If This Is True
The Judge who rendered the very much talked about decision in the NSA case may well be in serious trouble. Judicial Watch is reporting what appears to be a conflict of interest of potentially biblical proportions. It would seem that judge Anna Diggs Taylor serves as Secretary and Trustee for a group that funds the local ACLU. Who happens to have been the plaintiff in the case she decided.
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.
According to the CFSEM website, “The Foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis.”
“This potential conflict of interest merits serious investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “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.”
(Judge Diggs Taylor is also the presiding judge in another case where she may have a conflict of interest. The Arab Community Center for Social and Economic Services (ACCESS) is a defendant in another case now before Judge Diggs Taylor’s court [Case No. 06-10968 (Mich. E.D.)]. In 2003, the CFSEM donated $180,000 to ACCESS.)
This could be a very bad thing indeed for the judge. This really crosses a line if the allegation is true. Her financial forms indicate that it is.
Other Links to this Post
-
The Political Pit Bull — August 22, 2006 @ 9:26 pm
-
Sister Toldjah — August 22, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
-
Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Judge Taylor Participated In $45,000 Donation To The ACLU — August 22, 2006 @ 11:33 pm
By Steve, August 22, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
Out of hand wrong…………………..
A federal judge rules against an intel program that we know has prevented terrorist attacks, and this judge if feeding cash to the ACLU who she rules in favor of and against us (all Americans)…………………………
Crazy wrong………………………..
By fletch, August 22, 2006 @ 10:21 pm
This really crosses a line if the allegation is true.
Unsightly? Yeah. Unethical? I really don’t think so…
Consider Ruth Bader Gainsburger’s connections to the ACLU– should she have recused herself from every ‘civil liberties’ case that came before the court?
The first “trackback” mentions Alito, (the “Vanguard” thing I assume- I didn’t actually ‘click thru’.) admittedly not the same thing by any stretch. But, I’m sure there are similar “serious” conflicts within the past histories of the current “right-wing” judges.
Should Scalia or Thomas face ‘recusal’ for ever having donated any money to the “Federalist Society”? How about a current donation? Would a restriction on their current donations be a ‘deprivation’ of their rights? Should employment and/or merely ‘advocacy’(definition?) be considered “different” than a ‘cash donation’?
These are all questions that I’m not sure if I’m comfortable w/ the answers the gov’t will provide.
I am still a fan of “(absolutely)minimal restrictions-(absolutely)full disclosure”– and let the chips fall where they will.
P.S.– I also still favor the “she’s just a partisan idiot” argument…
By fletch, August 22, 2006 @ 10:25 pm
After the sentence: “These are all questions that I’m not sure if I’m comfortable w/ the answers the gov’t will provide.”—
insert(”See McCain-Feingold”)—
By Gaius, August 22, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
Did she approve giving money to the ACLU in the current year? That is the problem, not past ties.
By fletch, August 26, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
gaius- Did she approve giving money to the ACLU in the current year? I'll repeat… Should Justice(s) Scalia or Thomas (or even possibly, hopefully Kennedy!) be allowed to make a current 'personal and private donation' to the Federalist Society?…or, would they then be forced to "recuse" themselves whenever the FS even files an "amicus curiae" in support of one side of some pending litigation? I think this is an important (and interesting) question— Do the "Supremes" — or any other 'judges'– have the same 1st Amendment(free association/political advocacy) rights as the rest of us peons? (And, who actually makes this decision?)
(Edit to close open tags)
By Gaius, August 26, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
It is not a personal contribution – do you not see the difference?