"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Thursday, August 24, 2006

NY Times - A Matter of Appearances

Following the Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruling against the NSA wiretapping program, the NY Times applauded and said among many other things that, "the ruling eviscerated the absurd notion on which the administration’s arguments have been based."

Now the Times finds itself in a bit of an uncomfortable position; Taylor's ruling is being questioned due to a conflict of interest. Well, the "old, gray, pootbag" editorializes this morning on the question of that "conflict."

From the NY Times:

it would have been prudent for her to disclose any activity that might conceivably raise questions about her ability to be impartial. Regrettably, it was left to a conservative group, Judicial Watch, to point out her role as a trustee to a foundation that had given grants to a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, a plaintiff in the case.
"Regrettably, it was left to a conservative group...." Would the Times editorial board have found it "regrettable" if the judge in question was a conservative? No, I think they'd be all over his/her honor, like white on rice.

But hey, it's not such a big deal:
While the judge clearly erred in not disclosing this involvement, it wouldn’t seem, based on the known facts, to rise to the level of a conflict of interest reasonably requiring that she recuse herself from hearing the case under existing ethics rules.
No big deal as long as you're not a conservative....

Dean Barnett at HughHewitt's blog picked up on this too!


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks