Election 2016: Keith Ellison: ‘I would love to see Elizabeth Warren’ run
Judge Diggs, you’ll remember, was the US District Court judge who last week ruled against the government’s NSA warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists. The ruling was widely hailed by the usual suspects on the far left who are still trying to pass off their visceral hatred for President Bush as ‘concern about Bush trampling on our Constitutional rights’.
Stop The ACLU has the details on why Judge Diggs has been accused by Judicial Watch of having a conflict of interest in the case. Gateway Pundit and Allah are also on hot on the heels of this developing story.
Sidenote: My friend Jay at Stop The ACLU calls Judicial Watch a conservative watchdog group. I don’t agree that it is, but one thing to watch out for in the media is whether they call it one. I’ve noticed in the past that when JW goes after a Democrat, the group is a “conservative” watchdog group. When it’s going after a Republican, the word “conservative” is oftentimes dropped. I hope to be pleasantly surprised with this story, but I won’t hold my breath.
Update: Related to the above point, a kind longtime reader/emailer alerted me to the Judicial Watch website’s “About” page, where they describe themselves as “a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation” – but I think the point I made still remains. They don’t conduct themselves as a partisan watchdog group, but the media treats them as such with their selective labelling. When JW went after Dick Cheney’s 2001 energy task force meeting records, this July 2002 AP story did not identify them as a conservative watchdog group:
MIAMI – A watchdog group said Tuesday it would file a shareholders lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney and his former employer, Halliburton Co., claiming they engaged in accounting fraud.
Hat tip for the Judge Anna Taylor Diggs conflict of interest story: Brian at Iowa Voice