Comments on: ten things about judges http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2007/02/16/ten-things-about-judges/ news, views and info on self-help law and pro se litigation Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:11:37 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: david giacalone http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2007/02/16/ten-things-about-judges/comment-page-1/#comment-694 david giacalone Sat, 17 Feb 2007 05:15:19 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2007/02/16/ten-things-about-judges/#comment-694 Thank you for taking the time to comment, Daniel. You are quite correct that the appearance of fairness is often highly important to the acceptance of a loss. #5 is one of the aspirational items that I hope judges will take to heart. In <i>civil</i> matters (except perhaps monumentally important political ones that get to the state or federal Supreme Court), I don't believe the courts worry too much about pacifying the public. Please come back and comment often. Thank you for taking the time to comment, Daniel. You are quite correct that the appearance of fairness is often highly important to the acceptance of a loss. #5 is one of the aspirational items that I hope judges will take to heart. In civil matters (except perhaps monumentally important political ones that get to the state or federal Supreme Court), I don’t believe the courts worry too much about pacifying the public.

Please come back and comment often.

]]> By: Daniel Quackenbush http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2007/02/16/ten-things-about-judges/comment-page-1/#comment-693 Daniel Quackenbush Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:43:12 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2007/02/16/ten-things-about-judges/#comment-693 No. 1: If the judge is fair to both sides, the losing party may not be happy, but at least they will often accept the verdict. No. 2: Often true. No. 5: I think judges often make rulings that they think will "pacify" the public or at least certain government officials (e.g., possibly Bush v. Gore). No. 9: Unfortunately, many judges use their discretion in such a way as to favor one side or the other. I have observed this, especially when it's pro per v. represented party, or when its State v. Defendant, whether or not the defendant if represented. No. 10: Often judges are stingy at enforcing the Constitution, particularly (and among others) the Fourth Amendment in recent years. Judges usually treat the Fourth Amendment as a "mere technicality" that should be overcome no matter how illegally the evidence was gathered by the police. No. 1: If the judge is fair to both sides, the losing party may not be happy, but at least they will often accept the verdict.

No. 2: Often true.

No. 5: I think judges often make rulings that they think will “pacify” the public or at least certain government officials (e.g., possibly Bush v. Gore).

No. 9: Unfortunately, many judges use their discretion in such a way as to favor one side or the other. I have observed this, especially when it’s pro per v. represented party, or when its State v. Defendant, whether or not the defendant if represented.

No. 10: Often judges are stingy at enforcing the Constitution, particularly (and among others) the Fourth Amendment in recent years. Judges usually treat the Fourth Amendment as a “mere technicality” that should be overcome no matter how illegally the evidence was gathered by the police.

]]>