Rather than packing the Supreme Court, make judging impartial – New English Review’s Iconoclast blog
Archives
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2018
- January 2017
- October 2014
- August 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- May 2013
- October 2011
- December 2010
- July 2009
- April 2009
- November 2007
- September 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Categories
Meta
at one time only a few years ago, i would have disagreed with U, believing as i did that all judges strove to be impartial. as usual, as an indoctrinated citizen who has been self-educating himself over the past few decades, it never occurred to me that if there is no incentive to be impartial, judges would have *every* incentive to put their thumbs on the scales of justice. my eyes were finally opened to this by reading of several cases in which judges blatantly ignored exculpatory evidence brought to their attention by the defendant’s attorneys, and finally by judge sullivan’s decision to become the prosecutor in the general flynn case.
at this point in time, with national (as opposed to federal, which system has not existed for the past century or so) prosecutors being graded solely on the number of convictions they win, rather than on whether or not their cases were justified and fair, i now call the former DoJ the DoI instead, with “Justice” having become “INjustice.”
May God help the poor citizen who gets his foot caught in the gears of the court, because neither his guilt or innocence have much to do with the outcome of the trial process.