NYT: Conflict of Interest Is Raised in N.S.A. Ruling

[DeepModem Mom]

Conflict of Interest Is Raised in N.S.A. Ruling
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: August 23, 2006

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 — The federal judge who ruled last week that President Bush’s eavesdropping program was unconstitutional is a trustee and an officer of a group that has given at least $125,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, a watchdog group said Tuesday.

The group, Judicial Watch, a conservative organization here that found the connection, said the link posed a possible conflict for the judge, Anna Taylor Diggs, and called for further investigation.

“The system relies on judges to exercise good judgment, and we need more information and more explanation about what the court’s involvement was in support of the A.C.L.U.,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which gained attention in the 1990’s for ethics accusations against President Bill Clinton.

Three legal ethicists interviewed said although Judge Taylor’s role as a trustee for a supporter of the civil liberties group would not necessarily disqualify her from hearing the case, she should have probably disclosed the connection in court to avoid any appearance of a conflict.

“It certainly would have been prudent” to notify the parties in the case, including the Justice Department, about the issue, said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University and an author of “Judicial Conduct and Ethics.”...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/washington/23judge.html?hp&ex=1156305600&en=655f19d78b0e7342&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[yourout]

1. Let the swift boating begin.

[Supersedeas]

32. Yep, here we go...odd no attack on Scalia/Alito for their conflicts...odd

[marmar]

2. Judicial Watch is a real collection of Nazis...

I think we need KlanWatch to keep an eye on them.

[Rose Siding]

3. Why do I get the feeling that Judicial Watch will be a little more

successful in this challenge than they were with Cheney's energy meetings?

[TheDebbieDee]

4. "She should have disclosed the connection

to avoid any appearance of a conflict."

Why? So she could be replaced with a judge that has donated to the RNC for the last 20 years and felt no need to disclose any such conflict of interest!

[BadgerKid]

9. Mmm...let's ask Frist about his HCA stock (n/t)

[WilliamPitt]

18. They don't play fair, so we don't play fair?

Is that what you're advocating?

How many judge's robes need to be soiled to save democracy? Give me a number.

[Drum]

5. Cue the collective g r o a n n/t

[Lindacooks]

6. So?

The ACLU was formed to defend the constitution; that's its purpose and goal. Any lawyer, or politician for that matter, who isn't a member of the ACLU is suspect in my eyes.

[Charlie Brown]

12. the article doesn't say if the judge is a member of the ACLU

just that she belongs to an organization that has donated to them. That's a pretty big stretch on conflict of interest grounds. I don't like the fact that John Roberts and others are member of the Federalist Society, but it's silly to say that they have a conflict of interest when taking a case involving anyone to whom that organization has donated.

More smoke and mirrors from the enemies of the Bill of Rights.

[stepnw1f]

26. Ahhhhh.... That is a BIG Difference

But still... a judge's job is to uphold the constitution of the US, therefore I don't see a "Conflict of Interest" in supporting a group that tries to do the same.

[Eric J in MN]

7. The group GAVE money to the ACLU; it didn't

RECEIVE money from the ACLU.

It's receiving money which creates a conflict, not giving it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

10. I Wonder How Much Money The Federalist Society Has Given

To reich-wing politicians and reich-wing causes. They can go fugg themselves.

[Julius Civitatus]

25. I wonder how much money has Judicial Watch received from

Reich wing organizations like The Federalist Society or the Heritage Foundation.

Remember, this is the same Judicial Watch was was knee-deep in the Lewinsky scandal, hunting down the Clinton administration on technicalities at every turn.

Judicial Watch are nothing but a bunch of legal hitmen for the GOP and conservative causes.

[stepnw1f]

27. Ding, ding, ding! (nt)

[mccoyn]

31. Its a smear campaign.

There is no conflict of interest if there is no possibility of profit.

[countmyvote4real]

8. Me thinks they doth protest too much.

I have not checked, but I have a hunch that "Judicial Watch" was all over the Roberts and Alito hearings in a positive sort of way. I wonder if they disclosed their "agenda" in every case that they endorsed the nominations of these two fascist rubber stamps. I think not.

If anything else is considered in this lame attempt to smear the Honorable Judge, it's that her "association" in whatever capacity with the ACLU only furthers the justification of her ruling. The ACLU has defended the Constitution and the BOR in favor of all extremes.

This attack is just BS.

[Eric J in MN]

11. If this is a conflict of interest, then judges who belong...

...to the rihgt-wing Federalist Society should be barred from hearing cases in which lawyers belong to the Federalist Society (neither is really a conflict of interest.)

[Purveyor]

13. Regardless, this ruling is headed for the Supreme Court and

it appears the anti-constitutionalists are attempting to slow that process down so they can continue their 'crimes'...

[Sherman A1]

20. But, of course

what else would they do?

[samsingh]

14. judicial watch may want to start with the conflict of interest,

and lies of the supreme court repugs.

i guess katherine harris selecting bush was never a conflict of interest to them?

[951-Riverside]

15. Don't forget the duck hunting trip Antonin Scalia took with Dick Cheney

[w4rma]

16. I've never heard anything like this about the Federalist Sociey from

big media and they RECIEVE money, rather than give it.

[WilliamPitt]

17. If it's true, she shouldn't have taken the case

There are other judges. Sorry, guys, but it's true, ESPECIALLY on a case like this. The ACLU brought the case, and she's given more than a hundred grand to the plaintiff.

'Strict scrutiny' is a legal phrase for a reason. She should have stepped aside.

[stepnw1f]

24. But Isn't a Judges Job

to uphold the Constitution, therefore likely to support groups such as the ACLU? Is it really a conflict of interest, because if so, we no longer have impartial judges anywhere in this country. This would be a really bad precedent for our judicial system.

[plcdude]

28. a careful reading

of the article states that she served on the board and "the fact that she sits on the board of a group that gives money to the plaintiff for an otherwise unrelated endeavor" does not necessarily indicate a conflict of interest. She did not personally give money.

[truthisfreedom]

19. *yawn*

100,000 dead civilians' blood on bush's hands.

[Demeter]

21. Straining At Gnats!

Well, if you can't argue the facts---slander the judge. I hope she sues their butts off.

[wicket]

22. kick

:kick:

[Uncle Joe]

23. If conflict of interest is so important, why didn't Scalia remove

his fat ass from Bush vs Gore as his son campaigned for Bush?

[Straight Shooter]

29. Why is NYT granting even a whiff of legitimacy to this organization?

The only thing I'm getting a whiff of is the smell of skunk.

[amb123]

30. K&R

I'm surprised it took the GOPigs this long to smear Judge Taylor.