Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Judging why the judges decide NOT to judge

This opinion piece has a really good idea, taken from my own viewing of the facts in this miscarriage of justice. We elect and appoint judges to judge. They know when their right to recuse themselves should be implemented. However, they don't have to tell WHY they are recusing themselves. A cascading set of such actions has set the stage to nullify a correct verdict in a lower court. Worth a read...


  1. Judges and attorneys are required by law to recuse themselves for reasons, some huge some small. And if they don't they are disbarred. So say a person has investments and when they become a judge how do they "Change" those investments to be sure it doesn't conflict with some case down the road? Or perhaps it should now be law that anyone who is an officer of the court is not allowed to have investments? Or interests...or friends? Yep, if you are in the "six degrees" of opposition or a person in your court, you recuse yourself. Of course "six degrees" isn't well defined for lawyers/judges. So, we are told it is better to recuse NOW than to have the case tossed later -- less expensive, less waste of time. Perhaps the writer would want officers of the court to publicly explain their reason for recusing? Hmmm...who would want to be a lawyer or a judge if they are not allowed the same privacy as those they serve? Its opinions like this that give me, a soon to be laywer, great pause in the course of life I've chosen. I "got in" this business because there are people who cannot afford a good lawyer -- who fall in the cracks. Not for criminal law but for civil law. So, until society (or Congress) deems it "okay" for judges to have ANY time of personal investment/involvement with a case, recuse is the only way to be certain the person/company receives a fair hearing. Feel free to delete this as being too flaming.

  2. as you can see, I'm a law student not an english/linguistics student!