Judge who nixed wiretaps accused of ties to ACLU

[kpete]

Judge who struck down wiretaps accused of conflict of interest

RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday August 22, 2006

A conservative watchdog group is accusing the judge who recently struck down the NSA wiretap program as unconstitutional of failing to recuse herself in spite of a conflict of interest, RAW STORY has learned.

In an injunction ordered an immediate halt to the program, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor sided with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) by barring warrantless NSA surveillance, which she found "violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."

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 re-elected 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 ACLU of Michigan--a plaintiff in the wiretapping case.

According to the CFSEM website, "The Foundation's trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis."

more at:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Judge_who_struck_down_wiretaps_accused_0822.html

[jsamuel]

1. attacking the messenger, RW all the way

[Phredicles]

2. I believe Scalia would say, "Quack, quack".

My point is that the bar for judicial conflicts of interest has been set pretty darn high in recent years.

[bowens43]

3. So?

[MrCoffee]

15. Perfect response.

[pk_du]

4. meanwhile, at the Supreme court - duckhunting with a defendant

is deemed no problem :puke:

[underpants]

7. and Frist votes on health care bills

A clash between the private interest and the official public responsibilities of a person in a position of trust or power.
www.aapa.org/manual/judicial/glossary.html

Is the donation a private interest?

[Marr]

5. That is probably the most pathetic attempt at finding a conflict of

interest that I've ever seen.

Cheney went on a weekend getaway with the judge deciding his case. THAT'S a conflict of interest, but apparently wasn't enough of one to warrant a recusal by Scalia. This 'six degrees of ACLU' crap is just sad.

My advice to this right wing watchdog group is to "get over it".

[havocmom]

6. And Mehlman (RNC Chair) sent this out:

Dear #####,

Yesterday, a Democrat-appointed judge in Detroit sided with the ACLU and ordered an immediate halt to the terrorist surveillance program. This decision is a reminder of what is at stake in 2006. Will we use every tool in our arsenal to respond to emerging threats, or embrace the Democrat-ACLU position that just made it harder for our intelligence agencies to detect terrorist plots inside the United States?

Watch our new Web video, which exposes the Democrats' weak record on national security.

And if you are outraged by this latest development, will you sign the petition against this decision weakening the tools we need to fight the War on Terror?

Democrats like to talk tough, but when it comes to fighting the War on Terror, the record speaks for itself:

* Republicans passed and have consistently supported the Patriot Act to disrupt terrorist plots. Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid bragged about "killing" the Patriot Act.
* Republicans strengthened and reformed America's intelligence agencies. Democrats want to surrender the tools needed to track and monitor suspected terrorists.
* Republicans have increased homeland security funding by 300% over the Clinton Administration, and increased funding for border control and border security by 66% over the Clinton Administration.
* And finally, Republicans are committed to confirming fair-minded judges who won't re-write the Constitution. Democrat-appointed judges are the driving force behind decisions that would weaken efforts to track down terrorists.

See the record for yourself and take action by signing the petition against this outrageous decision.

Sincerely,

Ken Mehlman
Chairman, Republican National Committee

So?
GOP gonna run on the Patriot Act? It violates the Bill of Rights and does nothing to fight REAL threats to the US. We are NOT safer with our Bill of Rights dismantled.

GOP gonna run on support of the CIA? Much of the CIA not happy with neocons. America not happy with the rest of the CIA.

GOP gonna run on blank checks to Homeland Security? America was watching as all that money disappeared and we got nada! FEMA was put under Homeland Security, remember? We saw how THAT turned out.

GOP wants judges more interested in career advancemen (kissing neocon junta ass) than in defending the US CONSTITUTION!

Those are some of their talking points, folks. And the way to beat them over the head with their own hubris.

[mrdmk]

17. I like how they call tearing up the Constitution, "Tools".

The public should feel like a bunch of TOOLS.

[Luna_Chick]

8. Wow, imagine, someone whose job is to uphold the law of the land

..having ties to a group who works to ensure our Constitutional rights are enforced? Oh, she's definitely scum, can't have judges like THAT, now, can we? Better we get some o'those fundie-lovin traitors funded by *Co to make sure our elected (at least they used to be) officials behave themselves. :mad: :rant:

[mrdmk]

9. So?

There are many justices both conservative and liberal who belong to the ACLU. When the ACLU took up GLBT issues it was labeled left wing by many who did not want equal rights for all.

Gee can I say that?

[malaise]

10. There is only one question to

be answered - is Bush fugging violating the constitution and breaking the law - the answer is yes.

[gratuitous]

11. Larry Klayman and our friends at Judicial Watch

This is a pretty far stretch, even for these characters.

[etherealtruth]

12. Sounds like a compliment to me ... n/t

[fasttense]

13. Oh horror of horrors, even if the ties to the ACLU were for real

so what???? The ACLU has been the cause of some good judicial decisions through out history. Get over it wackos.

[ComerPerro]

22. Considering the ACLU's commitment to the Bill of Rights

I would expect EVERY judge to be a member.

Its not like a judge deciding a school shooting case who is a NRA member.

There is no conflict of interest.


I wonder if the accusation is even true, as you say.

Seems that is how the right wing operates.

Create a divisive lie like this, so that people get so caught up in the rhetoric of whether there is a conflict or not that they don't even stop to see if the story is true.

[Initech]

14. Why does the right-wing hate the ACLU so much?

Especially after it saves their asses like it did the fat fuck on Clear Channel.

[unpossibles]

19. I've wondered that too

I think it's because they don't want equal rights for all, and even though the ACLU helps them as much as anyone, it's far easier for them to broadbrush the ACLU as yet another way to try to rile up their base. It's like the whole McCarthy thing - they know that the more ignorant of their base is homophobic and afraid of Communism and atheism, so they paint the ACLU as a bunch of "godless commie pinko fags" (pardon the expression - I didn't make it up) to give the more rabid dunderheads someone to hate.

[Initech]

20. That sounds about right.

The right-wing will do just about anything to rile up the most dim-witted of their base, so they smear all of the groups that do anything even slightly to help people out.

[Emit]

21. I think they have been conditioned

by the Rush's, Robertsons, Savages, et al. to think the ACLU is part of a huge conspiracy.


Here's a recent quote by a nut case Bush bot on another discussion board:

where religion is concerned...
I dont believe that the true goal of the ACLU is peaceful co-existence between religions...I think it's ultimate goal is the removal of God from society...one bite at a time...

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=61038&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=0

He started this thread yesterday, connecting the judge to the ACLU, and claiming about the ACLU's agenda that "COMMUNISM is the goal." If you listen to all the major right wing hacks, they all constantly attack the ACLU and make it out to be a Socialist or Communist, evil, secular, Godless agency with an agenda to destroy America. Recently, I heard Michael Savage (while flipping through channels on the car radio) say that the ACLU is more dangerous than the terrorists!


Savage says shit like that daily:

...right-wing radio host Michael Savage called the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "the most dangerous organization in the history of America" and advocated that "these big-mouthed, phony scum of the ACLU ... should be put into Abu Ghraib prison."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405240001

IMO, there has been a concerted effort for many years now for the right wing echo machine to chip away at the ACLU. Why do they hate our freedoms so much?

[magellan]

16. Gee, who didn't see THIS coming?

Repukes are so criminal it's predictable, and so predictable it's criminal.

[BuyingThyme]

18. Wow, a judge with ties to lawyers. What's the chance of that?

:rofl: