Crouching Tiger, Hidden Judge

[Boojatta]

Imagine that a judge is never in a courtroom. Instead, a judge receives visual and audio information from the courtroom and communicates with the courtroom by typing messages that appear in large print on a large screen at the front of the courtroom. Note: I am talking about appointed judges. This idea wouldn't work for elected judges.

What about blind people? If the current system is flexible enough to accommodate deaf people, then the above proposal should be flexible enough to accommodate blind people.

Also, imagine that judges have code names. No two judges are allowed to have code names that can be easily confused with each other (just as you aren't allowed to create a new company with a name that is easily confused with the name of an existing company). Also, no judge code name would reveal or suggest information about the judge's race, sex, age, religion, etc.

Advantage #1: Any accusation that a judge is biased will be based on substance: the judge's actual questions, statements, or decisions. There will be no problem of "too many" judges of a given race or gender or "not enough" judges of a given race or gender. The general public will not know the race or gender of judges.

Advantage #2: The visible words on the screen will go into a permanent record that can be consulted later by any citizen who is interested in a particular case or a particular judge. During a trial, a judge will be able to request that a previous statement by the judge be revised or ignored, but the previous statement will still be part of the record.

Advantage #3: The judge will not yell at anyone. The judge will be able to include, in the words on the screen, instructions for the bailiff to yell something at someone, but those words will become part of the permanent record. So the judge will write them for a legitimate reason, not simply because the judge is emotional. For example, the judge might want to get a person to pay attention to a particular point that the person is ignoring or evading.

Are there other potential advantages?

Are there any potential disadvantages?

[Geoff R. Casavant]

1. Potential disadvantage

Unless you further propose that judges will remain hermetically sealed from birth until appointment, then presumably each judge will meet and interact with people during his/her life, including people who will one day appear in court as party or attorney. It is also possible that, human relationships being what they are, the judge will develop a bias for or against these people.

This is not a bias based on race, or gender, or anything other than personal acquaintance for good or ill, but it will nonetheless affect the judge's judgment. But without some indication of the judge's true identity, it will be difficult to anticipate these biases, or to recognize them when they arise.

[Boojatta]

4. That's an interesting point

(...) each judge will meet and interact with people during his/her life, including people who will one day appear in court as party or attorney. It is also possible that, human relationships being what they are, the judge will develop a bias for or against these people.

(...) without some indication of the judge's true identity, it will be difficult to anticipate these biases, or to recognize them when they arise.

Even if the judge's identity is known, isn't it possible for there to be personal relationships in the judge's history that observers are not going to know about? On the other hand, if a judge is disposed to lie and deny the existence of prior relationships then isn't there already a serious problem?

Suppose all the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States happen to know a particular plaintiff or defendant. Would the case have to be decided by lower courts, with no possibility of appeal to the highest court? Isn't it possible for judges to declare the possibility of bias and to also maintain some objectivity?

[Che_Nuevara]

9. "Even if the judge's identity is known,

isn't it possible for there to be personal relationships in the judge's history that observers are not going to know about?"

Technically, yes, but the risk is actually lower. Because if you know the judge's identity, and you can recognize a conflict of interests, you can try to have the judge recuse himself.

[hansberrym]

2. IMO you're going the wrong way. Why not force judges to be

more accountable. Right now they can write thier decisions and then just slink away.

I'm thinking of the Kelo (eminent domain) decision.

Wouldn't it be better if judges had to appear in person from time to time before House or Senate committees to answer questions.

They could have a spotlight shown on them and be forced to defend their decisions. That might make them think twice about screwing around with peoples rights.

[Boojatta]

3. Accountable to whom?

Wouldn't it be better if judges had to appear in person from time to time before House or Senate committees to answer questions.

No, I don't think it would be better. I think that would subordinate the judicial branch of government to the legislative branch. If, in addition, the legislative branch were subordinated to the executive branch, then there could be a dictatorship.

They could have a spotlight shown on them and be forced to defend their decisions. That might make them think twice about screwing around with peoples rights.

Isn't it just as possible that it could make judges think twice about defending the rights of the people from abuses by government authorities who have the power to drag the judges in for questioning?

[hansberrym]

5. The Judicial branch is subordinated to the Legislative.

Congress can remove judges. Congress can write law. Congress can remove the President.


"Isn't it just as possible that it could make judges think twice about defending the rights of the people from abuses by government authorities who have the power to drag the judges in for questioning?
"


I suppose the House could drag O'Conner before a subcommitte for questioning and ask her why she dared oppose the corporate/government alliance in the Kelo case. But I think the effect would be to disgrace the House, not justice O'Conner.

On the other hand, the House ought to drag the majority in Kelo before the house and make them answer questions in televised sessions. Make them face the people whose homes have been taken, and make the defend their decision.


I do agree that it is possible for Congress to abuse its authority. For instance they might impeach and remove judges without good cause. However I don't see any chance of that happening anytime soon. Congress doesn't do a damned thing no matter how outrageous the decisions of the Courts, and the real danger is that the courts might become the dictators.

[Boojatta]

6. You want to make the Judicial branch More subordinated to the Legislative?

I suppose the House could drag O'Conner before a subcommitte for questioning and ask her why she dared oppose the corporate/government alliance in the Kelo case. But I think the effect would be to disgrace the House, not justice O'Conner.

You told me what you think the effect would be. What would the motivation be? They wouldn't be satisfied with a judgment that goes the way they want it to go? They would not find or create a pretext for removing a judge, but would openly announce the actual reason? The openly announced reason would be that the judge expressed a dissenting opinion in a case? If evil people are that stupid, then what are you worried about?

Congress can write law.

The Supreme Court can strike down a law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

Congress can remove judges.

If Congress can't appoint judges, then how many judges might Congress have to remove in order for Congress to be in control?

[hansberrym]

7. don't need to

"You want to make the Judicial branch More subordinated to the Legislative?"

No need to make more subordinated, just a need for Congress to start excersing the power it already has.




You asked:
What would the motivation be? They wouldn't be satisfied with a judgment that goes the way they want it to go? They would not find or create a pretext for removing a judge, but would openly announce the actual reason? The openly announced reason would be that the judge expressed a dissenting opinion in a case? If evil people are that stupid, then what are you worried about?

However my reply was in response to your earlier hypothetical-

"Isn't it just as possible that it could make judges think twice about defending the rights of the people from abuses by government authorities who have the power to drag the judges in for questioning?

-and my answer is that if Congress were to drag judges who actually do defend individual rights in for questioning, then the disgrace would fall on Congress. Furthermore that is not likely to happen since those who wish to undermine our rights employ secrecy and misdirection, not publicity and open discussion.

My answer to your new questions is that the the evil doers (ha!)would have no motivation to engage in open discussion with Justice O'Conner regarding Kelo, more likely they hope that the public would never actually take the time to read the decision.


My argument in summary is that sunshine is a disinfectant. If we allow judges to operate anonomously as you propose that will have the opposite effect IMO as what you desire.


Already Supreme Court and circuit court judges operate independently of even the slightest questioning of their reasoning. While the judiciary is intended to be free from political influence, it is not intended to be completely unfettered by reason or logic. Once their decisions have been rendered, what is the harm to simply require the judges to explain their reasoning and to have their reasoning challenged in public hearings?

And yes, if it were found to be the case that a particular judge regularly flouted reason and dissembled when questioned, then I would support removal.

I would also support removal of any office holder who abused the authority entrusted to them.



Regarding the other hypothetical:
In theory, Congress can remove all the judges and then enact new law. No judges being present to strike down the new law, Congress would win a fight to the finish with the Judiciary.




What is a much more likely scenario is that power will tend to corrupt all levels of government until there are no checks and balances. No branch will lift a finger to check another since all three braches will have become so corrupted that they no longer recognize any restraint of governmental power over individuals.

Why should a corrupt Congress as an institution defend the rights of individuals against expanded powers of eminent Domain? (Kelo decision) After all, Congress itself can now make use of this same power to take any individual's property using the Kelo Court's expanded interpretation.

But if a handful of Congressman with subpoena power could investigate publically the reasoning behind that decision by direct questioning of the members in the majority it might give those judges pause the next time they try to screw us over.












"

[Boojatta]

8. questioning of their reasoning

Already Supreme Court and circuit court judges operate independently of even the slightest questioning of their reasoning. While the judiciary is intended to be free from political influence, it is not intended to be completely unfettered by reason or logic. Once their decisions have been rendered, what is the harm to simply require the judges to explain their reasoning and to have their reasoning challenged in public hearings?

I don't think there is any harm in requiring judges to explain their reasoning and to have their reasoning challenged. If the judge needs to make statements as a witness, then I agree that there is a reason for people to see the judge's face and even bodily movements. However, if the judge is not required to make statements as a witness, then I don't see the need for the judge to be seen. Who needs to know whether the judge looks more like John Edwards or more like Ross Perot? Who needs to be able to guess the judge's age, gender, race, height, etc?

[Boojatta]

10. Regarding eminent domain...

Did the Supreme Court rule that any law restricting the eminent domain power of a municipal or state government would be an unconstitutional law?

Is the complaint that the Supreme Court failed to provide relief from long-established political decisions that have become judicial precedents?

As a voter who is concerned about the eminent domain issue, shouldn't your focus be on legislators?

Even if you knew of some particular judge who is very qualified to be on the Supreme Court and who would contribute what you consider to be good judgment to the eminent domain issue, you would not actually be able to vote for that judge anyway, would you?

[Boojatta]

11. Kick

[Nelson Tondreau]

12. The problem isn't really the legal system

I don't think this is actually going to work. Part of the problem is actually that there are tons of white male conservative activist judges there who disregard the law and actually just pull shit out of their ass to justify their bigoted worldview. In fact we need more minority and female judges and they should be visible. Having a "friendly face" in the courtroom can be quite beneficial in certain instances.