From the story: The executive director of the Michigan A.C.L.U., Kary Moss, said her group had received four grants totaling $125,000 from the foundation since 1999. They were a $20,000 grant in 1999 for an educational program on the Bill of Rights, $60,000 in 2000, along with the N.A.A.C.P. and other groups for education on racial profiling, $20,000 in 2002 for work on racial profiling and $25,000 in 2002 for a lawyer to work on gay rights.
NY Times
1 comment:
I confess I have written this already, but it remains relevant here.
Some other parts of the article..
“I don’t think there’s a clear answer as to whether she should have disqualified herself,” Professor Lubet said. “But at a minimum, she should have disclosed it.”
Three legal ethicists interviewed said although Judge Taylor’s role as a trustee for a supporter of the civil liberties group would not necessarily disqualify her from hearing the case, she should have probably disclosed the connection in court to avoid any appearance of a conflict.
“The question is whether her impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’’ Professor Gillers said, “and the fact that she sits on the board of a group that gives money to the plaintiff for an otherwise unrelated endeavor would not in my mind raise reasonable questions about her partiality on the issue of warrantless wiretapping.”
And here is one from the very group that raised this issue:
“The system relies on judges to exercise good judgment, and we need more information and more explanation about what the court’s involvement was in support of the A.C.L.U.,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.
It is fairly clear that this is an accusation from a partisan group known for going after Clinton in the 90's, which, even if its claims are legitimate (which, as your article demonstrates, may be a stretch), they have not yet been demonstrated by very admission of the President of Judicial Watch.
Post a Comment