So you want Ruish's take? "Rumors in Washington has it that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings into the events surrounding the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 5-4 decision upholding the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action program. In a rare break with judicial comity, two judges in the court publicly questioned the procedures that Chief Judge Boyce Martin, a Carter appointee, had set out in the case... Chief Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the federal District Court in Detroit tried to take the suit against the law school away from Judge Bernard Freedman, who had been assigned it through a blind draw," which is the standard way these things happen. Case goes to a court, whoever is up next on the docket gets the case.
This babe, Chief Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, Carter appointee, tried to take this case away from the judge, Bernard Freedman, "who had been assigned it through a blind draw and who was suspected of being skeptical about affirmative action." The judge who was assigned the case was suspected of being skeptical about affirmative action. He was suspected! So this Stalinist judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, said, "Well, we can't have somebody that's biased that way. We need somebody like me, biased my way, toward affirmative action. That's what's fair in my courtroom." At any rate, she wanted to "consolidate it with a similar suit against the university's undergraduate admissions practice, which Judge Patrick Duggan was hearing. The chief judge dropped that effort was dropped after the judge hearing the law school complaint went public with a blistering opinion objecting to what he termed 'the highly irregular' effort of the chief judge," which would be Anna Diggs Taylor. That is a break with tradition. Normally what goes on behind closed doors and courts is never known. But she was trying to take the case away, because she suspected the judge who had been assigned the case was dubious of affirmative action. Can't have that. Just civil liberties, civil rights advocate, not a judge. She's just a satellite member of the ACLU that's sitting as a judge, for all intents and purposes. How did this case get tried before her court anyway? Did the ACLU say we want to try this case -- they had to know that they were going to a sympathetic judge. Why in the world would you choose a court in the Eastern District of Michigan to file suit against the federal government and the NSA program? The only reason to do it is if you know you've got somebody in your own club on the bench. Thank you, Jimmy Carter, you doofus. Glittering jewel of colossal ignorance, worst president in my lifetime and in the modern era, an utter disaster. More on him in just a moment. "Judge Duggan ruled in favor of the undergraduate racial preferences, while Judge Freedman ruled against the law school preferences." So that's who this babe is, ladies and gentlemen, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor -- I don't know if there were ever -- I guess there weren't congressional hearings on what went on. Of course not. What year was it, two thousand -- of course Republicans investigate Democrats? Hell, who's kidding who? Wouldn't do anything like this. On 8/17/06, William Bowen wrote: > > Her reason is journalists, scholars and lawyers can't talk to al Qaeda > > without someone listening. Boo-hoo > > Oh that's right, I forgot, this administration is a bunnies and flowers. > > yeah, Rush. > > What > > Fucking. > > Ever. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:213465 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
