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

[ksen]

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.

......

>snip<

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/washington/23judge.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

 

[ksen]

Imagine that, why am I not surprised?

 

[Vylo]

Go on....

 

[ksen]

Go on....

What do I need to go on about?

What more needs to be said. The judge is part of a group that supported the plaintiff in this suit.

Would you feel comfortable with a judge who financially supports the NRA hearing a case brought before him by the NRA?

 

[JoyJuice]

What do I need to go on about?

What more needs to be said. The judge is part of a group that supported the plaintiff in this suit.

Would you feel comfortable with a judge who financially supports the NRA hearing a case brought before him by the NRA?

Or.....how about a judge who has to make a ruling on a defendant, but goes on hunting trips hosted by the defendant and refuses to recuse himself from the case?

I do agree the ACLU donations from a group she is a member of should have been brought up.

 

[ksen]

Or.....how about a judge who has to make a ruling on a defendant, but goes on hunting trips hosted by the defendant and refuses to recuse himself from the case?

That shouldn't have happened either.

I do agree the ACLU donations from a group she is a member of should have been brought up.

That's twice in ONE day!!

 

[ElvisFan42]

You would think by now that people would know this stuff would be revealed! She has certainly hurt her arguement.

Wow, the evil anti-American NYT carried this? Who knew?

 

[burrow_owl]

Not a big deal. I don't think it violates the canons of judicial ethics. And it's silly to expect that judges should be apolitical when they take their robes off.

But, this story is developing, as they say. While my instinct is that this is no big deal (in line with the Alito/Vanguard pseudo-scandal), more could come out.

 

[imind]

i don't think its a big deal, either, as the aclu is involved in many civil rights issues, and not just the issue involved in this case.

its not like it was a personal donation, either. she doles out the money in accordance to the groups wishes, and the group is rather large.

 

[ksen]

Wow, the evil anti-American NYT carried this? Who knew?

I know, I'm just glad I was sitting down when I read that story.

 

[ElvisFan42]

I know, I'm just glad I was sitting down when I read that story.

Reading room?

 

[ksen]

Reading room?

No comment.

 

[burrow_owl]

I think I've seen enough facts to definitively pronounce this story silly, or at least deeply uninformed by how charitable foundations actually work.

Here's how large private foundations work (I audit 'em, so I know whereof I speak): the grant staff puts together a list based on the guidelines promulgated by the board. The list is presented at the (usually) quarterly board meeting. If there are any large grants (and by large, I mean at least $5-10 million dollars), they might be pointed out to the board. At that point, the board votes yes.

That's it. People on the board are their because they're successful people, and they don't have the time to pore over a list of dinky grants that can go on for pages and pages (the list of grantees for Taylor's org in 2004 comprised over 1,000 grants, and went on for 20 pages).

The upshot here is that, because of the small size of the grant to the Michigan ACLU, Judge Taylor never even saw the grant. Since she didn't see the grant, she couldn't be expected to disclose it. (even if she seen the name on the list, one can hardly expect that she should remember it. Then there's the minor point that the grantee, the Michigan ACLU, is a legally distinct organization from the ACLU, which was the party to the suit).