Judge Taylor Who Struck Down Wiretap Case Accused Of Conflict Of Interest
Posted on August 22, 2006
Wow! This case just took an interesting twist! Conservative non-partisan (correction by Sister Toldjah) Watchdog group, Judicial Watch, is accusing US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who sided with the ACLU in their case against the government over NSA wiretaps, of failing to recuse herself in spite of a conflict of interest.
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.
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 reelected 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 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.
According to the CFSEM website, “The Foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis.”
“This potential conflict of interest merits serious investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment.”
This looks like a clear cut case of “conflict of interest” to me. This judge being a part of donating to a one of the plaintiffs in the very case she presided over casts significant doubt on her impartial judgement. This is definitely something that needs to be investigated.
Judicial Watch has made Judge Taylor’s financial disclosure documents available here.
Captain Ed doesn’t think there will be much consequence.
T]his does not appear to violate the legal canon of ethics, at least not explicitly, but it does seem rather too close for comfort. Many judges probably either belong to the ACLU or have given it support, but in this case it would appear unseemly for Taylor — as an officer of an organization that is a major benefactor — to have presided over a lawsuit the Michigan chapter brought. I doubt she will get any official sanction, but I also think it will dent her reputation than her opinion in the case has already done.
Update: ACLU of Michigan thinks it is no big deal.
ACLU of Michigan Executive Director Kary Moss said the group did not know about the judge’s affiliation with the nonprofit but added she did not think it is a “big story.”
“We don’t think recusal would have been necessary,” Moss said.
Others: Hot Air
Gateway Pundit
Anti Idiotarian Rottweiller
California Conservative
Wizbang
The Political Pitbull raises Vanguard.
MVRWC
» Filed Under ACLU, Illegal Activities, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
3 Responses to “Judge Taylor Who Struck Down Wiretap Case Accused Of Conflict Of Interest”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
This is not enough conflict to merit a recusal. Ask Scalia about recusals and being friends with one of hte parties.
I think it is more an issue of “perceived bias” rather than “conflict of interest.” I think that the term “conflict of interest” should be restricted to situations where a judge actually stands to benefit financially, where the judge is an officer or a member of an organization that is a party to the case, or where the judge is a relative or a close personal friend of a party. It would be difficult or impossible to eliminate all perceived biases — for example, Associate Justice Ginsburg was once an attorney for the ACLU. As for Judge Taylor, I think that the perceived bias would still be there if the donation to the ACLU had occurred before she became a judge rather than after. However, I think that to minimize the possibility of a perceived bias, a newly appointed judge should immediately quit all positions and all memberships that are likely to generate a perceived bias. What if, for example, Judge Taylor had ruled the other way in ACLU v. NSA and it was then disclosed that she had approved a donation to StoptheACLU? There was no good reason at all for her to be an officer of that organization that donated to the ACLU. To the maximum extent possible, a judge — like Caesar’s wife — should be above suspicion. At the very least, Taylor should have disclosed the ACLU connection at the start of the trial in order to avoid the possibility of future problems concerning the connection.
I think that one of the reasons why Detroit was chosen as a venue is that the Detroit area — notably Dearborn — has a large population of people of Arab descent, who are the most likely people to be affected by the ruling.
I think there is a good possibility, though, that this judge was handpicked with the assistance of an insider in the office of the court clerk. As a pro se litigant, I have seen a lot of collusion in the courts.
Bigoted Ed “It’s My Way or the Highway” Brayton has again displayed his usual inability to see both sides of a story — his article on this subject is titled, “Silly Accusations Against Judge Taylor.” See http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/08/silly_accusations_against_judg_1.php
I would like to post these comments on Ed’s blog too, but I am permanently banned there because he did not like my literal interpretation of a federal court rule.
As long as you don’t use profanity or get out of control you can post your opinions here all you want no matter if they are in agreement or disagreement. I’ve seen your blog a few times and enjoyed you going after Ed. Anyway, Ed is entertaining.