or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| The NY Times has it right |
Itsdb |
08/24/06 |
Well, sort of...
A Matter of Appearances
Published: August 24, 2006
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 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. |
Clarification/Follow-up by Fritzella on 08/24/06 10:14 pm:
Should right-wing judges be required to disclose their connections to organizations directly or distantly connected to cased they may rule on??
For example, Judge Alito ruling on abortion in a case brought by the Roman Catholic Church.
I don't think any radical religious judges should be ruling on cases that involve the death penalty, stem cell, or abortion.
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 08/25/06 10:13 am:
obviously the Catholic church has not and will not bring a law suit against abortion but if Alito has ties to groups like 'National Right to Life 'and he had donated to the cause then clearly he should recuse himself as a judge in a case they would be involved in . But I have yet to hear of such conflicts of interest . We are not talking about if the judges opinions match the group ;we are talking about a direct conflict of interest where actions by the judge financially supported the group that she heard a case on . Do you not see the difference ? Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 08/25/06 12:04 pm:
Fritzella, all judges should not only disclose any direct conflicts of interest on cases they may rule on, they should recuse themselves. Doesn't matter if they're right-wing, left-wing or x-winged.
Everyone has a belief system, right, left, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, humanist, whatever - "Radical religious" people come in all stripes. If you think beliefs should exclude a judge, well we wouldn't have any judges.
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
