You forget who you are dealing with :)

From the Court's decision:

Finally, Defendants assert that they cannot defend this case without the exposure of state secrets. This court disagrees. The Bush Administration has repeatedly told the general public that there is a valid basis in law for the TSP.

Further, Defendants have contended that the President has the authority under the AUMF and the Constitution to authorize the continued use of the TSP. Defendants have supported these arguments without revealing or relying on any classified information. Indeed, the court has reviewed the classified information and is of the opinion that this information is not necessary to any viable defense to the TSP.

Ok, seems like you got me there, I didn't read the legalese of the ruling, I went off of the news (silly me...trusting reporters).

So now the question is: If the Judge actually did review all the classified information and said that none of it is necessary to defend the case, what is the basis for the appeal?

In other news:

Conflict of Interest Is Raised in N.S.A. Ruling

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: August 23, 2006

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 — The federal judge who ruled last week that President Bush’s eavesdropping program was unconstitutional is a trustee and an officer of a group that has given at least $125,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, a watchdog group said Tuesday.

The group, Judicial Watch, a conservative organization here that found the connection, said the link posed a possible conflict for the judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, and called for further investigation.

“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, which gained attention in the 1990’s for ethics accusations against President Bill Clinton.

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.

“It certainly would have been prudent” to notify the parties in the case, including the Justice Department, about the issue, said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University and an author of “Judicial Conduct and Ethics.”

“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.”

In a case brought by the national organization of the A.C.L.U. and its Michigan chapter, among others, Judge Taylor ruled that the surveillance by the National Security Agency without warrants that was approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks violated the Constitution and a 1978 surveillance law.

The Justice Department moved immediately to appeal Judge Taylor’s ruling.

Some legal experts saw the decision as an important affirmation of constitutional principles. But even some supporters of it took issue with the reasoning, and Republicans said political motives drove the judge, whom President Jimmy Carter had nominated to the federal bench.

Questions about a possible conflict of interest appear likely to raise new concerns. The Web site for the group that supported the A.C.L.U., the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan in Detroit, lists Judge Taylor as its secretary and a trustee. It indicates that trustees make all financing decisions for the organization, whose assets exceed $350 million and which gives grants for a variety of community projects.

Judge Taylor declined to comment on the matter on Tuesday, and the foundation did not respond to a message for comment on what role if any she had in awarding the civil liberties grants.

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.

The chapter could not confirm a grant of $20,000 for work on gay rights that the foundation listed in an annual report.

Ms. Moss said the question of whether Judge Taylor’s role as trustee posed a conflict “seems to me to be a real non-issue.” She noted that judges routinely work for civil and nonprofit groups, including many that may finance or have ties to parties that come before them in court.

“Judges have not recused themselves when there’s been a much, much stronger connection to an organization,” Ms. Moss said.

Federal law requires judges to disqualify themselves from hearing a case if their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” based on factors like a financial or personal relationship with a party in the case.

Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal ethics at New York University, said he did not think there were grounds for Judge Taylor to remove herself from the case.

“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.”

But he said it would have been wise for Judge Taylor to disclose the issue to the participants in the case. “If there’s any doubt,” Professor Gillers said, “disclose, because it avoids suspicion later.”

Deborah L. Rhode, a law professor who directs the Center on Ethics at the Stanford Law School, said, “I certainly think it should have been disclosed.”

Can we have an important ruling in this country without having to worry about whether the judge is being impartial for ONCE??

IMO, serving on the board of a non profit organization that donated money to another non profit organization that is one of several plantiffs in a case that one is presiding over does not in and of itself constitute a conflict of interest.

IMO, it's just another smear campaign. Just like the "liberal" Schiavo judge (who is painfully conservative). Get used to it, expect it, that's the way it is anymore.....

I agree that the judge probably ruled impartially, I would expect her to do her job as a professional and not let her personal political views get in the way.

However, why is it that every time we get a ruling like this it turns out that the Judge has affiliations to one political group or another? Aren't there any moderate judges out there anymore? I wonder if our system of appointing judges isn't flawed. If the President appoints them, obviously that becomes a political exercise. Thus you get left and right judges but not too many middle ground judges.

Is it too much to ask to have a Judge hear a case who HASN'T contributed to the ACLU??

Just about everyone's involved in something....

Me, rescue animals.

It's like expecting a judge to have absolutely no outside interests....

she belongs to a nonprofit that gives money to many other nonprofits. If she was actively involved in the ACLU, I could see your point....

I know that you won't take my word for it, but I'll tell you anyway. I'm a lawyer. In legal circles, the claim that this warrantless wiretap program is constitutional is not only widely discredited, but bordering on frivolous.

Only the most partisan analysts even attempt any legal/constitutional defense of the program. And even then, everyone knows that they are speaking to defend Bush, not to make any credible legal/constitutional points.

There is a reason that the White House lawyers went out and hired personal lawyers when this thing was being vetted and ultimately authorized ... It didn't pass the "laugh test," and tapping phones without a warrant is a federal crime.

In 2002 the FISA review court itself held [in Sealed Case] that the president "did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

Judge Taylor is a political hack like the other ACLU supporter around here.

Another fabrication.

Why don't you start talking about how "the libs" don't want to watch the enemy, or other such nonsense? At least those lies are somewhat entertaining ... like watching a hampster run on a wheel.

To clarify, no court in America has ever held that the executive has to the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps of Americans on American soil.

RoninLB seems to be trying out for the post of Baghdad Bob.

you need two posts to connect your bs instead of attempting a rational discussion.. again.. again.. and again.

You're incoherent dude ... not sure if you need to drink more, or less.

you're a loser. Time to face reality.

Try lower your audience level again. Try the Disney Channel.

Try speak complete sentence :)

Yep, you're drunk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Re_Sealed_Case_No._02-001


In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001 is a United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (Court of Review) review of a "denial" of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application. The Court of Review reversed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) rejection of the FISA application. This opinion represents the first meeting of and first opinion by the Court of Review. For the purposes of review, the FISC's modification of the requested application worked as a denial, giving the Court of Review jurisdiction to take the case.

Among other things, the Court of Review found that FISA is constitutional, that the minimization requirements of FISA are not grounds to limit the purpose of the FISA application, and that FISA may be used to collect evidence for criminal prosecution. The Court also noted (but made no judgment regarding) "the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance" which relates to part of the government justification in the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.

.

The Court's conclusion in In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001 is reprinted below. If you read it, you will see that it supports precisely the opposite holding you claim. The court held that FISA's safeguards make FISA searches USING FISA WARRANTS constitutionally acceptable.

From that holding, you are trying to persuade us that the Court somehow authorized warrantless searches, outside of the FISA system, by the president.

Nice try, Baghdad Bob, but the tanks really are getting closer.

Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable.

you have moved from making up arguments to arguing with yourself..

that's progress according to the Disney Channel.

More senseless blather.

You want to quote some language from In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001 that supports warrantless wiretaps by the president outside the FISA system, or do you want to admit that you were lying?

Or do you want to change the subject to the Disney Channel?

"you have moved from making up arguments to arguing with yourself.. "



thx for the confirmation.

I'll take your response to mean you were lying but don't want to admit it.

"You want to quote some language from In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001 that supports warrantless wiretaps by the president outside the FISA system, or do you want to admit that you were lying?"