Judge who struck down wiretaps accused of conflict of interest

[ice-nine]

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as secretary and trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was re-elected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a "recent grant" of $45,000 over two years to the ACLU of Michigan--a plaintiff in the wiretapping case.


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Judge_who_struck_down_wiretaps_accused_0822.html

[freesw]

Could be something to it.

But hey, everybody does it
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cheney_Energy_Task_Force
Just the way things are done

Personally, I'm opposed to it, no matter who it is.

-----

Vice President Richard Cheney's persistent imbroglio during the Junior Bush regime has been with his National Energy Policy Development Group (created by Executive Order) through which during the early months of 2001 he was taking dictation from Enron and studying petro maps of Iraq, and wants to keep all those notes a secret.

"At issue is whether Cheney allowed private energy lobbyists and big-name campaign contributors to participate in the work of the group, and if so, whether that information should be made public." [1] (http://foi.missouri.edu/usenergypolicies/riskscheney.html)

The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, and Judicial Watch, a government watchdog organization, have been trying through FOIA and court challenges to White House resistance, to obtain the records of the task force meetings. The organizations claim the documents will show the extent to which the task force staff met secretly with industry executives to craft the Bush administration's energy policies, such as drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and weakening power plant pollution regulations.

...

--------------

Even though ostensibly the above matter has to do with government access and secrecy, Cheney's obvious conflict of interest is at the heart of it.

[Boogyman]

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else"

- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

[Hoodoo]

Conflict or no, she made the right decision.

[Hoodoo]

Whoa up a minit Freesw, you went by that a mite fast. Re Cheney and "obvious conflict of interest", I dunno if it's that "obvious". Precisely what connection does Cheney have with the energy industry anymore. I was under the impression that he had now severed his interest, both financial and management-wise?

I am all for openess in Government so long as it's not used for partisian reasons. That being said, I suppose that those who are so interested in tne current Administration's handling of energy policy either have, or are going to investigate reasons why an illustrious previous President gave our Top Secret military secrets to the Chinese, and why a certain Presidential Pardon was issued? HUh? Are they only interested in the dealings of one party?

[Boogyman]

Whoa up a minit Freesw, you went by that a mite fast. Re Cheney and "obvious conflict of interest", I dunno if it's that "obvious". Precisely what connection does Cheney have with the energy industry anymore. I was under the impression that he had now severed his interest, both financial and management-wise?
Are you telling me you never heard of the closed-door, "secret" meetings Cheney had with all the top Big Oil executives in 2001 when they formed the framework for our current energy policies? Or how Halliburton got a no-bid contract for Iraq? Do your research, or just look back at all the past threads on this debate right here on this board.

I am all for openess in Government so long as it's not used for partisian reasons. That being said, I suppose that those who are so interested in tne current Administration's handling of energy policy either have, or are going to investigate reasons why an illustrious previous President gave our Top Secret military secrets to the Chinese, and why a certain Presidential Pardon was issued? HUh? Are they only interested in the dealings of one party?
Here we go again with bringing up a past administration that's been gone for almost six years. And what could the Chinese or pardons possibly have to do with this Federal Court decision on the unconstitutionality of the NSA domestic spying program?

Tell me, what do you consider "partisan reasons"? Since you keep referring to the past administration so much, do you think the impeachment of "an illustrious previous President" was non-partisan?

Hoodoo, if you're going to dredge up all these faded arguments again, may I suggest you go back and do some research here and save us all some time.

[josh]

This judge I beleive was a buddy of jimmy carters and no conservative.

I find it very irritating that i have to rely on a judge who I would normally vehemently disagree with to protect my liberty.
Where are our great conservative leaders?

[Boogyman]

This judge I beleive was a buddy of jimmy carters and no conservative.
You believe? And a "non-conservative's" opinion is beyond consideration to you?
I find it very irritating that i have to rely on a judge who I would normally vehemently disagree with to protect my liberty.
So you are ready to condemn a judge just because you believe was once a "buddy" of Jimmy Carter? :wacko:

You are a continuous source of amusement, Josh... :rolleyes:

[josh]

Where did I condemn this judge?
If the liberal activism she is now being accused of is true then iIwill condemn her for those actions. But in this case she made a good decision. I do wonder what her reasons were.
I just find it disgusting that the people who pay lip service to protecting freedom and liberty (republicans) will not stand up to this.


I thought you had me on your ignore list.

[Boogyman]

Where did I condemn this judge?
Right here.
judge who I would normally vehemently disagree with
But I suppose you will split hairs about the difference between "condemn" and "vehemently disagree with".
If the liberal activism she is now being accused of is true then iIwill condemn her for those actions. But in this case she made a good decision. I do wonder what her reasons were.
But if it was conservative activism then it would be OK. and you wouldn't question her motives, right?
I thought you had me on your ignore list.
I never got around to it, but thanks for reminding me, you are again proving why I need to ignore you.

[Hoodoo]

Boogey, I can well understand why a Clinton fan would not want any reference made back to that Administration. The operative definition of "partisan", as defined by Webster is "a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause or person; esp: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance". Basically, my use of the term applies to instances where a person either supports a position soley becuse it exhaults their own Party or detracts from another Party regardless of facts or logic. The current criticism of GWB is a good example. There is much valid criticism that legitimately be levelled at him, but some of that which is now being directed against him is totally juvenile and asinine. RAther than demeaning GWB, much of it merely exposes the lack on mentality of those who expouse it. I disagree with a good part of what Bush has done, and has failed to do, but I believe that I have a good and valid basis for my criticism. I will not let political loyalty for any political Party Party control my beliefs-I have no loyalty for any Party.

[Boogyman]

Boogey, I can well understand why a Clinton fan would not want any reference made back to that Administration.
Hoodoo, you miss the point entirely.

For one thing, I'm not a "Clinton fan". I'm not even a Democrat. I couldn't care less about Clinton, Bill is old news and I'm not voting for Hillary.

It's the Republicans and Conservatives that are always dragging Clinton into arguments because they seem to think it's somehow going to divert attention away from the elephant in the room. Or they think that by saying "Look what Clinton did" somehow justifies Bush's idiocy.

It's weak and pathetic. When someone asks "What about Iraq?", just answer the damn question. Don't try squirming out of it by saying "Well, Clinton blah blah blah..."

The operative definition of "partisan", as defined by Webster is "a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause or person; esp: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance".
True enough. This applies to Republicans and Democrats.

I am neither.
Basically, my use of the term applies to instances where a person either supports a position soley becuse it exhaults their own Party or detracts from another Party regardless of facts or logic. The current criticism of GWB is a good example.
Another good example would be the still-current, endless criticism of Clinton. Or the constant insults and smears directed at Murtha, Gore, Kerry, Hillary, just name a Democrat.

I don't criticize the Bush administration because of some "party loyalty".

I criticize them because that's what I think of them. :o

There is much valid criticism that legitimately be levelled at him, but some of that which is now being directed against him is totally juvenile and asinine. RAther than demeaning GWB, much of it merely exposes the lack on mentality of those who expouse it.
Exactly what I think of people who mindlessly, automatically criticize all Democrats or anyone else they have labeled a "Liberal".

Generalizations always indicate a lack of thoughtfulness. "All Democrats are bad" or "all Liberals are stupid" just exposes the shallow thinking of the speaker.

Not all Republicans are lying, corrupt scumbags. There are a number of them who I consider honest and intelligent, and would vote for. :lol:

Yet there are those on the Conservative side that refuse to consider voting for any Democrat, period. End of story. Those are the narrow-minded blockheads that make all Conservatives look bad. <_<
I will not let political loyalty for any political Party Party control my beliefs-I have no loyalty for any Party.
Good for you. Me too. ;)

[ice-nine]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3XX9cy6HgqQ&refer=home


July 6 (Bloomberg) -- A divided U.S. appeals court dismissed a challenge to the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program, ruling that the American Civil Liberties Union and others lacked the legal right to sue over the spying.
The 2-1 decision today by the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that said the eavesdropping without court warrants violated the Constitution and federal law. The appeals panel directed the trial court judge to throw out the case.
The ACLU's suit is one of several in the federal court system relating to the National Security Agency program, which allowed investigators to spy on terrorists while bypassing the judicial system. While President George W. Bush has argued that the surveillance is legal, he agreed in January to let a secret federal court oversee the spying.
Set up in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Terrorist Surveillance Program generated controversy since it was publicly revealed in December 2005. Congressional Democrats have issued subpoenas to the administration seeking more information on the classified program.
ACLU Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro said in a statement that the ruling ``deprives Americans of any ability to challenge the illegal surveillance of their telephone calls and e-mails.'' He said the organization will consider appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
`Vital' Program
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the agency is pleased with the ruling.
``The Terrorist Surveillance Program was a vital intelligence program that helped detect and prevent terrorist attacks,'' he said. ``It was always subject to rigorous oversight and review.''
The ACLU sued the NSA in January 2006 after Bush acknowledged the spying, which targeted suspected members of al- Qaeda when one of the parties was overseas. The suit was filed on behalf of journalists, academics and other organizations.
Today's ruling said that none of the individuals or groups suing could prove that the government eavesdropped on their phone calls or e-mails, and therefore they lacked standing to sue. Judge Alice Batchelder's opinion was joined by Judge Julia Gibbons only on the question of standing. Batchelder was nominated by President George H.W. Bush, and Gibbons was nominated by the current president.
Dissent
Judge Ronald Lee Gilman dissented, saying he would have upheld the lower court ruling. Gilman, a nominee of President Bill Clinton, said he was ``persuaded'' that the eavesdropping program violated U.S. law governing foreign intelligence gathering.
The decision overruled U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit, who decided in August 2006 that Bush violated the Constitution's separation of powers between the branches of government. Taylor also ordered the program halted immediately, though the appeals court decided in October 2006 to let it continue during the appeal.
The case is American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, No. 06-10204, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit).
To contact the reporter on this story: Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net (rschmidt5@bloomberg.net) .
Last Updated: July 6, 2007 12:35 EDT

[Lurp2]

Odd, when you think about it. We're a country with so many individual freedoms that during a war, when terrorists want to kill random citizens where ever possible, we want to have rules, that make sure we don't violate terrorists rights ,while pursuing these goals, and grown up men and women, in black robes, play along with this insanity.

[fire for effect]

You believe? And a "non-conservative's" opinion is beyond consideration to you?

So you are ready to condemn a judge just because you believe was once a "buddy" of Jimmy Carter? :wacko:

You are a continuous source of amusement, Josh... :rolleyes:

Actually yes. Jimmy Carter has proved himself to be such a nut, that any of his associates should be held in question.