Everyone is more than aware, and some possibly sick to death, of the commotion regarding Clarence Thomas. You don't have to read much to find out that the same issue affects John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch. And more so that a version of it affects, or can affect, all Supreme Court Justices, not to mention any other judges.
The problem is absence of impartiality, from whatever cause, and the presence of bias. Everyone sees things in certain ways, and has personal preferences, but judges and Justices are expected to set that aside when they have to oversee hearings. Ideally, they wouldn't have much, or any, basis for conflict of interest, but if they do, they're supposed to be aware of it, and consciously block it from affecting their judgments, and even their behavior on whatever bench they occupy.
Anyone who has trouble understanding what's the problem with Clarence Thomas, for example, and his wife being treated to a luxury lifestyle, by someone who advocates for certain outcomes on the SCOTUS, and Thomas invariably and without question voting for those outcomes, would have much less trouble understanding the problem if George Soros, to take a caricaturish example Reps/cons like to imagine, provided a luxury lifestyle for the late Ruth Ginsburg and her husband, and submitted amicus briefs and other examples of preferred outcomes to the Court, and Ginsburg, without having to ask any questions of litigants, always opined as Soros advocated.
So, here's a situation in Broward County in which the judge had her own leanings (which is fine, as long as she keeps her personal opinions to herself), and she could not run a hearing in a fair way. That is the one and only job of judges and Justices. Commission: Florida judge should be reprimanded for conduct during Parkland school shooting trial (msn.com)
In this case, there is a movement to have this judge reprimanded, but she's already figured out into what corner she painted herself, and she's resigning, at age 46, in three weeks. She couldn't do her job, and either she figured that out, or she's just trying to avoid the consequences. Frankly, my guess is that if Thomas has any brains, he knows the same thing about himself, but he feels confident he can get away with it, and besides, he likes the tit. Harlan Crow has done much more for the Thomases than Thomas' SCOTUS salary could do for them. No, the American public, and the US Constitution, are not Thomas' constituents. Harlan Crow is.
Nikolas Cruz is a convicted and sentenced criminal, and I haven't read anything that would lead me to think he doesn't deserve to be. But he also deserved a fair trial, with an impartial judge, and he didn't get one. (I have also not read anything to suggest his lawyer is planning to ask for a conclusion that there was a mistrial, although I think s/he should. I can't imagine the outcome would be different, which may be the reason no one is talking about a mistrial, but Cruz was entitled to fair treatment from the judge, and he didn't get it.) Litigants before judges who are either burdened by conflict of interest, have their minds made up in advance, or just want to promote their own ideology also don't get a fair trial. If these judges want to advocate for their own opinions, they should run for legislative office, and see if they can get the voters, and legislative colleagues (if they win) to agree with them. Otherwise, imposing an agenda is not their job.
No comments:
Post a Comment