Judge finds NSA program unconstitutional

[ODShowtime]

Judge finds NSA program unconstitutional


By SARAH KARUSH, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 32 minutes ago


A federal judge on Thursday struck down President Bush's warrantless surveillance program, saying it violated the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit is the first judge to rule on the legality of the National Security Agency's program, which the White House says is a key tool for fighting terrorism that has already stopped attacks.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The administration said it would appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

"We're going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference in Washington.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling." He said the program carefully targets communications of suspected terrorists and "has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives."

Taylor ordered an immediate halt to the program, but the government said it would ask for a stay of that order pending appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the U.S. involving people the government suspects have terrorist links.

The ACLU says the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up a secret court to grant warrants for such surveillance, gave the government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists.

The government argued that the NSA program is well within the president's authority but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule. The adminstration has decried leaks that led to a New York Times report about the existence of the program last year.

Taylor, a Carter appointee, said the government appeared to argue that the program is beyond judicial scrutiny.

"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote. "The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another."

Administration officials said the program is essential to national security. The Justice Department said it "is lawful and protects civil liberties."

In Washington, Republicans expressed hope that the decision would be overturned, while many Democrats praised the ruling.

"It is disappointing that a judge would take it upon herself to disarm America during a time of war," Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the decision shows the executive branch needs more external reviews.

"The administration is wrongly convinced that it can run the country without Congress or oversight. This is their tragic failure, and the courts understand it," Rockefeller said.

ACLU executive director Anthony Romero called Taylor's opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."

"At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy," he told reporters.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Detroit immigration attorney Noel Saleh, said the NSA program had made it difficult to represent his clients, some of whom the government accuses of terrorist connections.

Saleh, a leader in Michigan's large Arab-American community, also said he believes many conversations between people in the community and relatives in Lebanon were monitored in recent weeks as people here sought news of their families amid the violence in the Middle East.

"People have the right to be concerned about their family, to check on the welfare of their family and not be spied on by the government," he said.

Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, is championing a compromise that would allow Bush to submit the surveillance program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a one-time test of its constitutionality. But under Thursday's ruling congressional approval would not be enough, said Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University School of Law.

Taylor suggests in her ruling that the program "would violate the Constitution even if Congress authorized it," Pildes said. "Until Congress actually addresses these questions, I would expect most appellate courts to be extremely reluctant to address many of the questions this judge was willing to weigh in on."

While siding with the ACLU on the surveillance issue, Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the group over NSA data-mining of phone records. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation would jeopardize state secrets.

The lawsuit alleged that the NSA "uses artificial intelligence aids to search for keywords and analyze patterns in millions of communications at any given time." Multiple lawsuits have been filed related to data-mining against phone companies, accusing them of improperly turning over records to the NSA.

The data-mining was only a small part of the Detroit suit, said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney on the case.

___

Associated Press writer Katherine Shrader in Washington contributed to this report


Before someone bitches and moans, remember that gw&friends could have submitted this stuff to a secrect congressional panel and everything would be good. Why the secrecy? Why the power grab? Why the incompetence? :confused:

[Steve Savicki]

Judge's ruling may provide grounds to impeach Bush:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_9365.shtml

f a judge's ruling that declares President George W. Bush's domestic spying program unconstitutional holds up under appeal, the President will be guilty of violating federal law at least 30 times and that could provide grounds for impeachment, says a leading Constitutional scholar.

President George W. Bush
Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University and a recognized expert on constitutional law, says the ruling Thursday by a federal judge in Detroit raises "serious implications for the Bush administration" and indicates that the President "could well have committed a federal crime at least 30 times."

"This ruling is a bad situation that just got worse for the White House," says Turley. "These crimes could constitute impeachable offenses."

Turley knows a thing or two about the impeachment process. He worked with Special Prosecutor Ken Starr on the investigation that led to impeachment proceedings against former President Bill Clinton.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, in a stinging indictment of Constitutional abuse by the Bush Administration over its use of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens by the National Security Agency, ruled the program violates the Administrative Procedures Act, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the First and Fourth amendments to the Constitution and ordered an immediate halt to the practice.

"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution," Taylor wrote in her lengthy opinion.

The White House went into immediate attack mode, claiming Taylor is an activist judge appointed by a Democratic president (Jimmy Carter) and vowing to appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

A Republican National Committee press release declared: Liberal judge backs Dem agenda to weaken national security.

Turley says such tactics are typical for the Bush White House.

"That's what's really distasteful," Turley said Thursday night on MNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann show. "This is not the first judge to rule against the administration. But every time a judge rules against the administration, they're either too Democratic or they're too tall or too short, or they're Pisces. I mean, it, you can, all this spin, this effort to personalize it is really doing a great injustice to our system. If you look at this opinion, it's a very thoughtful opinion. The problem is not the judge. The problem is a lack of authority. You know, when Gonzales says I've got something back in my safe, and if you could see it, you'd all agree with me, well, unless there's a federal statute in his safe, then it's not going to make a difference."

The judge's order to halt the program is stayed during the appeal process and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales vowed the domestic spying program will continue during those appeals, which could extend well beyond the end of Bush's final term in office.
<center>http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/uploads/081806bush.jpg</center>
Is that the look of a concerned man?

[Warham]

You know that the Supreme Court is going to overturn this ruling, right?

This 'judge', and I use the term loosely, was installed by Jimmy Carter, near the end of his horrid term in office.

[Nickdfresh]

[i]Judge finds NSA program unconstitutional


By SARAH KARUSH, Associated Press Writer[/url]

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling." He said the program carefully targets communications of suspected terrorists and "has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives."

LOL Which ones precisely? Doesn't he mean "suspected" Americans, or do they magically know which several hundred million e-mails, IMs, and phone messages they intercept are "terrorist" in nature? And if so, why to they need to troll with such a huge net?


The government argued that the NSA program is well within the president's authority but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

Funny, but the gov't never fails to reveal state secrets about terrorist plots when it's election time.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
You know that the Supreme Court is going to overturn this ruling, right?

Yeah, well the new Congress can legislate against it as well. And didn't you recently chastise the court for upholding corporate Eminent Domain? So, you hate them when they allow the gov't/corps. to take away land, but you hope they take away freedoms and privacy by encouraging free-range gov't intrusion?


This 'judge', and I use the term loosely, was installed by Jimmy Carter, near the end of his horrid term in office.

Oh! God no!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
You know that the Supreme Court is going to overturn this ruling, right?

This 'judge', and I use the term loosely, was installed by Jimmy Carter, near the end of his horrid term in office.




Loosely?

Really WarBOT?

By this reume, she seems pretty judicial to me.

What are YOUR law credentials, moron?



Taylor, Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs
Born 1932 in Washington, DC

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on May 17, 1979, to a new seat created by 92 Stat. 1629; Confirmed by the Senate on October 31, 1979, and received commission on November 2, 1979. Served as chief judge, 1996-1998. Assumed senior status on December 31, 1998.

Education:
Barnard College, B.A., 1954

Yale Law School, LL.B., 1957

Professional Career:
Attorney, Office of Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC, 1957-1960
Assistant Wayne County prosecutor, Michigan, 1961-1962
Assistant U.S. attorney, Detroit, Michigan, 1966
Legislative assistant / Detroit office manager, U.S. Rep. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., 1967-70
Private practice, Detroit, Michigan, 1970-1975
Adjunct professor, Wayne State University School of Labor and Industrial Relations, 1972-1975
Supervising assistant corporation counsel, City of Detroit, Law Department, 1975-1979
Adjunct professor, Wayne State University Law School, 1976-1977

Race or Ethnicity: African American

Gender: Female







Been on the bench 25 years, but Warpig uses the term "judge" loosely.


LMMFAO

Idiot
:rolleyes:

[Jesus Christ]

Good to see that one Judge in thy country still ruleth according to the Law.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
Good to see that one Judge in thy country still ruleth according to the Law.





I saw your sin, oh Lord before your edit. ;)


:eek:

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah, well the new Congress can legislate against it as well. And didn't you recently chastise the court for upholding corporate Eminent Domain? So, you hate them when they allow the gov't/corps. to take away land, but you hope they take away freedoms and privacy by encouraging free-range gov't intrusion?


Demonstrate where your rights or my rights have been impeded by the NSA and perhaps I'll agree with you.

In fact, I'd like to hear from ANYONE in the country who's supposedly had their rights stomped on.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Loosely?

Really WarBOT?

By this reume, she seems pretty judicial to me.

What are YOUR law credentials, moron?



Taylor, Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs
Born 1932 in Washington, DC

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on May 17, 1979, to a new seat created by 92 Stat. 1629; Confirmed by the Senate on October 31, 1979, and received commission on November 2, 1979. Served as chief judge, 1996-1998. Assumed senior status on December 31, 1998.

Education:
Barnard College, B.A., 1954

Yale Law School, LL.B., 1957

Professional Career:
Attorney, Office of Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC, 1957-1960
Assistant Wayne County prosecutor, Michigan, 1961-1962
Assistant U.S. attorney, Detroit, Michigan, 1966
Legislative assistant / Detroit office manager, U.S. Rep. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., 1967-70
Private practice, Detroit, Michigan, 1970-1975
Adjunct professor, Wayne State University School of Labor and Industrial Relations, 1972-1975
Supervising assistant corporation counsel, City of Detroit, Law Department, 1975-1979
Adjunct professor, Wayne State University Law School, 1976-1977

Race or Ethnicity: African American

Gender: Female







Been on the bench 25 years, but Warpig uses the term "judge" loosely.


LMMFAO

Idiot
:rolleyes:

Why the hatred, Lounge?

I knew your life was a mess, but why target your hostility at me?

:D

[Warham]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
Good to see that one Judge in thy country still ruleth according to the Law.

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet, Oh False One.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Why the hatred, Lounge?

I knew your life was a mess, but why target your hostility at me?

:D


a] You know why I hate you, so don't be coy.

b] Mess? Nice "mess" from where I'm sitting :D

How's work? ;)


[ good to see you and Nick back, it's been boring slapping around the lightweights ]

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Demonstrate where your rights or my rights have been impeded by the NSA and perhaps I'll agree with you.

Demonstrate where your rights have been infringed by the Eminent Domain?

You won't really know, because they won't exactly tell you, will they? Until it happens that is, and it's a slippery slope to autocratic secret police surveillance.


In fact, I'd like to hear from ANYONE in the country who's supposedly had their rights stomped on.

Who do you think filed the suit nitwit!?!

And some people (Randy Rhodes) have claimed that they've have personal monetary transactions held up under Patriot Act money-transfer regulations in their personal bank accounts causing them payroll problems with their businesses.

The only way CointelPro (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm) was revealed was through a burglary of an FBI office in the 1970s.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
a] You know why I hate you, so don't be coy.

b] Mess? Nice "mess" from where I'm sitting :D

How's work? ;)


[ good to see you and Nick back, it's been boring slapping around the lightweights ]

Work?

THIS is my work.

:D

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Demonstrate where your rights have been infringed by the Eminent Domain?

You won't really know, because they won't exactly tell you, will they? Until it happens that is, and it's a slippery slope to autocratic secret police surveillance.



Who do you think filed the suit nitwit!?!

And some people (Randy Rhodes) have claimed that they've have personal monetary transactions held up under Patriot Act money-transfer regulations in their personal bank accounts causing them payroll problems with their businesses.

The only way CointelPro (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm) was revealed was through a burglary of an FBI office in the 1970s.

Randy Rhodes??? :rolleyes:

How about pulling up a 'right-winger' who's rights have been violated. Or does the NSA just pick and choose lefties to monitor? And if so, why?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Work?

THIS is my work.

:D


Just as I always figured....:D


Unemployed Neo-Con.

Living off the Wife


LMMFAO

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Randy Rhodes??? :rolleyes:

How about pulling up a 'right-winger' who's rights have been violated. Or does the NSA just pick and choose lefties to monitor? And if so, why?

There were several conservative groups that were parties to the lawsuit.

And what was the mantra during the Clinton regime: "Black suited, kevlar wearing jack botted Federal thugs are coming to take your guns and bibles?"

[Warham]

I've never worried about my rights during the Clinton or Bush regimes.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Just as I always figured....:D


Unemployed Neo-Con.

Living off the Wife


LMMFAO

If she's rich, why not? :D

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I've never worried about my rights during the Clinton or Bush regimes.


What rights?

You're as Anti-Rights as they come......

You even despise the ACLU for Christ's fucking sake.

AMERICAN. CIVIL. LIBERTIES. UNION

Fucking fascist.

Unless it involves a gun and/or occupying sovereign nations, you couldn't give a shit about anyone's rights.

:rolleyes:

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Unless it involves a gun and/or occupying sovereign nations, you couldn't give a shit about anyone's rights.

:rolleyes:

I'm just surfing around...are you in some way calling Warham Pol Pot?

Fuck, I sincerely hope Warham isn't Pol Pot.

Other than that, flame the fucking shit out of me!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by rustoffa
I'm just surfing around...are you in some way calling Warham Pol Pot?

Fuck, I sincerely hope Warham isn't Pol Pot.




There's been no evidence forthcoming to show otherwise, so we must assume that he is indeed Pol Pot, and may want to reconstitute his nulclear program, as well as send a smoking gun-like mushroom cloud our way.

We see no other choice than to immediately shock and awe his lazy ass back to the stone-age.


We invade New Hamphire at dawn.

Wake the media.

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Wake the media.

Now, in all honesty? I'm fairly sure Warham is NOT Pol Pot.

The media-waking thing......

Are you meaning a role-reversal of sorts?

Fucking grate. Now I'm gonna hear Electric Funeral on Star 94.
:mad:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
If she's rich, why not? :D

You and John Kerry have much in common.:)

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Race or Ethnicity: African American

Gender: Female


well that's it. she's obviously a democratic operative.

There's no way her opinion could have any merit now. :rolleyes:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Demonstrate where your rights or my rights have been impeded by the NSA and perhaps I'll agree with you.

In fact, I'd like to hear from ANYONE in the country who's supposedly had their rights stomped on.

You won't because they'll be held without lawyers or a trial, moron.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
What rights?

You're as Anti-Rights as they come......

You even despise the ACLU for Christ's fucking sake.

AMERICAN. CIVIL. LIBERTIES. UNION

Fucking fascist.

Unless it involves a gun and/or occupying sovereign nations, you couldn't give a shit about anyone's rights.

:rolleyes:

Yep, because the ACLU is as un-American as you can get.

They'll make sure a terrorist has his rights before they make sure you and your ex-wife are safe. Count on it.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
You won't because they'll be held without lawyers or a trial, moron.

Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Try again.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You and John Kerry have much in common.:)

POW! Right in the kisser. :D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yep, because the ACLU is as un-American as you can get.

They'll make sure a terrorist has his rights before they make sure you and your ex-wife are safe. Count on it.

Yeah, those Goddamn bastards that preach freedom of speech and the rule of law! Let's hang 'em! Who do they think they are? Thomas Jefferson?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
...


[ good to see you and Nick back, it's been boring slapping around the lightweights ]

Hey Lounge, good to be back. Save some for me.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
POW! Right in the kisser. :D

UhuhuhuhuhUHUHUhuhUHuHUH!:D

Maybe he'll run for office now?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Yep, because the ACLU is as un-American as you can get.

They'll make sure a terrorist has his rights before they make sure you and your ex-wife are safe. Count on it.

What you fail to understand Warham is the importance of the question

"Who is a terrorist?"

That question is of utmost importance. Whoever decides that decides life and death. When people get to make such decisions they make mistakes. And get greedy.

Of course real terrorists deserve to get their fuckin' heads chopped, by their own kind.

But people who are charged with such crimes in the United States are innocent until proven guilty.

You just need a warrant. How hard is that? To be afraid to gain court approval for surveillance belies that they want to spy on people they shouldn't be spying on.

[Nickdfresh]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XYd6mCAcQw8"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XYd6mCAcQw8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Big Train]

Something tells me the taps will be operational again in short order...PROVEN conflict of interest is a bad thing. Seems the judge needs a refresher in basic ethics herself.

August 23, 2006


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

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

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 Diggs Taylor, 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.”

“I don’t think there’s a clear answer as to whether she should have disqualified herself,” Professor Lubet said. “But at a minimum, she should have disclosed it.”

In a case brought by the national organization of the A.C.L.U. and its Michigan chapter, among others, Judge Taylor ruled that the surveillance by the National Security Agency without warrants that was approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks violated the Constitution and a 1978 surveillance law.

The Justice Department moved immediately to appeal Judge Taylor’s ruling.

Some legal experts saw the decision as an important affirmation of constitutional principles. But even some supporters of it took issue with the reasoning, and Republicans said political motives drove the judge, whom President Jimmy Carter had nominated to the federal bench.

Questions about a possible conflict of interest appear likely to raise new concerns. The Web site for the group that supported the A.C.L.U., the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan in Detroit, lists Judge Taylor as its secretary and a trustee. It indicates that trustees make all financing decisions for the organization, whose assets exceed $350 million and which gives grants for a variety of community projects.

Judge Taylor declined to comment on the matter on Tuesday, and the foundation did not respond to a message for comment on what role if any she had in awarding the civil liberties grants.

The executive director of the Michigan A.C.L.U., Kary Moss, said her group had received four grants totaling $125,000 from the foundation since 1999. They were a $20,000 grant in 1999 for an educational program on the Bill of Rights, $60,000 in 2000, along with the N.A.A.C.P. and other groups for education on racial profiling, $20,000 in 2002 for work on racial profiling and $25,000 in 2002 for a lawyer to work on gay rights.

The chapter could not confirm a grant of $20,000 for work on gay rights that the foundation listed in an annual report.

Ms. Moss said the question of whether Judge Taylor’s role as trustee posed a conflict “seems to me to be a real non-issue.” She noted that judges routinely work for civil and nonprofit groups, including many that may finance or have ties to parties that come before them in court.

“Judges have not recused themselves when there’s been a much, much stronger connection to an organization,” Ms. Moss said.

Federal law requires judges to disqualify themselves from hearing a case if their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” based on factors like a financial or personal relationship with a party in the case.

Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal ethics at New York University, said he did not think there were grounds for Judge Taylor to remove herself from the case.

“The question is whether her impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’’ Professor Gillers said, “and the fact that she sits on the board of a group that gives money to the plaintiff for an otherwise unrelated endeavor would not in my mind raise reasonable questions about her partiality on the issue of warrantless wiretapping.”

But he said it would have been wise for Judge Taylor to disclose the issue to the participants in the case. “If there’s any doubt,” Professor Gillers said, “disclose, because it avoids suspicion later.”

Deborah L. Rhode, a law professor who directs the Center on Ethics at the Stanford Law School, said, “I certainly think it should have been disclosed.”

[Big Train]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/washington/23judge.html?_r=1&ei=5087%0A&en=4496f0e75c93a6ef&ex=1156651200&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin


Something tells me the taps will be operational again in short order...PROVEN conflict of interest is a bad thing. Seems the judge needs a refresher in basic ethics herself.

August 23, 2006


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

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

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 Diggs Taylor, 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.”

“I don’t think there’s a clear answer as to whether she should have disqualified herself,” Professor Lubet said. “But at a minimum, she should have disclosed it.”

In a case brought by the national organization of the A.C.L.U. and its Michigan chapter, among others, Judge Taylor ruled that the surveillance by the National Security Agency without warrants that was approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks violated the Constitution and a 1978 surveillance law.

The Justice Department moved immediately to appeal Judge Taylor’s ruling.

Some legal experts saw the decision as an important affirmation of constitutional principles. But even some supporters of it took issue with the reasoning, and Republicans said political motives drove the judge, whom President Jimmy Carter had nominated to the federal bench.

Questions about a possible conflict of interest appear likely to raise new concerns. The Web site for the group that supported the A.C.L.U., the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan in Detroit, lists Judge Taylor as its secretary and a trustee. It indicates that trustees make all financing decisions for the organization, whose assets exceed $350 million and which gives grants for a variety of community projects.

Judge Taylor declined to comment on the matter on Tuesday, and the foundation did not respond to a message for comment on what role if any she had in awarding the civil liberties grants.

The executive director of the Michigan A.C.L.U., Kary Moss, said her group had received four grants totaling $125,000 from the foundation since 1999. They were a $20,000 grant in 1999 for an educational program on the Bill of Rights, $60,000 in 2000, along with the N.A.A.C.P. and other groups for education on racial profiling, $20,000 in 2002 for work on racial profiling and $25,000 in 2002 for a lawyer to work on gay rights.

The chapter could not confirm a grant of $20,000 for work on gay rights that the foundation listed in an annual report.

Ms. Moss said the question of whether Judge Taylor’s role as trustee posed a conflict “seems to me to be a real non-issue.” She noted that judges routinely work for civil and nonprofit groups, including many that may finance or have ties to parties that come before them in court.

“Judges have not recused themselves when there’s been a much, much stronger connection to an organization,” Ms. Moss said.

Federal law requires judges to disqualify themselves from hearing a case if their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” based on factors like a financial or personal relationship with a party in the case.

Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal ethics at New York University, said he did not think there were grounds for Judge Taylor to remove herself from the case.

“The question is whether her impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’’ Professor Gillers said, “and the fact that she sits on the board of a group that gives money to the plaintiff for an otherwise unrelated endeavor would not in my mind raise reasonable questions about her partiality on the issue of warrantless wiretapping.”

But he said it would have been wise for Judge Taylor to disclose the issue to the participants in the case. “If there’s any doubt,” Professor Gillers said, “disclose, because it avoids suspicion later.”

Deborah L. Rhode, a law professor who directs the Center on Ethics at the Stanford Law School, said, “I certainly think it should have been disclosed.”

[FORD]

Oh fucking please! :rolleyes: A group affifliated with a judge gave the ACLU some money??

Well a guy affiliated with Bush's grandfather gassed 12 million people to death. Yet you think he should be able to occupy the White House.

Talk about your fucking conflict of interests.

[ODShowtime]

The executive director of the Michigan A.C.L.U., Kary Moss, said her group had received four grants totaling $125,000 from the foundation since 1999. They were a $20,000 grant in 1999 for an educational program on the Bill of Rights, $60,000 in 2000, along with the N.A.A.C.P. and other groups for education on racial profiling, $20,000 in 2002 for work on racial profiling and $25,000 in 2002 for a lawyer to work on gay rights.

It's not like she participated in funding decisions for things that would benefit her politically or financially.

I would hope that most judges admire the Bill of Rights.

[Big Train]

Disclosure is disclosure...if you don't do it, your ability to be impartial can be questioned.

And Ford, don't try to bullshit. She sat on the BOARD as a TRUSTEE, she knew damn well where the money was going AND had a hand in that decision.

[ODShowtime]

I don't understand the non-disclosure thing when you're about to seriously piss off the drudge crew. Muckrackers inc.