« Fox News Crew Still Missing | Main | Microsoft Sues Cybersquatters »

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ACLU Connections

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, the Carter appointee who ruled that the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program was unconstitutional, has a connection to the Michigan ACLU, the plaintiff in the NSA case, and should have recused herself.

Gateway Pundit links to the Chron Watch story:

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government's warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case ACLU et al. v. National Security Agency. Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor's financial ndisclosure statements, available on Judicial Watch's Internet Site, www.judicialwatch.org.

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). 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.

According to the CFSEM website, "The Foundation's trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis."

"This potential conflict of interest merits serious investigation," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment."

(Judge Diggs Taylor is also the presiding judge in another case where she may have a conflict of interest. The Arab Community Center for Social and Economic Services (ACCESS) is a defendant in another case now before Judge Diggs Taylor's court [Case No. 06-10968 (Mich. E.D.)]. In 2003, the CFSEM donated $180,000 to ACCESS.)

Now we know why the ACLU went to Detroit. Yes, this federal court assigns cases randomly, but let's not forget, Judge Taylor has a history of working to stack the deck in favor of the side she agrees with.

And pay attention to the last paragraph of the above article. Note the pattern?

Captain Ed also notes the conflict, but says it probably won't lead to any serious consequences:

[T]his does not appear to violate the legal canon of ethics, at least not explicitly, but it does seem rather too close for comfort. Many judges probably either belong to the ACLU or have given it support, but in this case it would appear unseemly for Taylor -- as an officer of an organization that is a major benefactor -- to have presided over a lawsuit the Michigan chapter brought. I doubt she will get any official sanction, but I also think it will dent her reputation than her opinion in the case has already done.


You shouldn't need a money trail here to make you believe she was inclined towards the plaintiff. The opinion speaks for itself. But if there simply must be score-settling, this is where it'll come from...The twist is that she's not a trustee of one of the parties; she's a trustee of an organization that helped fund one of the parties. One step removed. Thus it's a question of the spirit of the law versus the letter.

Update: Stop the ACLU has more information on Judge Taylor's past unethical behavior in the U of M affirmative action case.

Others blogging:

The Political Pit Bull
Stop the ACLU
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
California Conservative
Iowa Voice
Old War Dogs


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ACLU Connections:

» The Political Pit Bull linked with Remember Vanguard?

» Getting Nothing But Static From MSM linked with Judge Diggs Fed Cash to ACLU Before Ruling Against

» Church and State linked with Judge In Wiretap Case Accused of Conflict of Inter

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with U.S. Judge Nixes Warrantless Wiretaps

Comments (19)

If this true she ought to b... (Below threshold)

If this true she ought to be impeached.

From reading the quotes abo... (Below threshold)

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 collec... (Below threshold)

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 on... (Below threshold)

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 ... (Below threshold)

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 h... (Below threshold)

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... (Below threshold)

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... (Below threshold)

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... (Below threshold)

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


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" ... (Below threshold)

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

Hermie: "B-B-But... Look ov... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

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

Got WMDs? Male bovine ex... (Below threshold)

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, s... (Below threshold)

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. Di... (Below threshold)


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

Civil liberties? The horror... (Below threshold)

Civil liberties? The horror!

Civil liberties? The horror... (Below threshold)

Civil liberties? The horror!

No, Ozzy, you're the one wh... (Below threshold)

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... (Below threshold)

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.


But what about the ruling? ... (Below threshold)

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...






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy