NSA's program unconstitutional per Fed. Dist. Judge

[Adam Gamradt]

I don't think this judge has a conflict of interest in this case.

I also don't think Scalia had a conflict of interest, due to his hunting trip with Dick.

Would you agree with both of those statements?

[laxfan25]

I actually triggered an interest in reading more about COINTELPRO myself, and found a very ironic link to the current topic. Senator Frank Chruch headed up the committee that investigated COINTELPRO, and here is a summary;

In the Final Report of the Select Committee COINTELPRO was castigated in no uncertain terms:

"Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that...the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence."

One result of this investigation is that the FISA Courts were created to have oversight over government surveillance - the very courts that Bush now claims are interfering with proper conduct of the war on terror. I'm sorry, but I must insist that the law be followed. Many commentators on here have made mention of the fact that if we need to suspend all of our democratic principles and civil liberties, and have a police state to fight this war, we have already lost.

[Sonny]

I don't think this judge has a conflict of interest in this case.

I also don't think Scalia had a conflict of interest, due to his hunting trip with Dick.

Would you agree with both of those statements?

I don't know what Scalia and Dick Cheney have to do with this judge's decision.

Yes, I do think that a judge who sits as a trustee of a foundation that distributed thousands of dollars annually - shouldn't hear a case when one of her foundation's clients appears in her court. At a bare minimum, she should have disclosed that factoid beforehand. Again, law school 101.

[sohotrightnow]

So, you don't think that Judicial Watch has any ulterior motives in questioning Taylor's decision? Hmm, perhaps Bush losing another battle in the war on terror??? I don't know what "law school 101" you are referring to, but a judge does not have to necessarily recuse his/her self from a case because of an "apparent conflict of interest" as deemed by a conservative watchdog group. Does her decision raise questions? Yes, of course. But to assume that her decision was based solely on her ties to a group who donated money to the ACLU is without merit. I am going to go out on a limb and say she is an intelligent woman who made this decision based on the fact that wiretapping is unconstitutional and not a result of her having ties to the ACLU!

Here is one legal scholar's opinion on the decision:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/blog ... ylors.html

[StrykerFSU]

Make no mistake, the ACLU is vehemently anti-Bush. I believe she should have recused herself to avoid even a hint of impropriety. I thought the same thing when Halliburton got all those contracts. Who's to say if there was corruption but the contract should have gone to a different company to remove even an appearance of wrongdoing. She should have known her decision would "raise questions" and recused herself to avoid them. If the case is so cut and dry, then she should have been confident that one of her colleagues would have found as she did.

I have watched enough "Law & Order" to know this will all be addressed on appeal.

[Adam Gamradt]

Justice Scalia Defends Cheney Trip

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/ ... 7115.shtml

[sohotrightnow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalia#Rec ... n-recusals

[Sonny]

Again, I ask... What do Scalia/Cheney have to do with this judge/decision?

More moving of the goalposts??

[sohotrightnow]

Again, I ask... What do Scalia/Cheney have to do with this judge/decision?

More moving of the goalposts??

Do I need to justify why? Are you kidding? You are the one moving the goalposts! He is a Supreme Court Justice and he has a DIRECT conflict of interest with the Executive Branch and the Secretary of Defense! Is this ok to you (I ask this because I don't want to put words in your mouth)?

The situation between Scalia and Taylor are similar, so individuals are wondering why you aren't voicing concerns about the former. I mean, if you are impartial, you can say that both Scalia and Taylor should not have recused themselves from their respective cases.

[StrykerFSU]

One obvious difference I can see is that Scalia's supposed conflict arises from personal interactions with individuals while Taylor's involved her position as a major monetary donor to the plaintiff in a case. According to the wikipedia article previously posted, Scalia addressed his situation publicly in a memorandum. I don't know if Taylor has done anything similar.

[laxfan25]

Again, I ask... What do Scalia/Cheney have to do with this judge/decision?

I think they're trying to make the point that if Justice Scalia feels he doesn't have to recuse himself from a case in front of the Supreme Court that is of major interest to the administration, and in particular the VP, because it was his meetings with energy executives that the plaintiffs were trying to get information about - after spending a weekend cozied up with the Veep, that the scale of potential conflict here is quite a bit less.
One big difference in this case though. The lack of recusal can be reviewed, unlike Supreme Court justices that refuse to recuse themselves. The case is already headed to the 6th Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, and I'm sure they will have much to say, about potential conflicts as well as the merits of the ruling. If it is upheld, we will most assuredly see this decided at the Supreme Court.

[laxfan25]

From the Community Foundation of Southeastern Michigan website;
"The Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan is strengthening the region's quality of life by:

Building "community capital" – for today and tomorrow
Enhancing the region's quality of life
Engaging people and organizations in philanthropy
Convening, planning and working for positive change
Supporting and launching new initiatives ...
Every day, the Community Foundation is helping individuals, businesses, nonprofit organizations and other foundations meet their charitable goals. We are privileged to facilitate the philanthropic spirit in southeast Michigan. As stated in our mission, The Community Foundation exists in perpetuity to enhance the quality of life of the citizens of southeastern Michigan.

Since 1984, we have been serving as a vehicle for donors, volunteers and community members to identify important issues, share ideas and build the financial resources to make positive long-term change. We are building permanent community capital in the form of endowments that create a base of stable financial support for the region.

Since its founding 22 years ago, the Community Foundation has distributed more than $234 million through 24,923 grants to charitable projects in southeast Michigan's seven-county area.

The Community Foundation is an independent nonprofit organization governed by a board of 50 volunteer civic leaders. Of the more than 670 community foundations nationwide, the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan is among the top 30 in assets. Gifts to the Community Foundation provide the maximum Michigan and federal charitable deductions allowed by law."

Sound a bit like the United Way - a known leftist organization. On average, they've given away $10M per year, which I'm sure is higher for these recent years. A $45K grant to the ACLU for a gay rights project - I'm not seeing a big problem here.