judicial tyranny

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 09:49 PM 5/16/01 +0000, Justin wrote:
>OK, there's no distinction. The judge just asked to me look up whether some 
>plaintiffs can maintain a malicious prosecution action. Shall I say, Judge, 
>you are a liberal Democrat, and these are plaintiffs suing a city that "we 
>all know" is corrupt. Sure they can. I'll write it that way, because law is 
>just politics. I don't need to worry about whether they have satisfied the 
>elements of this cause of action, that's just window dressing, ideological 
>folderal. Good idea? On the other hand, the plaintiffs are cops, and as 
>liberals, don't we hate cops? So maybe we should find for the city because 
>cops are bad. Oh, what fun, law is totally indeterminate.

I do not think it would be so blatant, judges and lawyers need to maintain
their faces too.  A more likely scenario would involve a judge allowed to
issue an opinion based on her genuinely independent interpretation of the
law, and then if that opinion went against the interests of powers that be
for a few times, that judge would suddenly find herself adjudicating mostly
traffic violations.  It works like that in the media, the governemnt, the
private sector, and the academe, so why should courts be different?

wojtek