Former ACLU Lawyer Rules In Favor Of ACLU

Posted on August 2, 2006

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Wednesday ordered full disclosure of records in a court battle between FBI terrorism investigators and Connecticut librarians.

Using a national security letter rather than a subpoena signed by a judge, the FBI sought records last year of a library computer in Connecticut. Such a letter allows the executive branch of government to obtain records about people in terrorism and espionage investigations without a judge’s approval or a grand jury subpoena.

Four librarians who received the demand resisted, though they said they might have been willing to comply with a similar demand had it been approved by a judge, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented them.

The librarians had been under a gag order that prohibited them from even acknowledging the existence of the demand for the material.

The FBI dropped its demand for the computer records in June, saying it had discounted a potential terrorism threat. In July, the FBI said it would not seek to enforce nondisclosure in the case.

The court fight had been waged largely in secret and with the battle over, the ACLU last week asked the Supreme Court to release the records in the case.

Ginsburg directed that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and a lower federal court in Connecticut unseal the material.

Macsmind:

Is it proper that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg – a former attorney for the ACLU – to have actually ruled on a ACLU case before her? Isn’t it a standard practice to recuse oneself when there is a conflict of interest – such as in the case of CJ John Roberts in the Haman case?

I know that Mac is being sarcastic in this question. While it seems like a common sense question on the surface, we all know the philosphy that the ACLU and its followers adhere to: “If standards are good, then double standards must be twice as good.”

Don’t you know the ACLU got Ruth on the Court for a reason? She always does her best not to disappoint those that got her there. Should she recuse herself? She doesn’t have to, and honestly if she did she would be absent in a lot of cases which would be a good thing. Technically she doesn’t have to though. Conflict of interest? Absolutely.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

3 Responses to “Former ACLU Lawyer Rules In Favor Of ACLU”

kerwin_brown on August 3rd, 2006 10:04 am

If she recused herself from all cases that involved the ACLU then she would probably have to recuse
herself a large percentage of the time.

I wonder why so many Republicans gave her a aye vote for confirmation since they had to know that.
camanintx on August 3rd, 2006 12:44 pm

If supreme court members recused themselves whenever a case involved former employers or associates, they wouldn’t get much work done. Chief Justice Roberts used to work in the DOJ and the White House. Justice Thomas worked in the DOE and the EEOC. Justices Breyer and Alito worked in the DOJ.
kerwin_brown on August 4th, 2006 1:43 am

So let’s stop putting lawyers in as judges since lawyers are taught to be biased toward their client.

We should use sports referees instead since they are taught to judge fairly and go by a rule book. All they would have to do is learn a new rulebook which is a lot easier than learning how to be unbiased. I also do not see them having to recuse themselves so much.