30…..” [choose one]
1. All my Children;
August 25th, 2006 at 5:51 pm2. Bold and the Beautiful; or,
3. Days of our Lives
(http://online.tvguide.com/listings/flatgrid.aspx)
The best part of MA’s post (#121) is the administrator-ate-my-homework excuse. That’s excellent! I’ll have to use that one.
August 25th, 2006 at 6:07 pmIllegal wire tapping?
August 25th, 2006 at 9:50 pmNo matter what your political affiliation, this country was founded on the principal of freedom.
Millions of brave men and woman have fought and died so that you and I could enjoy the freedom to bare arms, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to privacy and so on. Doesn’t anyone care about this anymore? Have we forgotten why these people gave their lives?
I DIDN’T forget! I am NOT going to let the terrorists win by giving up my right to privacy, something someone DIED for.
I thought freedom was important, especially to Republicans. Isn’t that supposedly the very reason wer’re spending billions of taxpayer dollars in Iraq, freedom for Iraqis? Their country has been torn to shreds, over 100,000 dead in the name of freedom.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:54 pmWhy are some so willing to give up our freedom when we have Americans dying daily in a war over someone else’s freedom?
http://murderversesassassination.blogspot.com
I did NOT advocate separate check in lines for Muslims.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 25, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
Oh, that’s right -you only defended racial profiling and the singling out of swarthy males for searches. Like in this comment:
I believe thorough searches and fact-checking of younger Arab/Persian/olive passengers would lessen the likelihood of more air tragedies. Is it foolproof – NO, but evidence demonstrates, saf-ER. I don’t expect it to be MORE cost effective OR convenient – ONLY a “progressive†would mention “cost and convenience†at a time like this…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 16, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
Or in this comment:
How many plots would have been foiled without some type of profiling??? I agree that Muslims come in a variety of appearances – so do Catholics and Baptists. So what! Currently, the Arab appearing Muslim seems to be hatching the plots and,[...] when the Black Muslims, Indo-Muslims, etc. start jumping onboard the United’s “Jihad Express†we can adjust our strategy.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 16, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
Of course, you do have my sincere and heartfelt apology for misrepresenting your statements. You didn’t mean separate lines, only singling out for searches based on skin color and ethnic likeness -aka racial profiling.
Now I know you meant they should be searched while in the same general line, no need to separate them from the general public.
August 26th, 2006 at 1:19 amAs far as I am concerned any of the so called Conservatives on here like Jonser that don’t believe in upholding the Constitution and turn their backs on the law breakers are nothing short of treasonous to this country. They don’t give a shit about our laws. They will protect Bush at any cost including destroying all our rights to to save their face for voting for a completely evil group. The Duct tape bridage of Republicans that fall for this crap need to find themsleves a new country. Maybe China will suit them well. They will take your rights and protect you from the Boogie mem from the north. They even have a brick wall to keep the cowards safe. BOOOOOOO. Now go hid you spineless un-American traitors.
August 26th, 2006 at 8:47 pmI think every judge in America should be a member of the A.C.L.U. They should be protecting the rights of our citizens and not political parties or corporations,
August 27th, 2006 at 12:00 pmMost gifts to community foundations today are made through “donor advised funds”, where the donor, after making the contribution, directs the foundation to make distributions to specific charities from the donor’s fund. I would be interested to know if the contributions to the ACLU were from donor advised funds, directed by the donors, rather than by the Board of the Foundation on which the Judge sits.
September 4th, 2006 at 10:41 amI really enjoyed reading comments posted on this board. It’s fairly obvious that you all either lack a higher education or are just completely incapable of rational thought. It’s pretty damn hilarious to read what people who don’t understand how the federal courts function commenting on the rulings. Please read something on the American legal system written by an author who’s actually practiced law. Get George Soros balls out of your mouth and try thinking for yourself.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:51 pmmeridia overnight buy meridia overnight order meridia overnight cheap meridia overnight meridia overnight online
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:52 am