New York Times Editorial - A matter of appearances
New York Times Editorial - A matter of appearances
Copyright by The New York Times
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 ACLU 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.
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.
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 ACLU 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.
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.
Copyright by The New York Times
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 ACLU 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.
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.
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 ACLU 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.
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.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 7:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home