as the principal adjudicator, the judge can't be absolved of his responsibility by pointing to advisories. that the probationers were biased in their recommendation doesn't absolve him of his own biased judgment, and whether he's actually biased or not is a matter of the totality of his judicial record, not just this case.
An assertion of bias against a judge is not to be made lightly and an adverse evidentiary ruling against a party does not, never has, and never will, by itself, indicate bias.
The fact the media may have construed it this way is of no moment. It's not beyond the media to embellish reality for a good story.
A judge who is biased against a party is not qualified to sit on a case. And if bias was established, the aggrieved party would no doubt seek the judge's recusal.
You don't have to repeat yourself, clarity was not the problem with your previous post.
It may be that the parent poster is completely biased, but not commenting on the writing of a judge that did not write an opinion on this decision is not evidence of that. That you think it is reveals your ideological biases, though.
The judge's job is to make a decision based on the evidence in front of them. The judge has to weigh the evidence based on their training and knowledge.
That decision might prove in hindsight to be incorrect, based on new information or a fresh perspective. The judge cannot be held accountable for that.
We accept this as part of the job, that difficult decisions cannot always be made perfectly within any legal framework, but still need to be decided.
If this results in disproportionate punishment, the system is at fault - the system of laws - not the judge, who was doing their job.
The judge's decision might alternatively prove to be corrupt, in that the judge has been influenced by something outside of their training, knowledge of the law, and the evidence. The judge should be held accountable for that.
But they can be challenged. That's why you're reading an article about it. If you have a judge that is biased, it is probably harder to challenge his sentences than if you had an algorithm that you proved was biased.
>The judge's job is to make a decision based on the evidence in front of them. The judge has to weigh the evidence based on their training and knowledge. That decision might prove in hindsight to be incorrect, based on new information or a fresh perspective. The judge cannot be held accountable for that.
Well, I already covered that in another comment: we could still hold them accountable for decisions deemed later to be incorrect with the same data available at the time.
> A judge providing an opinion is not adjudication.
If it is a tangential opinion (not supporting one of the decisive grounds for an action), sure. If it is a opinion that is part of the basis for a grounds of dismissal that inherently asks whether, even before considering how the other side might challenge it, the evidence could ever support the plaintiff winning, it absolutely is adjudication.
The difference is important because the last can be (and has been in some of the cases at issue) part of the analysis when dismissing for failure to state a claim.
> judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own
Do you have cases which survived appeal which sustain this? Judges' opinions tend to be way more sober than they're portrayed in the media, which mostly focusses on which side won.
reply