The judge's conflict of interest

NY Times:

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 Taylor Diggs, 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.

...

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.

...

As you might expect from the NY Times it goes on to quote various "experts" who say that it was not a conflict, but that it should have been disclosed. They take the tact that disclosure in effect cures the "perception of conflict." The conflict was at least too apparent for the Times to ignore and I stick with my original assertion that if it were one by a conservative ruling in a case which the NY Times opposed it would be presented as signficant and the experts would be lined up to poo-poo on the judge.

The Times likewise tried to down play the forum shopping charge against the ACLU in filing the case where Tayor could her it. Again the "experts" are trotted out to say it is "hard" and not so bad. The two stories together suggest that the Times is at least worried about the smell of this case. The skunk is at least in the jury box of public opinion.