Just read a breaking news blurb on MSNBC, where a Detroit Judge has just ruled that Shrubs' warrantless wiretapping has been ruled unconstituional.......
link

[ August 17, 2006, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

I was SO waiting for someone to post this. Perhaps you should have mentioned that this judge campaigned for Jimmy Carter, who eventually appointed her to the bench. She also tried to take away an affirmative action case, one that eventually was decided by a higher court, that was assigned by a blind draw to another judge.

Judge Anna is a known left-winger. Why this case was even brought in Detroit when it should have been decided in D.C. is no surprise. Federal judge shopping to find one of the most left-wing nuts on the bench is sad.

Note: I am not commenting on the merits of the case here and now; rather, I am blasting the way this was done. Of course, the ends justify the means in Liberal Land.

[ August 17, 2006, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Perhaps they should have brought it to you for a more moderate stance, right?

MIB,

Are you saying that a "left-wing" judge can NEVER make an informed, intelligent and, yes, legal ruling? Do you simply write-off their opinions just because they happen to be left-wing & were appointed by a Democrat?

The bottom line is that we are a nation of rules and laws, and someone in the White House contues to believe that he is above the law,can make the law as he sees fit, and is above the law. He is not. In this case the checks and balances which the country is sorely lacking due to GOP dominance, is working, at least in this case.

[ August 17, 2006, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

For anyone who might actually be interested in discussng the merits of the case, not just attacking the judge who decided it, a copy of the opinion can be found at:

Memorandum and Order, ACLU v. NSA

[ August 17, 2006, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Former MSU Gymnast ]

Well, hell! That's what you and those on the Left do whenever FOX News Channel, for example, reports something, or whenever a conservative outlet says something. It's automatically and summarily dismissed as untrue.

I look at the source to see if there is some form of bias involved, and looking at Judge Taylor's career, her ruling doesn't surprise me.

God! Thirty years after that complete failure of a president and he's STILL haunting us.

That damn Constitution keeps getting in King George's way.

quote:

"...I look at the source to see if there is some form of bias involved, and looking at Judge Taylor's career, her ruling doesn't surprise me..."

Ok, so you're not surprised by her ruling. But the question is was it a correct ruling, from your legal expertise (putting your personal opinions about her to the side as best you possibly can)?

and quote:

"...God! Thirty years after that complete failure of a president and he's STILL haunting us."

I'd take Jimmy over Dubya any day. We still have 2 more years to live w/ that insufferable buffoon & I'd say by comparison Jimmy looks more like a presidential champion, that's for sure!

MIB:

Why should this case have been raised in DC District court? The Plantiff's are largely people of middle eastern heritage...Detroit has one of the largest population of people of middle eastern heritage. So if the Plaintiff's live in Eastern Michigan, why would they bring a case in DC District? Also, if the case should have been filed in DC District Court, shouldn't the NSA have requested a change of venue?

As for your attack of the judge in the case, why don't you actually bother to read her opinion. You might notice that she actually dismissed one of the Plantiff's allegations.

MSU, Please edit your URL link to remove the first "http://" - it's inaccessible until you do, although I've tried to fix it here. Thanks for finding it - am reading it now.

Sorry guys...this should work... Memorandum and Order, ACLU v. NSA

[quote]SCTrojan:
MIB,

Are you saying that a \"left-wing\" judge can NEVER make an informed, intelligent and, yes, legal ruling[/quote]? Do you simply write-off their opinions just because they happen to be left-wing & were appointed by a Democrat? [/QB][/QUOTE]

No - of course not.

He is saying that no judge who is not a conservative, a strict constructionist, and who dis agrees with him can EVER make an informed, intelligent and, yes, legal ruling.

'Do you simply write-off their opinions just because they happen to be left-wing & were appointed by a Democrat?'

AGAIN NO. He told You! Mostly they only have to disagree with him.

R

OK, first things first. Plaintiffs, who include Greenpeace for whatever reason, (strength in "numbers?"), pled venue under 28 USC 1391c, but that relates to corporate defendants and there are no corporate defts. here. Unless I'm missing something, venue should've been pled under 28 USC 1402a1, which would properly put it in the ED of MI. Conversely, I reviewed the docket online thru PACER and noted that defts. filed no challenge to improper venue or moved to transfer the case elsewhere. Maybe they were banking on a loss before this Carter appointee, but putting their faith in the 6th Circuit, given that their notice of appeal and motion for stay of injunction have already been filed.

The opinion itself is reasoned well enough, but occasionally lapses into unnecessary dicta, as on pps. 23-24 and afterwards, where the court goes beyond what it had already admittedly ruled were appropriate bases for finding pltfs'. standing, exercising its jurisdiction and eventually granting pltfs. most of the relief they sought. Thus, the court's reference to "King George III and his General Warrants," at p. 34, seems especially gratuitous, if not media-driven, since this case is all about warrantless searches.

OK, off to swim now, but I'll be curious to see the comments after I get back.

[ August 17, 2006, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

So you basically agree with it but not the added posturing?

Is the NSA looking to appeal the case? What's the next step from here? U.S. Supreme Court? And if it goes before the Supreme Court, what's the chance of the decision standing?

I applaud the ACLU...it's about time someone stood up to the Bush Administration's gross abuse of power. I like the argument the NSA used, saying that revealing information would violate state secrets, which is ludicrous. It's akin to the juvenile logic of "I don't have to tell you, because I say so". Unfortunately, if they wanted to make their argument stand, they need to be less vague. I don't see that logic holding up much longer. Score one for Liberty and Freedom!

[ August 17, 2006, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Falconpride ]

Well, it shouldn't surprise you - the ruling is the very epitome of "strict constructionism," which IIRC, the "right" wing loves to death. After all, she is very clear that the 4th Amendment (that would be an amendment to the CONSTITUTION, you know, the governing legal document of all our country) does not allow for search and seizure without a warrant, and neither does the FISA law. That would be the same law that Congress implemented to allow some leeway for the Executive Branch - you know, so they could both protect the country AND follow the Constitution. Ergo, the practice followed by King George II and his minions is unconstitutional.

It is also interesting, I don't know if others picked up on it, but in the media attention surrounding the alleged British terror plot, it was noted that the Americans were very busy with FISA-approved surveillance of individuals in this country to see if they were connected. That's right, the same administration that insists it cannot fight the "war on terror" (and how can we be fighting against fear when our "President" constantly makes us feel more afraid?) without usurping all the power it can actually followed the rules in this case - guess they were so concerned with that pesky law enforcement crap they decided not to jeapordize their case by following illegal and unconstitutional activities.

The bright side for all of us who love the Constitution is that all this illegal activity engaged in by the Bush Administration - illegal wiretaps, unconstitutional imprisonments, torture, etc. - are leading to a series of court cases in which the founding principles of the country, including strict limitations on the President's power, are being reinvigorated as the administration loses case after case.

[ August 17, 2006, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: CPT_Doom ]

To quote Oscar Wilde, patriotism truly is the virtue of the vicious and the reason our Imperious President uses to justify trampling the rights of American citizens to free association and to the right against unreasonable searches, both of which are covered under the Bill of Rights, something that caselaw from our lawyer friends often ignores. I would firmly and wholeheartedly agree with this judge's opinions and the merits of her points, on the face of it. Perhaps this is the wake up call needed to bring our Imperious President back into reality, and not the imperial state that he wants America to be.

Score a victory for freedom today.

Spare me! Did you actually write that with a straight face? You left-wingers have been ignoring and usurping the Constitution for decades! You haven't been able to get legislatures or Congress to enact your so-called "progressive" social policies, so what do you do? You shop around for some left-wing judge to make crap up or issue a ruling with no basis in law, no foundation whatsoever in the Constitution. And you have the nerve to say you love the Constitution?!? How dare you!

A bigger example of hypocrisy among liberals cannot be found.

Oh! The hypocrisy!

OK, back from an EXCELLENT swim! God, I love how I feel when I get out of a pool! And yes, Blue, it's a fine day down here!

Anyway, I'd hoped that Neptune or some of the other lawyers might have surfaced by now to dive in on this case and its procedural issues; c'mon guys, now's your time to shine! Yes, Falcon, as I wrote above, the notice of appeal has already been filed by the "guvmint," so this decision is hardly the last word. (BTW, if you're going to be a paralegal, you'd better learn to read more carefully! wink )

Sooner, I can't say yet if I agree with the whole opinion, even as stripped of its posturing; I want to read it again more carefully. My opinion doesn't really matter, though, since I'm not of counsel on the case nor likely to be since it presents no issues unique to the state of CA.

CPT, people from all points on the spectrum claim to "love the Constitution;" whether they do or not is best judged by how they treat it, whether in working with it as lawyers and judges, or considering amendments to it as legislators. MIB has a valid point or two; the Warren Court probably showed the Constitution the least respect, however "good" its intentions, and we can all agree that nowhere in that document, even though written on the tail end of the Enlightenment when astronomy was coming into its own, is there any mention of "penumbras" or "emanations."

UCLA, much of case law arises from statutory law, as well as from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No case law can safely ignore either and hope to remain valid law. So don't bemoan the occasional cite here; it's not like anyone's writing law review articles or anything! (FT's occasional word-pageants notwithstanding! wink )

MIB makes some good points about judge shopping, which does exist and which the ACLU and many liberal organizations have down to an art. It's one of the areas in which I really wish that federal judges would better police themselves, but, arrogant as they tend to be as a result of life tenure, they don't and too often cover each other's backs and tracks. Congress could remedy the problem by creating a federal "best venue" rule, as many states have, but so far, it hasn't seen fit to do so. We'll ALL be better off by having one less reason to suspect any partiality once this problem is solved - and there's really no excuse for not solving it now. :mad:

quote:

"...You left-wingers have been ignoring and usurping the Constitution for decades! You haven't been able to get legislatures or Congress to enact your so-called "progressive" social policies, so what do you do? You shop around for some left-wing judge to make crap up or issue a ruling with no basis in law, no foundation whatsoever in the Constitution..."

Ok, so if we left up to the right-wingers in this country they wouldn't want to stack up the courts for their social policies? Please, they would love nothing more to overturn cases like Lawrence v. Texas & Brown v. Board of Education, for ie. And to top things off, they would love to amend our Constitution which would--for the 1st time in the Constitutions history--discriminate against a group of legally protected individuals (Gay Marriage ban). You're right, Oh the hypocrisy!

So returning the Constitution to its true meaning and not making up crap where it doesn't exist is "stacking up the courts"? Puh-leeze!

I would much rather have a judge who says when a case or issue comes before him/her: "This is a good issue and one of sound moral principles and may even make sense and be fair; however, it is an issue that is up to the People through their elected representatives to decide and not this Court," rather than a judge who believes, "Because I believe this is an issue of fairness and common sense, I hereby decree...". The former is a true judge, the latter a judicial legislator.

quote:

"...however, it is an issue that is up to the People through their elected representatives to decide and not this Court..."

So what you're saying is that if it was left "up to the People through their elected representatives to decide" the 13th Amendment should have never been enacted?! Because I'm almost certain that most of the non-enslaved People & representatives of the South certainly didn't agree w/ it. Left up to them our black brothers & sisters would not be equally protected under the law. That is what you're arguing right?

gmginsfo:

Shouldn't venue be under 28 U.S.C. sec 1391(e), regarding officers of governmental agencies and governmental agencies? I freely admit I am not a litigator, but that makes sense.

Falcon:

As gmginsfo pointed out, the next step is the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. From there it may (and probably will), end up going to the Supreme Court.

The randomness:

Gmg, sorry for not responding earlier, but I had a doctor's appointment.

Judge Taylor's law clerk seriously needs to get a spell checker and some improved grammar skills. And making reference to defined terms prior to giving the definition (e.g. Title III) is not cool.

Some of you just love to get baited by corny George Lucas creations. Could we move along to things that matter?

Of substance:

Two main areas of contention stuck out in my mind while reading the opinion--the state secret privilege and Article III standing (specifically, the alleged harm to plaintiffs within the standing analysis).

Judge Taylor's opinion seemed well reasoned to me--the holding isn't being pulled out of thin air, but rather relies quite heavily on both the Supreme Court's existing constitutional jurisprudence and the controlling case law of the Sixth Circuit. Some of the dicta could have been cut out, but I suspect the judge felt compelled to include much of it to dispose of some of the government's standing arguments.

One question in my mind is the standard of review that will be applied by the Sixth Circuit, particularly around the government's asserted state secrets privilege. A district court's findings of fact and preliminary evidentiary decisions (e.g. admissibility) are usually reviewed with a "clear error" or "abuse of discretion" standard that is skewed heavily in favor of the lower court fact finder. But issues of privilege, like many evidentiary questions, present mixed questions of law and fact that may result in a heightened standard of review. I don't know what that means for the review process, though it could provide a method for the appellate court to overturn this decision on state secrets grounds without substantively addressing the constitutionality of the government's surveillance program, if it so chooses.

Also, an interesting enigma is presented here by Article III standing. The alleged required harm resulting in the "case or controversy" here is, among other things, the tangible professional injury caused by the interference of the wire tapping on the First and Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. Now if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound? -- Or in other words, if you don't know that you're being covertly wiretapped, is there really any chilling effect on your speech? And furthermore, even if you know that you might be illegally monitored, would your behavior be any different if you knew you could be monitored legally?

To be sure, I do think the NSA's surveillance program presents a myriad of constitutional problems that courts need to address, and I definitely think the plaintiffs have standing for a Fourth Amendment challenge. Nevertheless, it isn't so clear to me that the free speech harm to the plaintiffs would be so different had the plaintiffs known that their speech might have been legally monitored, as authorized by FISA (and this knowledge wouldn't be farfetched, given the global political climate). I don't know if the government made this argument--it would be interesting to see the briefing on this point, if any was done.

[ August 18, 2006, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Neptune ]

Some of those constitutional problems might be addressed, if Congress decided to get involved. It'll be a cold day in hell before they stick their necks out on it right now, however, with congressional elections not very far away. Thus, it will again be left to the courts to decide.

Am I the only one who thinks....that instead of going through all of this arguing...why can't they just go through the FISA court? I mean, the Bush Administration's reasoning is that they can't get it fast enough. However, as I understand it, they do issue emergency (aka fast) OKs when needed. And you know most of these things they issue aren't just on the spot. People just don't come out of nowhere to be a terrorist, you have to have some sort of intelligence on them ahead of time.

What's that noise, you ask? It's me doing the happy dance because the idiot in the White House had bit of a come-uppance today. Gosh, even when you are King, you can't say and mean that the Constitution of the United States of America can be disregarded and written off. What are the exact words the idiot President used? What was that Christian quote? Oh yeah, I remember...Bush said "the Constitution is just a God-damned piece of paper". Nice words from a "born-again" Christian. I guess he forgot the religion lesson on how one is not suppose to take God's name in vain. But I digress. The idiot is now going to try to appeal. This should be excellent fodder for the late-night comedians. Then again, Prez. chimpy has been wonderful fodder for comdians for the past six years. What, oh what, will those comedians do once Bush is laughed off into history as the worst president ever.

[ August 17, 2006, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: millerbeach ]

From one Queen to another.

My only problem with this ruling is that she apparently refers to "King George". Perhaps a mythical Queen Georgiana would have been more appropriate.

George W. Bush suffers from an extreme case of low self-esteem and insecurity that is fed every time someone makes reference to his incompetence.

Illini, of course they can go through FISA to get a warrant to spy, but the point is, King George thinks he can do whatever he wants, and therefor doesn't have to do it. Its good to see the system of checks and balances is in this case working as far as I am concerned. But of course now Atty. gen. Gonzales is all over the media saying the White House will fight this.

And that is EXACTLY the process they used when working with British authorities to help them crack the alleged plane bomb plot recently. But be careful there, Illini, you are talking sense, and that offends good King George. Why do you love the terrorists?

Because, after all, we know anyone who doesn't agree that this administration has unfettered power during wartime is clearly in league with the terrorists. I think our own MIB was the first on Outsports to crack the secret code of "leftists" since, I guess, the 30s - and I mean our secret plot to destroy the country. Don't you remember all the leftists who were dancing in the streets on 9/11? We were so happy the terrorists were finally winning. And who can forget the Antrax party of '02 - whew, good times!

The administration, and its flunkies (aside, isn't it interesting the MIB had the talking points on this judge - she's was put on the bench by CARTER [shriek!] - by just after noontime? I guess Karl is getting those GOP spin documents out even faster now that he's gotten away with treason) argue that anyone who is against the warrantless wiretapping is against all wireless surviellance, which is bunk - all that Congress requires is that there is court oversight. Given the incredible liberties Bush et.al. have taken with the Constitution (if the Constitution were a woman, she'd have grounds for rape charges by now), that doesn't seem too much to ask.

JUDGE: You can't do that anymore.
NSA: K. We won't. Bye.

Does this mean every time the government wants to spy on someone, they have to bring these guys along?



LXN

[ August 18, 2006, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: Lexington ]

A conservative president. Just not as cracked as the nuts that followed.

[ August 18, 2006, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Neptune, In several contexts, even an inchoate I Amdt. "chill" can satisfy standing purposes, e.g. in inmates' retaliation claims, Rhodes v Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005), so I can see where the court was coming from there. But, that raises the question of illegal foreign contacts as unprotected speech; certainly contact with "the enemy" is not so protected. The protected speech needs to be separated from any unprotected speech, and I'm not sure the court examined that angle. (Hmmm ... amicus time???) In sum, though, I have to agree with Illini that the better way would seem to have simply abided by FISA, than go this route.

MSU, yes 1391e3 could be a ground for venue, too, but the complaint specifically pled 1391c. Go figure on both sides of that issue!

CPT, for the record, I know of no "GOP spin docs" sent out by the WH, Rove or anyone else on this issue, and I usually get copied with at least some of them. (Frankly, I doubt if the WH is capable of acting that quickly and the PR job went to Tony Snow, as it should have.) And while there was little dancing in the streets of the West following 9/11, there was in Arab cities - and the protests against our government erupted as early as Spring 2002, in SF and other hotbeds of radical dissent. By that Fall, you'd even had your own in DC, no? As far as "secret plots to destroy our country," see the Yale "Annals of American Communism" series, which did an excellent job of showing, based on review of declassified documents from the Kremlin, that some of our fears about such a takeover WERE justified and that some of the players later deified by the left were indeed communist sympathizers.

Being a "Communist sympathizer" should not be (or ever have been) a crime.

Thank you, gmg, for bringing up the parallel of communism to terrorism. The similarites are quite amazing to recall.

In 50s America, many were suspected of being communist sympathizers. In present-day America, many who disagree with our Imperious President are labeled terrorist sympathizers.

In 50s America, those who disagreed with the policies of the House Un-American Activites Committee were called unpatriotic. In present-day American, those who disagree with the policies of the Bush Regime in the White House are called unpatriotic.

In 50s America, people were spoon-fed material through the media to force them to acknowledge that the communist threat would kill the very heart of America. In present-day America, people are spoon-fed material through the media to force them to acknowledge that the terrorist threat will kill the very heart of America.

I see some amazing coincidences in the approach of Senator McCarthy with communism, much in a strikingly similar manner as President Bush with terrorism. With all the intellect so claimed by many who defend our Imperious President time and again, do you?

[ August 18, 2006, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: UCLAfan ]

Fair enough, but selling state secrets, as did the Rosenbergs, was and remains treason.

Yes, UCLA, I can see some similarities, but I wonder if there will someday be the equivalent of the Yale "Annals" for the present issue dealing with the terrorists and those who actually DO defend them. That's why I like to approach the matter on a case by case basis. I do recommend the "Annals" to you and anyone else who denies that there are Americans capable of treason or working with foreign groups or governments against American interests - the record is there for all to see. And, as I mentioned, it actually proves some of the McCarthyites' fears well-founded.

Well, looks like GMG got his wish. I read in the NY Times today how several legal scholars are questioning the wisdom of the words of the judge in this case.

[ August 19, 2006, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: UCLAfan ]

And some of the alleged heroes of the conservative movement in this country were horrific racists - what is your point?

And I am amazed how quickly you took my clearly sarcastic post and ran to the Communist threat - the old canard that "left"="Communist" which is total bunk. That is nothing more than simplistic campaign propaganda that the right has managed to ingrain in our collective political discourse, and it's sad.

If there is one thing we have lost in this country, and this was the real point of my post, is the civility in politics that allows one to disagree, while still respecting the political beliefs of the person with whom you are disagreeing. Instead, the minute this ruling came down (and, as an aside, I still have not heard one reasonable justification as to why the Bush administration couldn't use the g*ddamn secret court set up for this exact purpose - the one they are continuing to use as we speak) the politics of character assassination began. It was simply too much to ask that those who disagree with the ruling at LEAST respect the judge for having a sound legal perspective from which she was judging. On the surface, warrantless surveillance of American citizens does seem like a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment, so it should not be shocking to find a judge ruling that way.

I suppose, though, there is a certain bitter irony that the two legacies of the Nixon years - nasty political campaigns and unrivaled Executive Branch power grabs - are rearing their ugly heads at exactly the same time.

Does anyone else think it is strange that on the eve of this wiretapping ruling we have the JonBenet Ramsey case rear it's ugly head after 10 years.

You don't suppose Carl Rove had anything to do with this story being dug up and dominating the media do you. Hell, you couldn't find this wiretapping story on the news any where unless it was some little blurb while they were all running to the JonBenet story.

Geez!!! This administration will stop at nothing to get away from bad press. :mad:

Uh, Earth to SC, the People through their elected representatives DID pass and enact the 13th Amendment. How the heck do you think constitutional amendments are enacted???

Then you're among a small minority, one that can be characterized by the ends justifying the means, because legal scholars on both sides of this issue are in agreement that this was a bad decision, especially her First Amendment issues. Over the weekend I watched and read news reports on legal scholars who criticized her ruling as "legal mumbo jumgo," "having no basis in constitutional law or reasoning," etc.

The weakest part of the ruling centers around the First Amendment issue, but as I said, this ruling is typical of the ends justifying the means, because left-wingers who spew the hypocritical bullshit of "protecting and defending the Constitution" see no problem with--in fact, they support--ignoring or eviscerating it in order to arrive at a judicial decision with which they agree.

You nutjobs crack me up! I can't believe--well, yes I can--I just read something as stupid as that posting.

MIB, since I was out of commission with this cold, I ended up watching several Sunday shows and all but one of the talking heads agreed that this ruling was most likely a correct ruling. However, the caselaw cited to justify and back up her ruling was very weak and will likely be overturned on appeal.

After finally having read her ruling, I'm in agreement. Unless I was missing something, I wondered why Rasul v. Bush, the most recent case adjudicated by the Supreme Court where the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay were ruled to be illegal. That would certainly have better backed this judge's decision than the other cases cited.

"If there is one thing we have lost in this country, and this was the real point of my post, is the civility in politics that allows one to disagree, while still respecting the political beliefs of the person with whom you are disagreeing."

Huh? Pot, there's a kettle you need to meet here!

As for "the old canard," you speak of, the Yale "Annals" clearly show that if it walked and talked like a duck, it clearly was one. Or, if you want to talk snakes, does the name Alger Hiss ring a bell?

quote:

Uh, Earth to SC, the People through their elected representatives DID pass and enact the 13th Amendment. How the heck do you think constitutional amendments are enacted???

Like I said, left up to the southern states they would have never voted for the 13th amendment considering their majority (racist) opinions.

But in retrospect, the "activist" politicians/judges were correct, no?!

[ August 21, 2006, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: SCTrojan ]

Even the NYT, probably amidst its own nose holding, ran a story about how this decision was being criticized by many on both sides. Anyway, this judge should have recued herself. Interesting info about Judge Diggs...

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the ACLU of Michigan). She was reelected 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. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.

This was unacceptable and highly inappropriate of her to be involved in this case. However, with her reputation as an activist--remember she tried to snatch an affirmative action case away from a white judge--this doesn't surprise me.

Yes, I'm surprised that none of our several "NY Times" readers disclosed this link. At least they're consistent with the judge, whose opinion is coming under increased criticism as lawyers have time to study it. Regardless of its merits, this judge should have recused herself from this case from the get-go, and the 6th Circuit would be well advised to prevent her from having any further contact with it if it needs to be remanded. Link to NYT story.

Curiouser and curiouser.

[ August 23, 2006, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

Would these be the same NYT linkers who derided Justice Scalia for going on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney and not recusing himself in a case involving Cheney? Why their sudden silence on Judge Diggs? Oh, I know! It's because she's a left-winger who made a baseless decision that pleased the Left.

Oh! The hypocrisy!

Actually, by what I have read, Judge Diggs appears to have come to the correct conclusion. However, the caselaw cited in her decision doesn't necessarily support her conclusions. I think once someone more reasonable concludes the same thing, they'll cite more current and substantive cases than Judge Diggs did.