The New York Times On Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s Connections To The ACLU

• August 24, 2006

The New York Times gives a tiny bit of criticism to Anna Diggs Taylor for not disclosing her involvement with the Michigan ACLU prior to hearing and issuing an opinion on the ACLU vs. NSA 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.
Judge Taylor’s role at a grant-making foundation whose list of beneficiaries includes groups that regularly litigate in the courts is still disquieting — and, even worse, it is not all that unusual for a member of the judiciary. The most important lesson here may be the wisdom of re-examining the sort of outside activities that are appropriate for sitting federal judges.

I’m surprised that the Times went even this far in criticizing Taylor.
I think the issue is larger than the Times allows here, though. We must remember that this lawsuit filed by the ACLU included plaintiffs from all over the nation who were claiming that the NSA had damaged their ability to engage in their professions by eavesdropping on their international calls.
The ACLU clearly engaged in a bit of “venue shopping” before settling on a district where they’d likely draw a judge who is, for all intents and purposes, a part of their organization. A lot of judges would have dismissed this lawsuit out of hand for a) a lack of any evidence from the plaintiffs to prove that their calls were actually “eavesdropped” on and b) a lack of any evidence to prove that this eavesdropping they couldn’t prove happened caused them any sort of personal or professional damage. But because the ACLU was able to get their case in front of a judge who is one of their people they got the ruling they were looking for.
The ACLU should be ashamed of trying to manipulate our judicial system in this manner, and if the Times editorial staff had any sense of justice they’d be calling the ACLU out for this manipulation rather than issuing a benign bit of criticism to Taylor for failing to reveal some relatively minor but serious connections to the plaintiffs in the case.

Tags: Uncategorized

http://Array jpe

What I’m saying is that it’s very unlikely that she knew about that tiny grant when the case came before her (even assuming she knew about it when it was approved, which is almost as unlikely).
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

I’ll believe there’s limited discussion. However she read the reports and as a judge would have noticed the ACLU.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Justice Scalia, who we now know was a hunting buddy of Dick Cheney

Hardly on par with with Judge Taylor’s misconduct. One hunting trip does not prove a close relationship.

The Bush administration are masters at this when they consistently us the DC circuit,

It doesn’t strike me as nefarious that the government based in Washington DC would file their cases in Washington DC. Maybe my tin-foil hat is too tight.
2Hotel9

So you are trying to tell us she did not know she has been involved with the ACLU all through her professional career? And having read the brief on this case that the ACLU was putting forward this case? That position stretches credibility, just a bit. Why are you so hot to defend her and this very shaky ruling she has issued?
jpe

That’s fine. If you ever come across someone on a board or someone that works with them, ask them if they remember their grantees from more than a week ago. They’ll start laughing.

Good discussion nevertheless.
jpe

2Hotel9, is there more to this story than the teensy grants given the Mich ACLU by the organization on whose board she sits?
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

I would think most judges would shy away from official positions in organizations like that.

She must be a fanatic not to be concerned about the appearance of impropriety.
jpe

She didn’t try to hide it because she almost certainly didn’t know about the grant. Board members are given a list and they vote yes. The whole process is over and done with in minutes.

That’s standard operating procedure. They give broad guidelines to the paid staff and leave the picking to them.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Yeah, like imagenuitybot would stand for sueing the Boy Scouts of America in front of a judge that was a big supporter of the BS of A.

Rather he’d be having a hissy fit.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

If Judge Taylor were white and had written this opinion

What a bunch of crap. Apparently you don’t read good, as this blog criticizes bad judicial opinions when they see them.

Once again, the lefties can’t score a point in the debate so the attack the other side.

You guys should come up with a new play.
Bat One

Silverwind,

“Buckley”‘s remarks are a time-honored tradition among those on the left who so often find themselves at a loss for any sort of cogent, intelligent rejoinder when presented with an argument based on fact. “Buckley” and his ilk are forced to rely on insults and personal attack, such as calling their opponents racists, because they are simply incapable of reasoned, fact-based, objective discussion.

Granted, it’s certainly not an effective or responsible technique. But as with other disabilities, such as dyslexia or other congenital defects and deficiencies, latent stupidity is a burden to be borne as best they can by those afflicted.

Interestingly enough, yesterday’s NYT lead editorial takes Judge Taylor to task for the impropriety of not disclosing her “conflict of interest” and allowing a “conservative organization” (Judicial Watch) and conservative bloggers to discredit her opinion by discovering her dishonest behavior.

No doubt, “Buckley” and others on the looney left are right now hard at work on postings and commentary taking the New York Times (and the Washington Post) to task for their racist remarks. Yeah, right!
robert108

She should have recused herself, like Justice Roberts.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

And five Supreme Court justices should have recused themselves from Bush V. Gore

Two of remaining 4 had been nominated by the Clinton/Gore administration.

Where does that leave us? Oh yeah, the House of Representatives should have settled the dispute per the US Constitution in the first place.
Bat One

Yeah, like imagenuitybot would stand for sueing the Boy Scouts of America in front of a judge that was a big supporter of the BS of A.

… and was an Eagle scout himself, sat on the regional or state scout council, and was a Deacon in the church that sponsored the local scout troop.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Ain’t no way she knew about that grant.

You seem pretty certain about something you cannot know.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Sorry jep, I don’t buy what you’re trying to sell.

She had the list. She was active in the ACLU. She was a judge.

Even under the conditions you name she’d know.
william Buckley

Hey McCracken, it is absolutley irrelevant who sits in the White house filing caese in the DC Circuit. The point recognized by legal scholars and practitioners is that the current Bush administration has used the DC circuit, expecially the 4th Circuit of Appeals to rubber stamp the most breathtaking claims of Executive authority where they couldn’t get tis kind of favorable treatment had they filed perhaps in another jurisdiction. You would know that if you were not blinded by your own partisan ignorance.
The fact is, forum shopping is done by all manner of plaintifs of all colors and stripes. To single out the ACLU for following this practice is really a sham. If you know the case law and precedent of a jurisdiction are not favorable to you, any lawyer worthy of the name would try to have a cause of action filed where she had the best chance of success, if she could.

If Judge Taylor were white and had written this opinion, the kind of rage and hatred for this judge would not be on display on this blog. But you and Rob, and Bat one don’t have the balls to say this. Instead you want to continue to couch your racial animosity as if you were arguing some genunine policy discussion when in fact your in denial that race is driving your arguments, regardless of how elegant and neutral they appear to be. A Gorilla dressed in a suit is still a Gorilla.
Bat One

Robert108,

Absolutely correct! Liberals’ fundamental lack of principles is offset (in their minds at least) by a seemingly endless supply of expediency and rationalization.

Morals is what you worry about when someone else is watching, and ethics is a matter of whatever can be rationalized if you get caught. The end justifies the means.
Bat One

Santino’s belabored even-handedness pales in comparison to the seething, anti-Bush vehemence roiling beneath the surface. That Bush v. Gore is referred to here as “Tragic” with a capital “T” is all one needs to read to know which side of his mouth Santino is talking out of.

Judge Taylor is not only a director of the foundation, but serves on the committee which decides what contributions are to be made to which groups and in what amounts. By not disclosing that fact to all parties in the lawsuit, by not recusing herself from the case, or at least inviting a motion for her recusal, she has seriously jeopardized the very decision she was clearly trying to protect.

As documented elsewhere, plenty of knowledgeable legal scholars and commentators have described her decision as some of the most pitiful legal thinking and legal writing ever put to paper. Attorneys on both sides of the NSA surveillance program question have offered that her decision would not be acceptable from a student, much less a practicing attorney, or worse yet, a judge.

But in her partisan zeal to kill the NSA program, Judge Taylor has all but invited the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, or the US Supreme Court, to throw out her decision strictly on the basis of her conflict of interest, never mind the more substantive question of plaintiffs’ standing or the presumed merits of their complaints.

Finally, Santino mentions the Cheney Scalia hunting trips, presumably as rationalization for leftist Judge Taylor’s obvious stupidity. On a serious note, I don’t recall that the VP and Justice Scalia had been hunting together prior to the court hearing Bush v. Gore as Santino implies. Perhaps he can actually document his accusation.

On the other hand, I’m sure that both the Vice President and the Justice would gladly acknowledge the courage required of a conservative/originalist to go hunting with Dick Cheney.
jpe

Something I completely forgot about: as far as oversight: there’s a subcommittee of the board that gives more scrutiny to the grants. If Taylor was on that subcommittee, then I’ll buy that she looked at the list. The docs I’ve seen documented who is on what committee. If that turns out to be the case, I’ll have to eat crow.
Silverwind

The Judge is black? I had no idea that she was. No commentary I had seen, until this lame charge of racism, had ever mentioned her race. What utterly pathetic nonsense to bring such a charge without any evidence. The bringing of the charge without evidence is the act of racism. Yes, I have seen it often. When I was a pizza dilivery guy there was a house that was natorious for underhanded behavior to the point that they were banned. When a black man behaved in the exact same manner as that household of white guys, we let him know that he was banned. His response? We only did that because he was black. Noooooooooo. It couldn’t be because of his behavior. It had to be because of his race. But gosh, when I told the boss about the incident, I never mentioned the race of the guy. The issue was behavior, and the subject was an address. In this case about the judge, the issue is behavior and the profession. The issue of race was not raised until the person that leveled the sensless charge brought it up. Talk about lazy thinking.
santino

The most renown Ethics experts have agreed that while judge taylor’s oversight should be frowned upon, it is not the type of conflict of interest that renders her decision null and void. Neither was it the type of disclosure, had she made it, that would have required her to recuse herself from deciding the case. Her lapse pales in comparison to the glarng conflict of Interest exhibited by Justice Scalia, who we now know was a hunting buddy of Dick Cheney who sat and refused to recuse himself in a case where reporters were trying to obtain access to documents regarding Cheney’s involvement with the oil industry. Moreover, based on this buddy relationship Scalia should have probably recused himself in the Tragic case of Bush v. Gore.

All good lawyering begins with filing your case in the venue where you have the best chance of achieving a favorable outcome for your client. The Bush administration are masters at this when they consistently us the DC circuit, because they know that they will rubber stamp the most unconscionable, unprecedented claims to unbridled executive authority this nation has ever seen.
jpe

125,000 is tiny?

125,000 over several years, when around $20 million is disbursed to 1,000 grantees: that’s tiny.
Bat One

william Buckley,

Are you trying to rationalize Judge Taylor’s pathetic performance, her latent stupidity in not disclosing the impropriety of her conflict of interest, the dismissive manner in which she dealt with the basic question of standing, her lack of even a single basic evidentiary hearing, her apparently oblivious overlooking of precedential cases such as Troung, and in re Sealed Cases, or the very central question of the limits of a President’s inherent powers during wartime and the authority of Congress to override or restrict those wartime powers, the Judge’s pitiful legal writing skills every bit as incompetent as her ability to reason coherently? Are you suggesting that all those qualities are to be ignored simply because the judge who employed them with such flair and studiously reckless abandon is a black female?

What an offensively racist bigot you are, Mr. “Buckley.”
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Ok Jep, I’ll ask. Oops I just told myself that I know where the money goes (not nearly on the same scale of course) on the boards I sit on.
jpe

Yeah, I am pretty confident, because I know how grants in large organizations are done. Board participation is limited to voting yes.

The decision is terrible, but this non-conflict kerfuffle is just silly. There’s plenty of space to criticize the judge and the opinion without launching into bizarre-o land.
2Hotel9

125,000 is tiny? She votes approval on fiscal disbursments without reading them? And you really think she should be making judgements on a Federal bench?
2Hotel9

So, she just forgot her involvement with the ACLU? An organization she has been involved with since the early ’70s. Right.
Lee Miskowski

Today’s NYTimes editorial did not disclose that Judge Diggs Taylor also is secretary to the Southeastern Michigan Community Foundation, not just a board member — according to yesterday’s account in the Detroit Free Press. This is more direct involvement in the nature of contributions, it seems to me.
http://www.fileitunder.com/ Hoodlumman

Actually David, there’s some extensive critisms of the decision itself. Everywhere.
md

Couldn’t the government choose a venue to file in any region that would be affected by the potential ruling? If so, the choice of filing in DC would be conscious and potentially beneficial.

Is it possible to have posts on these issues without resorting to name-calling?
martin Mould

And five Supreme Court justices should have recused themselves from Bush V. Gore for being members of the Republican party and handpicked by Republican presidents. nearly all judges have been active in party politics and nominated by partisan political people–presidents and governors. We either accept that judges can usually rise above their political natures on the bench or we decide that only law professors are eligible.
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

Only a leftist would think that going on a hunting trip with someone is a bigger conflict of interest than channelling $125,000 towards a plaintiff appearing before you in court.

Hey Santino the federal government files most of its cases in the DC Circuit regardless of who is in the White House. If you weren’t blinded by your partisan ignorance you would know that.

Shows how much you know about ‘good lawyering’.
David Rice

As per usual: If you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger. Two editorials in two days attacking the judge, rather than her decision.

This decision is poor because the Constitution is so subtle. Wrong, the Constitution is very clear, no matter how much each administration tries to muddy it. The reason that the judges response is so short is because the case is so open and shut.

1. Do the plaintiffs have standing, yes because ……
2. Were they injured by defendants, yes because…..
3. Did the defendants break the law, yes because…..

Pretty clear, no matter how much you dislike the judge.

The administation must have their hooks pretty deep in the Times, waiting 6 months to release the story, attacking the judge day after day. What happened to the 4th estate.

Sad, really.
imagenuitybot

It’s quite clear that the ACLU is a broad organization that supports and fights for Civil Liberties. I would hope that any member of the judicial branch who was in the position to offer contributions to the ACLU would do so.

The conflict of interest is only clear when the judge stands to *benefit* directly from ruling in the plaintiff’s favor. In most cases, Federal and Supreme Court judges benefit by keeping their jobs. The status quo is the supreme law.

Judge Taylor’s organization does not receive donations from the ACLU and thus there is no conflict of interest. The same would be true if the NRA were a plaintiff.
robert108

Bat: Not only that, but lefties treat politics as war, with their “win at any cost” approach, but when it comes to the war on terror, they just want to talk about things.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

That’s right Bat, wasn’t the hunting trip invoked on an executive privilege case?
Bat One

The conflict of interest is only clear when the judge stands to *benefit* directly from ruling in the plaintiff’s favor.

Pure, unadulterated, Horseshit!!!

The impropriety, or appearance thereof, is certainly not restricted to those instances when the judge has a financial interest in one of the parties appearing before him, or “stands to benefit directly from the ruling.” Any outside relationship which would impair, or could be perceived to impair, the impartiality of the judge is considered to be an impropriety and is grounds for recusal. For example, Chief Justice John Roberts (Love the sound of that!) recused himself from ruling on the Hamdan case recently. Not because he stood to benefit, but because having previously ruled on the case at the DC Appellate level, his impartiality might well have been called into question at the SCOTUS level.

Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the judge to advise all parties before her in this matter, rather than not disclose, presumably in the hope that the improprer relationship would not be discovered. By not disclosing and not offering to recuse herself, the judge has all but assured that her ruling will be overturned on this basis alone (thus saving her the embarassment of having her “opinion” judged on its decidedly dubious merits.)

As for the ACLU, once again imagenuitybot is mistaken. There are plenty of lawyers who would not consider offering an ACLU representative enough bus fare to get out of town. The membership roles of the Federalist Society would be a good place to start.
http://stickynotes.squarespace.com/ Sticky Notes

Oh my! This must have slipped out of her purse.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/tsyVggGW.gif
robert108

The plaintiffs have no standing in this matter.
The plaintiffs sustained no injury in this matter.
The defendants broke no law.

Facts. This is a totally politically-motivated action, from the plaintiffs to the judge. An ACLU judge rules for the ACLU. Simple conflict of interest.
2Hotel9

She was Treasurer and board member, and she voted on these grants without reading who was getting what? That, if true, is proof she should not be a judge at the county fair, much less on the Federal bench. Didn’t you think about what you just wrote?
jpe

Why assume she knew about the money being granted? The group had a grant staff – in 2004, they compiled a list of 1,000 grants and submitted it; it’s just not likely that the judge did more than glance at it before voting aye. Even if she did read the list, is it very likely that anyone but the rainman could remember all of those grantees?
robert108

More than anything else, the difference between Judge Roberts’ recusal and Judge Taylor’s concealment of her association with the ACLU illustrates the moral and ethical differences between conservatives and liberals.
2Hotel9

Yes, shag, you are a farce. The appearence of impropriety would not be an issue, had this judge been up front and open about her publicly known associations with these groups. Hiding it is the problem. Any of you leftards remember a man named Nixon? Or Johnson? Hiding things most people would not care about usually creates much larger problems than just throwing the dead cat on the table for everyone to see.
Shag

This is one of the crooked things about the “democracy” in this country. Whether it’s civil or criminal proceedings, if you’re connected, you can usually find a favorable situation.
What happened with Bill Clinton was an aberration. His own attorney general appt. the special prosecutor to get that fiasco started.
Reichwingers complain about the ACLU, but where the complaints when they defended the rights of the clown Rush Limbaugh. Or, when the were in court to protect the rights of white supremecists?
It’s all a farce.
jpe

She was Treasurer and board member, and she voted on these grants without reading who was getting what?

Board members overseeing foundations of that size don’t personally approve all of the grants. (also, many board members are more ceremonial than anything) That’s why they have a grant staff. The practice is neither unusual nor unethical.
robert108

Two, I think his/her use of the term “Reichwingers” says it all. Hitler was a National Socialist; in other words, a leftie. They try to sell this lie all the time, but they are too ignorant to pull it off.
jpe

I’ve read plenty of board minutes for foundations, and a group of this size wouldn’t even bring up a multiyear commitment of under $5-10 million dollars. If someone tried, people would yell that their time is being wasted (some of these people are professional board members, and probably have other meetings to get to). The list is presented, huge grants are discussed for 5 minutes or so, then everyone votes yes.

Ain’t no way she knew about that grant.
jpe

Even if this were a conflict of interest (which the experts largely dispute, IIRC), it’s just unrealistic to think she knew about it. And to disclose something, you at least have to know there’s something to disclose.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

She’s a judge and was unaware of the ACLU?

She must be dumber than a rock then.
2Hotel9

If there was no conflict why did she attempt to hide it?
robert108

jpe: Simply ruling in favor of the ACLU while being associated with them is ethically wrong, especially after concealing that association.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

DAvid,

1. Do the plaintiffs have standing, yes because ……
2. Were they injured by defendants, yes because…..
3. Did the defendants break the law, yes because…..

I’d like to see you answer some of these questions.

SayAnythingBlog.com

The New York Times On Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s Connections To The ACLU

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments