How do you spell hypocrite? C—O—N—S—E—R—V—A—T—I—V—E

Conservative groups are calling for the head of a federal judge in Michigan who ruled against the NSA's warrantless wire-tap program because she serves as a trustee of a group that has given grants to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The conservative group, Judicial Watch, said that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor had a possible conflict of interest in the case ACLU v. National Security Agency because she is a member of the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan in Detroit's board of trustees, the New York Times reported. According to Judicial Watch, the organization gave grants totaling $125,000 since 1999.

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. Conservatives point out that by this standard Taylor should have recused herself from the case.

Conservatives don't hold all judges to the same standard. Justice Antonin Scalia went duck hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case where Cheney was a named defendant. Scalia heard the case that gave President George W. Bush the White House just weeks after his son, John, was offered a partnership in a law firm representing Bush in the case. In the same case, Justice Clarence Thomas remained on the bench even while his wife, Virginia, was soliciting resumes for the Bush transition team.

Conservatives accepted that Thomas and Scalia would be fair and impartial not given to political prejudice. It's only "liberal activist" judges who won't be.

The fact that fourth amendment to the Constitution specifically requires warrants "upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation" is lost in the din. Spun no matter what way, the judge's ruling is based on the Constitution and the law, not on her political beliefs or personal passions.

The conservative blogs and talking heads will, of course, carry the day and the rest of America will once again be reminded of the dangers of "liberal" judges. The mainstream media will give credence to the right by asking those on the left to defend the judges hearing the case in spite of a conflict of interest.

Once again the left is left with answering the proverbial when-did-you-stop-beating- your-wife question. The stranglehold of Republican hypocrisy continues.