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