Now this seems a little thin, but isn't this relationship closer than other ones we've seen Judges recuse themselves over? My memory isn't very clear on judge recusals. What was the last one folks were complaining about and how close was it? I think it was about Roberts or someone... anyone know?

So, is this all legal? Isnt this like a conflict of interest? I dont know the "law" very well. LOL

Will anything come of this?

Gozer,

I think it was actually a demand that Scalia recuse himself because he once went duck hunting at the same time some person involved in some obscure case was arguing before the Supreme Court...

AF,

I don't think it is actually illegal...but I think that this just provides even more fuel for an appellate Court to vacate this ruling.

So, you're basically saying - a judge cannot base their rulings on an ideology which is publicly acknowledged?

Yes, we certainly need serious systemic reform of the judicial system. The independent judiciary is a threat to all things American!

So, you're basically saying - a judge cannot base their rulings on an ideology which is publicly acknowledged?

Yes, we certainly need serious systemic reform of the judicial system. The independent judiciary is a threat to all things American!

In the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, canon 1 holds that: "An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved."

Canon 2 requires a judge to avoid the appearance of impropriety at all times.

Canon 5 says a judge should regulate his or her civic and charitable activities so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

These are fairly vague rules, but I'm sure the fairminded people on this blog will have no doubt about whether they have been violated. But as I recall, it's mostly up to the judge to determine whether there is a violation.

it seems a little harsh to highlight this "conflict of interests" when mr. bush has an arsenal of them.
just thought i'd balance up the argument a little bit.

Longz seems to have a handle on the facts as I understand them; it is up to the judge to decide if there is a conflict. In this case it would depend on when the contribution was made, and in her dual capacity, how much influence did she have on the decision to donate.

The connection will be brought up in the appeal, and certainly to us laypeople it doesn’t pass the smell test, but the legal community operates under a completely different set of rules; this may have had no bearing on her decision whatever.

My concern with this case is the standing of the litigants; there doesn’t seem to be any damages that the plaintiffs can claim.

Standing is a threshold issue which could get this overturned on appeal without ever considering any other part of the case. This would be a problem because the question of legality will still not be adjudicated.

Winnow,
I don’t believe anyone is advocating that a case cannot be judged on “an ideology which is publicly acknowledged.” That is, however the way our system works, judges judge based on the application of our laws; not European laws, not Asian laws, not Congolese laws. Judges judge based on facts not ideology.
If I were you, Id be supporting this wholeheartedly; an ideology based on race supremacy or religious beliefs not consistent with yours or mine could land us in jail for a long time on the thinnest of evidence. Appeals are great and hopefully would right the wrong, but you’d still have to cool your heels in the hoosegow waiting for your day in court while the judge (appointed for life) imposes her ideology on society.

Bane,

Don't get into the game of mangling my words just for the sake of argument.

Of course ideology impacts how the constitution is interpreted. If you want to deny this, I'm not going to waste my time refuting you.

It’s refreshing to see you admit that your position is indefensible.

Still, only with activist judges is ideology a mitigating factor. Application of the law, not “interpreting” the Constitution is the job off judges; has been since 1803.

Should read:"Application of the law, not 'interpreting' the Constitution is the job of judges;"

What position is indefensible? You're just being contrarian because you're itching for an argument.

Application of the law is the role of judges, in the context of Common Law and the Constitution. Overruling the intent of the legislature when a law is deemed contrary to the constitution is also a role of the court. Of course interpretation of the constitution is a necessary part of that process, as is a judicial philosophy (ideology) that guides how to deal with contradictions.

You're just bringing your own beliefs into something that is transparently obvious and factual. Sheesh, I'm not even arguing against your beliefs.

I respectfully disagree, and this isn’t a matter of contrarianism; it is the crux of the issue regarding Judge Taylor.

First, you used “judicial philosophy” and “ideology” as if these are interchangeable, they are certainly not and in the case of Judge Taylor the difference is glaring. Ideology, in the context of American jurisprudence is, "a systematic body of concepts, especially about human life or culture." Judicial philosophy, as defined by the framers in Federalist 78 (the only Judicial philosophy acceptable to the framers, btw) Hamilton wrote that it was not the job of the Judiciary to make the law, that their role under the Constitution was simply to enforce the Constitution and laws as they were written, according to their original understanding. Judges might sometimes have to declare statutes invalid because of the dictates (exact wording) of the Constitution, declaring the statute unconstitutional, but their primary and overriding role is in implementing the will of the people as set forth in the Constitution. It is, therefore not an interpretation of the Constitution, it is an exact reading of the Constitution that allows judges to invalidate law.

Judge Taylor used her ideology as a guiding principle in this ruling, going so far as to intentionally not address "standing." Therefore her ideology, is that as an activist she may ignore the wording and application of the law in favor of her social engineering.

Cmon, you are in fact changing the topic. If you want to talk about the politically loaded term "judicial activism," which is what you're talking about, then be clear about it and don't put words into my mouth.

The ACLU advocates an ideology that places an emphasis on the civil liberties enshrined in the bill of rights. If you don't like my choice of words, then fine, understand at least, that is what I am talking about. (although even though this use of the term "ideology" doesn't conflict with your definition.. whatever)

Coming back to what I am talking about (and the subject of this post): To suggest that Taylor has a "conflict of interest" because she believe is civil liberties is patently absurd.

You are, in fact, changing your argument; it is the very judicial activism that allows this Judge to ignore what most jurists would recognize as a conflict and press on with her adjudication of the case as though she has no vested interest in the outcome. Judges aren’t supposed to care about who wins and who loses; this judge most assuredly does care which side prevails; she has a monetary interest in the outcome.

It is not the ACLU's ideology or civil liberties that are the subject of this conflict of interest discussion or the subject of this thread, the American Civil Liberties Union is party to the lawsuit; Judge Taylor supports the ACLU ~ the organization; a party to the lawsuit ~ through monetary contributions, this should be considered to progressives as a conflict of interest, and it would be if she were deciding a gun control issue while contributing to the NRA!

To suggest that only supporters of the ACLU support civil liberties is patently absurd; the ACLU advocates an ideology that is neither American nor civil. That’s changing the subject!

this judge most assuredly does care which side prevails; she has a monetary interest in the outcome.

How, in the heck does she have a monetary interest in the outcome? When Alito gave money to the NRA, did he have a conflict of interest or monetary interest when he ruled that restrictions of automatic weapons was unconstitutional? No, because he interprets the second amendment to be absolute, with no leeway for regulation. That doesn't mean there is a conflict of interest.

Face it, you're stretching pretty thin here to find something to attack the "evil liberals."

If you’re speaking of Rybar, Alito wrote a dissent, he didn’t “rule.” He also based his dissent on a 1995 Supreme Court ruling on Interstate Commerce, not on interpretation “that the second amendment to be absolute, with no leeway for regulation.” Interstate commerce has nothing to do with the NRA, and if the NRA were party to the suit I’d agree but any contributions Alito may have made to the NRA have no bearing whatever on Rybar.

The fact is simply this, even if this judge didn’t allow the ACLU affiliation to influence her decision, she should have reused herself because of her affiliation with a party to the lawsuit.

I have noticed, however that I have stuck to facts surrounding this thread while you have continued to imply something other than a desire on my part to debate the subject. That's a shame, considering your snide post that started the debate.

I just went back and checked Rybar; Alito was silent on the Second Amendment and the Court rejected Rybar's assertion of the Second Amendment.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, shame ~ shame!

The only way you are the bane of my existence is because you are exasperatingly annoying to debate. You keep changing the topic.

First, you deviate from the point of this post - a matter of conflict of interest - by going on a rant about judicial activism, trying to argue against a strawman. Then you try to goad me into arguing about the American Civil Liberties Union, apparently, because they don't know what real civil liberties are (I guess that must mean that this ruling, on a matter of privacy, indicates that privacy isn't a civil liberty?)

Now you mistakenly claim that Alito abstained from the Rybar case. I didn't look it up before posting because I remember the press coverage, but in Rybar:

Authoring a notable dissenting opinion was from then Judge Samuel Alito. Alito argued that the law under which Rybar had been convicted should be vacated, because Congress, in its lawmaking, had not made sufficient findings regarding the impact on interstate commerce clause to fully justify the court deferring to Congressional judgement that the law was authorized by the Commerce Clause. Rather than actually ruling that the law was unconstitutional, Alito asserted simply that Congress had not sufficiently justified it, allowing that, had Congress made sufficient findings, he would defer to those findings.

In addition, it was not simply an interstate commerce issue:

The appeal addressed the constitutionality of a provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 under the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Anyway, I'm checking out of this conversation. You get the last word; hope you feel good about that.

winnowhead did you even READ what Bane wrote? The way I see this, in your attempt to refute Bane, you (probably inadvertently) actually provide support to what he said.

He states; “Alito wrote a dissent, he didn’t “rule”.
Your link states; “Authoring a notable dissenting opinion was from then Judge Samuel Alito”.

Nice comeback.

DM,

What? I brought up the case, Bane incorrectly interpreted it.

You're doing the same thing Bane is doing: finding a word or two, and basing an argument on that word... in the progress, changing the topic so you can perpetually argue with the "evil liberal." In your case, "rule" is the important word. Do you think you can goad me into a superfluous exchange because of that? Pathetic.

Peace.

This ruling just in:

"winnowhead is a maroon."

The point of this post is that Judge Taylor is a Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case. ".. (the) Foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions..." Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision, hence the conflict of interest. She was part of a decision to donate funds to the ACLU, then when the ACLU sues in her courtroom, she finds in favor of them. If you don't see a conflict of interest, you are worse that a maroon.

Now, back to your contention that "a judge cannot base their rulings on an ideology which is publicly acknowledged?"

No, they are not supposed to. As "Bane" has pointed out, judges are supposed to rule on the application of the law, not interject their personal ideology into the equation. That's why we have Roe, Kelo, and other disasterous rulings. Liberal judges have gone into the legislative mode and made law, when that is the role of the elected representatives, not judges appointed for life.

What Judge Taylor's ruling has done in the short term is enject some life into the liberals mantra that the Bush Administration is conducting illegal foreign intelligence gathering. What it will do in the long run is prove that the liberals are not interested in fighting terrorism, but are only interested in fighting the Bush Admininstration. They have resorted to activist (that means a judge who makes law, rather than apply law, or who makes a ruling based on ideology, rather than facts) judges to fight their battles. More proof that liberals can never, even again be trusted with our national defense.

DM,
Winnow not only didn’t read my responses, he didn’t read Rybar, only cut and paste a paragraph.

I never said Alito “abstained” and I never stated that the Rybar wasn’t predicated on the Second Amendment; on the contrary I clearly stated that Judge Alito wrote a dissenting opinion (how can he abstain and write an opinion at the same time?) And I clearly stated that the court rejected Rybar’s Second Amendment argument while Alito was silent on the issue, which is exactly what winnow cut and pasted, which is completely contrary to his assertion that Alito based his "ruling" on a dogmatic interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The fact is he is wrong (A-10 points out he's dreadfully wrong) in his primary assertion that ideology is a judicial mandate in decisions, he’s wrong in the judiciaries role in application of the law, he’s lying about Alito’s dissent and the reasoning that went into it, he is wrong when he stated that overruling the intent of the Legislature is the role of the Court (that is never the role of the judiciary ~ NEVER! See the *note below), and he is mischaracterizing Judge Taylor’s connection with the ACLU as an altruistic desire for civil liberties based on the name of one of the litigants.

When you have the facts, argue the facts, when you have the law argue the law, when you have neither, attack the oppositions’ motives.

To the point of the thread, yet again, Hamilton’s guidelines for Judicial philosophy applies to Taylor; her function should have been to apply the exact language of the law, if the language is unclear she was to go to the Legislative notes to divine the intent of the lawmakers*. She did neither, or she would have never allowed the case to go forward (the plaintifs never proved standing to bring the lawsuit!) and we have a ruling that will be vacated. The issue of her conflict is something the appellate court will consider when reviewing her decision, and it’s something that I believe should have caused her consternation before rendering her decision.

Dunderhead,
Civil liberties are your personal rights as spelled out in the Constitution and other founding documents, such as the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc. Note, there is no mention of “privacy” in any of these documents. “Privacy” is a “civil right” granted by law. Civil liberties never change; civil rights change regularly.

If you think Bane and DM are only arguing semantics (meaning of words) or diction (choice of words) then you’re missing the point. “I know I said kill you but I meant shower you with gifts and affection!”

I'm commenting on the particular argument proferred here that Judge Taylor never proved "standing" of Plaintiffs to argue the case. Pages 15-24 of her opinion address the issue of standing in this case. In point of fact, she addressed and found that each of the three components necessary to establish standing were supported by the Plaintiff. What is of particular irony (and perhaps most irksome to many of the readers here) is that the aggrieved parties in this case are attorneys for the ACLU researching and attempting a defense for individuals overseas suspected of having Al-Qaeda ties. This isn't a theoretical abridgement of rights but a very practical and tangible example of the "chilling" consequences of unfettered and unrestricted surveillance. The attorney-client privelege is deeply compromised by such surveillance.