Judge Taylor and the ACLU

[kentuck]

It has been pointed out that Judge Taylor was a trustee for a foundation that had given grants to the ACLU. The grants were not related to the case before her but it will probably cause her decision to be thrown out anyway. Since she is reportedly a member of the ACLU, she will be charged as having a conflict of interest in the case brought by the ACLU. Should that disqualify her and is that the end of the case??
====================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/opinion/24thu4.html

<snip>
When Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was given the job of deciding whether the Bush administration’s wiretapping program was unconstitutional, she certainly understood that she would be ruling on one of the most politically charged cases in recent history. So it would have been prudent for her to disclose any activity that might conceivably raise questions about her ability to be impartial. Regrettably, it was left to a conservative group, Judicial Watch, to point out her role as a trustee to a foundation that had given grants to a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, a plaintiff in the case.

The foundation in question — the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan — is a large charity that gives out grants to a broad range of organizations engaged in community activity, including some regularly involved in litigation. The $125,000 in grant money directed to the state A.C.L.U. office over several years was for educational programs concerning issues unrelated to the wiretapping case, like racial profiling. While the judge clearly erred in not disclosing this involvement, it wouldn’t seem, based on the known facts, to rise to the level of a conflict of interest reasonably requiring that she recuse herself from hearing the case under existing ethics rules.

[izzybeans]

1. Then it will require disqualifying many judges for taking part

in their communities alongside potential litigants. Unfortunately I'm gonna have to go with Alito on this one because that is what he basically said when defending himself for failing to recuse; except he was presiding over a case where he stood to lose money. But that's supreme court worthy...

[WilliamPitt]

2. I have to agree

with this line:

"When Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was given the job of deciding whether the Bush administration’s wiretapping program was unconstitutional, she certainly understood that she would be ruling on one of the most politically charged cases in recent history. So it would have been prudent for her to disclose any activity that might conceivably raise questions about her ability to be impartial."

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. So being educated about constitutional issues...

therefore makes her ineligible to rule on constitutional issues? Being part of a non-profit organization that works to protect the Constitution disqualifies her from making any ruling that might end up protecting the Constitution?

:crazy:

[kentuck]

5. But the ACLU is the plaintiff in the case...

that is the conflict of interest.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Ah, I missed that. Yes, that raises questions. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

7. Come on

You have to see the difference here. This isn't being educated on the issues. She's involved with one of the groups that brought the case. However peripheral her involvement, it matters.

I don't fault her for her involvement, but if there is even a dot's worth of conflict of interest, she should have recused herself. Cases like this are way too important.

[electropop]

3. The decision is sound and even if appealed,

another court will have trouble legitimately finding for the "President" in this case. The unwarranted wiretaps violate both explicit statute and the Constitution. This simple fact is true, regardless of your personal feelings about the judge, her affiliations, or her prose.

[WilliamPitt]

8. That's the problem

The appeal won't look at the White House argument, but will only look at the soundness of the decision. If it is deemed unsound, especially due to the conflict of interest here, it'll be tossed. Appeals courts don't re-try the cases; they analyze the decisions.

[kentuck]

10. So, is that the end of this case?

Can they not appeal the decision or would someone else need to get a brand new decision from a brand new judge? A very tough decision.

[WilliamPitt]

14. It isn't the end

but two problems present themselves.

1. A broad spectrum of legal scholars from both sides of the political spectrum consider Taylor's legal basis for her decision to be dubious. Even those who agree with the decision find her reasoning not well-founded in the law;

2. The ACLU conflict may be enough to torpedo the thing. Most successful appeals are based upon mistakes made by the judge, either in their legal reasoning or in their personal baggage brought to the decision. The conflict here with the ACLU may be enough to sink this decision before it ever reaches the SCOTUS.

[electropop]

12. Appeals courts often send a case back for a new trial.

When you say they look at the soundness of the decision, that is a point in our favor. The decision is sound, regardless of the judge's affiliations. If they have a problem with the affiliations, they can send it to another judge, but that alone does not overturn the case.

[wtmusic]

9. Conflict of interest

But can it be retried? :shrug:

[walldude]

11. No once it's over they can't start screaming about it, that's what

appeals courts are for. This will go to appeals and a panel of judges will decide whether to uphold the law or not. If they uphold it Bush is sunk. What I love is it's not a conflict of interest for Bush to appoint his personal lawyer as Attorney General but it is for this judge to be a trustee to the non partisan group the ACLU who brought about the suit, and they are non partisan regardless of what the Neos claim.

[electropop]

13. Conflict of interest?

The conflict is between the interests of the American people, and a group which supports... the interests of the American people. Where's the conflict?

[WilliamPitt]

15. *groan*

A jusge cannot be making decisions in a case where one of the parties is affiliated, no matter how loosely, with the judge. The group and its aims don't matter. This is boilerplate.

[sinkingfeeling]

16. Will, I understand what you're saying and for the most part, agree, but

then how can any judge rule in a 'religious rights' case , i.e., display of ten commandments on public property, if he/she is a believer? How about Scalia ruling on the Cheney energy task force papers? Why let any judge rule on the ability of a state to do something if the judge is a resident of said state?

Aren't there degrees of connection and affiliation to be considered?

[kentuck]

17. Interesting question...

What constitutes a "conflict of interest"? If this case were about "freedom of religion" and the judge was a "Christian", would that be a conflict of interest? Although on the surface, it appears to be cut and dried, is it really?