Judges

Precedent

Judge Thapar's dissent in an abortion case is very strong about how bad Roe is, but it is an example of how a judge can condemn a Supreme Court ruling while following it.

Bad Judges

• John Tunheim's compassionate release of a man who killed again (Powerline, 2021).

• William Taft: "The opportunity freely and publicly to criticize judicial action is of vastly more iportance to the body politic than the immunity of courts and judges from unjust aspersions and attack. Nothing tends more to render judges careful in their decisions and anxiously solicitous to do exact justice than the consciousness that every act of theirs is to be subjected to the intelligent scrutiny and candid criticism of their fellow-men. Such criticism is beneficial in proportion as it is fair, dispassionate, discriminating, and based on a knowledge of sound legal principles. The comments made by learned text writers and by the acute editors of the various law reviews upon judicial decisions are therefore highly useful. Such critics constitute more or less impartial tribunals of professional opinion before which each judgment is made to stand or fall on its merits, and thus exert a strong influence to secure uniformity of decision. But non-professional criticism also is by no means without its uses, even if accompanied, as it often is, by a direct attack upon the judicial fairness and motives of the occupants of the bench; for if the law is but the essence of common sense, the protest of many average men may evidence a defect in a judicial conclusion, though based on the nicest legal reasoning and profoundest learning. The two important elements of moral character in a judge are an earnest desire to reach a just conclusion and courage to enforce it. In so far as fear of public comment does not affect the courage of a judge, but only spurs him on to search his conscience and to reach the result which approves itself to his inmost heart such comment serves a useful purpose. There are few men, whether they are judges for life or for a shorter term, who do not prefer to earn and hold the respect of all, and who can not be reached and made to pause and deliberate by hostile public criticism. In the case of judges having a life tenure, indeed their very independence makes the right freely to comment on their decisions of greater importance, because it is the only practical and available instrument in the hands of a free people to keep such judges alive to the reasonable demands of those they serve." (1895) As cited by Pres. Roosevelt in 1906.

Judges Showing Blatant Partisanship

https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_judges_on_senior_status Useful chart. It does seem that judges retired when Clinton and Obama were in office, especially right after they won elections, but not when George W. Bush was in office, or in the year after Trump took office. Democrat-favoring judges are political, but not Republican-favoring ones. It would be interesting to see how many of the Democrat-favoring judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

What has shocked me now is how blatantly political these judges are. I can understand choosing to retire when you think there is a President who will choose a successor you think will be good. That is what has been common. What is shocking is if a judge does it blatantly. Suppose a judge said, “Great, I’ve been waiting years to retire because I’m really too old to do a good job, but I’ve been waiting for a Democrat to be President because I’m a Democrat.” That, in effect, is what these judges have done. They should have waited a decent amount of time before stepping down. Appearances do matter.

Judicial Independence

"Immigration Judges Forbidden to Use the Word ‘Alien’", 2021. And it's the word in the statute they're ruling on!

“directs EOIR staff, including adjudicators, to use language that is ‘consistent with our character as a Nation of opportunity and of welcome.’” [Internal brackets omitted.]

---