it would have been better if the judge had revealed her connection to ACLU before agreeing to hear the case. That's all. Is that what you addressed? No.

I did address that. I'm not sure it's practical to expect a judge to foresee any conceivable connection to parties in a case. It's certainly important for a judge to consider connections to the plaintiff and defendent of record. Is it as important for the judge to consider connections to attorneys hired by the plaintiff and defendent? No, it is not. If a judge had to disclose any relationship with attorneys, you're heading toward a world where an attorney can only argue before a judge once, which can only lead to a world where half the population is attorneys. Is that what you want?

This judge's relationship to the Michigan ACLU is as significant as her relationship with any attorney she has ever broken bread with. The allegation of conflict of interest is a giant right-wing pantload. It's a charge levelled by a bunch of liars who could barely keep a straight face while writing the press release. They are useless, destructive whores, and you are carrying their water.

My initial reaction was the same as yours, SnM of many variations. But then I read the whole article. You've already admitted the judge has nothing to gain personally from her ruling. Must she also be accountable for any satisfaction some acquaintance might derive?

And what of her ruling? Is it weakly reasoned? When three Supreme Court Justices ruled unethically in Gore v. Bush, they wrote a ruling that had a self-destruct clause built in, as though it was meant for Maxwell Smart to hear and no one else. Blatant corruption by the highest court in the land. Consequences? None.

You think this is partisan? The fucking President is spying on us. The only people being partisan about that are the sad-sack losers who are saying "May I have some more, sir?" Fuck the President. Any judge with the courage to slap that coke whore down deserves my support, even if they bought Thin Mints from Debbie Stabenow when she was a Girl Scout.

Thin Mints? May I have some more? 

disingenuous, or if you really believe this balderdash. Every Republican judge on earth is a member of the John Birch Society, or the Concerned Women for America, or the Heritage Foundation...and they trumpet that information on the tops of their resumes for the world to salute. Your insistence that there's something damning about this rings completely hollow.

And three cheers for Rikki's outline above vis a vis Republican moral relativism. Harrumph.

Ok, SNM, you're verified and I now accept you as a worthy adversary as opposed to a troll. Since you have now called me names, too, let's call it even, except for that "dumb" but "not idiots" remark. I'm very hurt by that...I here by challenge you to a duel...AS the aggrieved party I choose Mensa tests at five paces...Dull pencils would seem to be best.

 But anyway, SNM, sorry you were offended, peace on the personal attacks. I think I can take you based on logic and reason alone. Follow me here...

 The Bush Administration is getting their asses handed to them in court right now, not just on their illegal domestic spying scheme but on the signing statements and the fact that a large number of their cohorts are under indictment, awaiting sentencing, sitting in a nice plush jail cell already, or have had to go to the extreme of dying to escape a jail sentence.

So have to they fight dirty with ad hominem attacks that aren't even true:

Taylor noted on financial disclosure reports filed in 2004 and 2005 that she is a trustee and secretary of the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan. That group says on its website that it has given a total of $45,000 in recent years to the ACLU of Michigan for programs serving gay men and lesbians

Understanding the difficulty some folks have in drawing straight lines from point A to point B, let me type this really slowly...

1. Judge Taylor in fact did disclose her Membership in the CFSM.

2. That group plainly disclosed that it supports issue advocacy and has contributed to specific programs, none of which have to do with Domestic spying by the Bush Administration.

3. Judicial Watch and the Justice Department were fully aware of this during the hearing.

4. There is no conflict of interest and this is another PR stunt by an administration with a long list of legal losses and they will lose this one on appeal.

Cheers,

Steve