August 24, 2006
IT'S THE INCOMPETENCE, NOT THE CONFLICTS:
A Matter of Appearances (NY Times, 8/24/06)
When Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was given the job of deciding whether the Bush administration’s wiretapping program was unconstitutional, she certainly understood that she would be ruling on one of the most politically charged cases in recent history. So it would have been prudent for her to disclose any activity that might conceivably raise questions about her ability to be impartial. Regrettably, it was left to a conservative group, Judicial Watch, to point out her role as a trustee to a foundation that had given grants to a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, a plaintiff in the case.
The point isn't that she was an interesed party in the litigation but that she showed no interest in the Constitution. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 24, 2006 8:46 AM
Yes, darn those conservatives groups who scoop us, the New York Times. We just can't have that happen, can we?
Conservatives can do investigative journalism, too, NYT. Get used to it.
Posted by: Brad S at August 24, 2006 9:28 AMThe Times tried to run out in front of the parade when the decision was first handed down, citing Diggs-Taylor's great legal accumen, and were shocked when the opinions of legal scholars even on the left started waylaying her for the decision's sloppy reasoning. Latching onto the conflict of interest discovery by Judicial Watch is Gail Collins' effort to come down from the roof ledge without being perceived as either a nut or a laughingstock.
Posted by: John at August 24, 2006 9:39 AMHas there ever been one of these cases where a judge honestly says that the case is too big, too broad, and that no one person is capable of or qualified for making such decisions, least of all the judge himself? Do they surgically remove any self-honesty and humility during those Senate Judiciary hearings on their appointments, or is having an overpressurized ego (especially when compensating for a lack of intelligence) a primary requirement for those positions? At least we get the occasional chance to vote against an even remove such buffoons when they are in Congress...
Just once, i'd love to see a judge tell the plantiffs in one of these cases, "this is a political matter. Quit running for your mama and learn to win your own politcal battles, 'cause I'm not gonna do it for you, you whining spoilt brats."
Raoul: If only.
Posted by: Bartman at August 24, 2006 2:15 PMThey did in the asbestos cases.
and what about that female TX judge who put a stop to experts, IIRC?
Posted by: Sandy P at August 24, 2006 3:57 PMWhen Judicial Watch sued Bush two years ago, they were non-partisan. When they exposed a partisan's egregious behavior, they became conservative. What gives?
Posted by: ic at August 24, 2006 4:44 PMBeing a liberal is a moveable fiesta.
Posted by: erp at August 24, 2006 6:11 PM