If this true she ought to be impeached.

From reading the quotes above of those who have looked at this matter it is apparent that Judge Taylor did not violate any laws or codes in not recusing herself from this case.

How many other cases has she presided over where the ACLU was a party? Since Taylor is getting on in years, and has spent decades as a judge, my guess is "a lot".

Oh, my. Judge Taylor collects her SALARY from the defendant in the case, must be a conflict of interest. Impeach now.

This is, I am sure, just one of a number of liberal groups this "jurist" has ties to, given her intemperate judicial opinion of late.

She might as well argue the case on behalf of the ACLU and rule on it at the same time.

In other words, she is a "card-carrying member of the A-C-L-U" and she wants you to die for our civil liberties, instead of making the poor dumb son of a bitch terrorist die for our liberties.

Give me liberty or give me death. --P. Henry

If'n W says he's protectin' us, let him do it. --21st C. Republican

Anna Diggs Taylor! Google her husband Mr.Diggs was convicted(I can't remember whether it was Federal or Local law)Her and her husband all came into power with Coleman Young,and John Conyers.No one in Detroit could recieve a Gov. job with out their approval.She,after being local chair woman of Jimma Carters Presidential Campaign(I could be wrong here She may not have been chair)Was rewarded for her efforts by being appointed Federal Judge.So much corruption,the city of Detroit had a population of 2million at that time now less than a million.Go figure

It's not about "W." You're not looking/listening/thinking.

It's about Achmedinijad, Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and the associated other groups.

And unless 9/11, 7/7, 8/10, Bali, Madrid, New Year's L.A. plot, etc. are a "Karl Rovian Plot(tm)", then you better get real, real fast.

Otherwise, you're just an ignorant putz who doesn't get the harsh reality. Another one of the 40% of the delusional crowd, sticking the head in the sand, and offering up their ass to the terrorists.

mmm, genitalia, high minded criticism. Reality? As in real WMDs? Ah, but I guess we go to war with the army we've got, and 5 years later we stick our asses in the air with the same army. Seems to me, when there was a real threat (you know from a technological society that was able to oraganize a military and produce enough weapons to actually threaten us), we built a real army. Even paid taxes like adults to do it. (I saw that reflected in a sand grain with my mole like vision).

So, tell me, what was the strategic and tactical follow on to the attacks of 9/11. What territory was seized? Whose commanding general exercised control? What lines of communication and resupply were broken?

Oh, I'm sorry, it's a new kind of war, and we need new kinds of thinking. What the hell happened to Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz? Now there was some harsh reality.

Got WMDs? Male bovine excrement doesn't count.

Damn, why you conservatives remain obsessed with an obscure judge in Michigan is beyond me. (But, hey, I live in the "reality-based" world, so I wouldn't understand). Don't you realize that the Sixth Circuit Court is going to hear all the arguments from the litigants again from the start, in much greater detail?

Of far, far greater concern is that your darling John Roberts

REFUSED TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM A CASE IN WHICH THE VERY PERSON (Bushyboy) PONDERING GIVING A PROMOTION TO ROBERTS WAS BEING SUED,

being sued by a fellow named Hamdan.

A reasonable person might question Roberts partiality, wouldn't you say so, conservatives???
Especially after he ruled against Hamdan.

You guys really need to stop obsessing the trivial, and focus on the more important.

My my sounds like "hermie" has his shorts in a wad. But then again most LLL do.

Hermie: "B-B-But... Look over HERE!"

Got WMDs? Male bovine excrement doesn't count.
ozzy, Typical deflection from the other side. What does this have to do with Judge Anna Diggs Taylor?

As for WMDs.

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

Of course you will update your talking point and move the goal posts.

No deflection here, Paul, see where Mitchell directed the discussion.

As for my talking point and goal posts: I'll take the report of Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group, paid for by my tax dollars over the word of Rupert Murdoch's propagandists anytime (even when they are quoting from Douggie Feith's male bovine excrement factory).

Hmmmm.

Curious. Didn't Scalia get into a lot of media trouble for a hunting trip?

Civil liberties? The horror!

Civil liberties? The horror!

No, Ozzy, you're the one who, in your preceding post, invoked W and 21 C. Republicans. You can't even remember the last thing you typed, much less the history of the Middle East, Iraq, WMD, Pres. and V.P. statements, and on, and on, on, on.

Hate makes you crazy, and a little stupid.

Mitch:
When you wrote: she is a "card-carrying member of the A-C-L-U" and she wants you to die for our civil liberties, instead of making the poor dumb son of a bitch terrorist die for our liberties and I responded with a quote from Patrick Henry concerning liberty and a paraphrase of what you wrote.......You respond with: Hate makes you crazy, and a little stupid.

Projection?

But what about the ruling? It seems to me that conservatives should be appalled at the idea of simply trusting *any* government agency to be fair and to not abuse their authority without some kind of oversight. Why aren't you all up-in-arms? Too busy supporting the president? Remember, this is government we are talking about. They are not to be trusted, IMO. I don't care who is in office, I want this kind of snooping to be nipped in the bud. If Bush is allowed to do it, it will be precident. Imagine Hilary Clinton with the ability to spy on any Republican she so chooses without having any oversight...