Just as this site points out instances of judicial hooliganism, it acknowledges the internal struggle within the system between the righteous and the corrupt. The latest event I stumbled across was a September 2005 opinion issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where the majority of the Judges of the Ninth Circuit blessed the conduct of United States District Judge Manny Real. Judge Real had instructed a sexy young woman to report for her probation directly to him, and had revoked the District Court's standing reference to the Bankruptcy Court for her bankruptcy. While the Judges of the Ninth Circuit that heard the comely young woman's opponent's complaint -- and overruled it, Judge Kozinski wrote a compelling dissent that identified exactly what was wrong with Judge Real's conduct.
The entire opinion can be read here.
2 comments:
I saw the congressional hearing on this case late last night and your mention of Judge Real's instruction to this probationer to meet directly with him is misleading. He instructs all his probationers to meet with him 'directly' (it is part of a program he has run for 35 years, apparently), and there is always a probation officer present. Your comment implies to the ordinary speaker of American English that this judge did a wrong thing for the wrongest of judicial reasons: favoritism based on the comeliness of a plaintiff. That he arranged for a direct meeting with this woman offers no evidence of that particular brand of favoritism, and you offer no other reason for the implication in this introduction. I hope this isn't indicative of the standards to which you hold your bloggish interest in 'judicial hooliganism', as it seems to suggest a certain 'critical hooliganism' of its own.
I did not watch the hearing. The material that I wrote and the commentary that I made was based upon the opinion and the footnotes within it.
Judge Real has been on the bench for many years and presumably knows not to simply interject himself into cases, particularly without notice and opportunity to be heard.
To the extent that there was any implication that Judge Real was basing his decisions on the comeliness of the individual, there is no other reason suggested why he would behave that way other than the comeliness of the individual.
But, I will further investigate this and post my review of the findings later.
If I've been unfair, I will adjust or retract my unfair criticism.
Post a Comment