30 Second Law School (part3)

Last time we talked about Rule 11. Today, I want to drop some knowledge on y'all about this thing called Judge.

"That's what I want to know about because without any knowledge of your understanding of the law, because you will not share it with us, we are rolling the dice with you, Judge... See, you've told me nothing, Judge. With all due respect, you've not -- look, it's kind of interesting, this Kabuki dance we have in these hearings here, as if the public doesn't have a right to know what you think about fundamental issues facing them." -Sen. Biden

So many in the blogsphere accept Sen. Biden's characterization of the Robert's hearings that it was depressing to me. Fortunately, I found one blogger that got it, and I decided to expand. You see judges are supposed to be impartial. Judges are not supposed to guess what the answer is ahead of time, they're are suppose to watch, wait, listen, and reflect. The public and Biden do not have a right to force someone to pre-judge a situation and than reject them if they don't like the outcome. It's a little something we like to call the "rule of law." You see judges are supposed to apply the law to the facts, they're not supposed to choose the outcome they like. And, while unfairly savaged in the hearings, Scalia and Thomas both write opinions that they think follow the law. Libs believe that it is nearly impossible to not interject one's personal beliefs. In fact, there's an entire school of disconstructionist, po-mo legal thought called Critical Legal Studies that claims laws are just social norms and judges are merely political operatives and such. Yes, being a judge isn't easy. Yes, sometimes the temptation to be impartial is great. Which is why there aren't cameras at SCOTUS. The jackals in the Media can't wait to politicize and suck the marrow from the bones of the Court's legitimacy. For example, Justice Thomas's son attended VMI. When a case involving VMI came up, Thomas recused himself. But in the Biden world we would have the Media swarming over the Court, howling for recusals on the slightest connection, and burrowing into the staff to turn clerks and aides against their masters, which is something that nearly happened during Bush v. Gore. For Roberts to judge he must not pre-judge, for if he did the fairness of the Court would be suspect and up for the condemnation of the most shrill and political elements of our system.