Dr. Klein writes:
A judge owns a car and drives it legally. Should she be allowed to preside over a trial that will determine if a car was used illegally?
A judge collects guns, even displays his collection on his website. Should he be allowed to preside over a trial that will decide if a gun was used illegally?
A judge belongs to a religion which believes that masturbation is a sin, using pornography is a form of infidelity, and sexual purity is the battleground between God and Satan. Should he be allowed to preside over a trial that will establish if something’s obscene?
By Email
By RSS Feed
marcorandazza
Tara Warrington
blevinsj
AGhostInTheSnow
Christopher Harbin
jesschristensen
Tatiana
Bob
jfischer1975
smoconnor
mattcsanchez
tarakirstenk
June 18, 2008 at 2:31 am |
I’m not sure the question should be “should the judge be allowed to preside over…” but rather, is the judge impartial enough to preside over beliefs that are different from his own? That ought to be a prerequisite character of a judge. Yet, is anyone really completely impartial? In terms of deciding on another’s fate, virtuous character is more important than knowledge of “truths” or law. But in your last example, I find that there are some things impossible to be totally impartial about and views guided by religion particularly towards sexuality are so deeply imbedded and reinforced that it would seem rare a judge could take a true impartial stance. Therefore, no; unless he has shown a past history of courageous impartiality I wouldn’t feel my fate would be in trusted hands. Judges are first and foremost, human.
June 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
btw, your “the rest of the post here” link appears to be broken.
However in the first 2 scenarios I don’t think any conflict is listed with the information given. Just because I use a car doen’t show any opinion on what a particular car related law is.
The 3rd is probably different where an opinion is stated assuming the material in question could be classified as pornography. Whether or not this rises to the level of conflict however I’d want to know if this Religion demands that you are responsible for saving the souls of your fellow man. If this is a requirement it sounds like a definate conflict. Otherwise more info is needed.
June 24, 2008 at 10:55 am |
RE: the picture of dehumanization and Alex Kozinski
A judge, who was an ex DOJ high Official, puts in an offical ruling names of a person as to the plaintiff, that were not his real names, but reviled figures in history, the same judge, goes back to the French Revolution(on a 1995 case) to invoke the “hated”. Should a judge who so loses control to use the courts for an agenda of hate stay on the case, with Alex Kozinski abetting that flaming 9th Circuit traversty, to dehumanize a person, other than who he was.
Actually, that happned, and in case you really wonder, here are thes words of Kozinskis side kick(Kozinski joined in the gang bang), and they are:
“The “perverse incentives” outlined by the government( the DOJ who the Judge worked for previously) and adopted by the majority exceed worrisome. Imagine,(Judge concocts thinngs not facts in the case to demonize the plaintiff Mr Fine) for example, an employee of the IRS bringing a qui tam lawsuit against a company that the employee had just audited on behalf of the government. Shades of the days leading up to the French Revolution of 1789(the case in the USA not France) when taxes were collected by a private concern called the “Ferme Generale,” or “Tax Farm.” The first to be guillotined in the Place de la Revolution during the incarnadine Reign of Terror were the hated private tax collectors who made a profit by collecting more from the public than the amount needed by the government.( The U. S Government runs $ 400 billion dollar deficts about every year) 1 One day, Inspector Fine uses the awesome power of the federal government to investigate you; the next, Mr. Fine uses the information he pries loose from you with that power to augment his bank account. Can anyone say when Inspector Fine wields the coercive tools of the government that he is also not working for himself? Dr. Jekyll one day, Mr. Hyde the next. Such an abuse could only cause the public to distrust government officials even more than the public already does. (part of ruling in U S ex rel Fine v Chevron Oil, (9th Circuit 1995)
This travesty allowed Cheveron Oil to posibbly rip off the USA Government at a Navy Petroleum Reserve. Mr Fine is a human being the Government does not own his soul , his very being. Cheveron is one of the most powerful large oil companies in the world
Now, Alex Kozinski is showing woman (from his wired in Computers connected to the Court), as animals on all 4’s depicting their private parts, as if his twisted view of the world is to dehumanize people.
Should a judge be allowed to preside over a case, if he employs hate for an agenda, in conjunction with other ex political employees ?
The gullotine hate manifesto of Trott, in conjunction with Kozinski raise many troubling questions, especially for Congress.
If hate is employed by judges, and a person loses the attributes of who he truly was(as a human being), as the Court makes up a new dehumanizing persona, is that something that smacks of some Soviet Gulag like proceeding, foreign to a genuie justice system in America
This is not an abstract question, it is happening in America, it happened in the 9th Circuit—the court where Alex Kozinski is the Chief judge.
Sure the L A corporate bar, and some linked to the Bush White House like that, after all Chevron has a lot of PAC $$$ to kick back to politicians
June 24, 2008 at 11:06 am |
Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
June 27, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
While on the subjct of dumb, and dumber as to any roped into listening, I will now put up the utterly brilliant , just dazzling word’s of Zar Kozinski, who emails as Easy Rider, to explain the cow, the milk and the milk cans, (all off google searches)
and they are:
“From: The Easy Rider
FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them and the government takes all the milk.
GATEWAY 2000: You have two cows but you have to kill them because they look like two cows owned by a mammoth computer company. In exchange you get to keep a letter from a nasty lawyer.:
Above obtained off a google putting in Easy Rider kozinski cow milk
updated June 2008:
You have two cows, you paint them to look like a Gateway computer color copiers in the Dairy biz, then an uppty Beverly Hills lawyers, who knows knowing about cows, or how to milk the system, snatches the plains, and peddles the PIC –goods– to the L A Times.
Then, all hell breaks loose on the WWW, as the cows are discovered to be L. A Valley girls, and then FOX News calls for outing paint-baller, Alex.
He then says he still loves “chocolates”, and “bubble gum”, and is a real capitlist, and
he is just a libertine. Then, the 3rd Circuit, is ordered to investigate , who stole the milk out of the cans, and whether the Valley girls, were ever clerks for Judge Kennedy.
Meanwhile, the price of crude oil zoomed by $ 140/ B, and the Russkie Oil Zars were laughing their ass of at big Capitalist Bushy.
Then, Zar Alex’s wife was going postal, that the cow PICS were snatched from a secret sever , dedicated to inside the UCLA funny club’s private Storage zones, and
Alex hired the nuclear down load ex DOJ Esquire, to look into kicking but.
Meanwhile, there is talk from(Senator ex) Al Simpsons old assistant on urging the prosecution, and impeachment of Alex–since the cows were rumored to have mad cow syndromn
All this may be utterly stupid, insane, but it is L A-esque, so, the bench orders came out: “your all chill, there now, darlings, and kick back, Hee hee ha ha, Waaaaah.”
June 27, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
Is it just me, or am I getting some really strange comments on this blog lately?
June 27, 2008 at 7:47 pm |
Macro, that Madsion line of yours above was a take off on Adamn Sandler movie scene, lifted by some judge in Mich, you might try attributions, it was on Lawhaha,com, as the judge when wack job.
Strange you don’t do attributions, like Senator Biden, and his getting kicked out of college.
Doesn’t Kozinski crack you up, with, his going postal on Edward Lazarus, where he tried to get him fired as an Asst U S Attorney in L. A, after he wrote on the U S Supreme Court(in a best selling book).
Actually, there is an explanation on the cows/ girls painted to look like some take off on an a Gateway computer, ad, but don’t you have any recall on those ads.
yes gateway shuuned that logo, but it stuck with Kozinski–and the IP
Plus, get it milk, woman, nuiance, was your interest only prurient ?
Strange, indeed,
Kozinski 101:
There are two cows, the DOJ milks one, then expropriates the milk to provide to Homeland Security, then………
Kozinski is always over at USC on his IP.
Judicial Perspectives on IP Litigation
A distinguished panel of federal judges will discuss a wide variety of issues raised by modern-day intellectual property litigation.
Moderator:
Wayne M. Barsky
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Panelists:
Hon. Alex Kozinski
United States Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) <<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hon. John D. Love
United States District Court
(E.D. Tex.)
etc etc etc
June 27, 2008 at 8:12 pm |
“Kozinski’s accusations are completely unfounded.(in attacking some). There is little indication that Lazarus used confidential information that he gained as a result of being a clerk. Much of the new information in the book comes from papers that Justice Thurgood Marshall made publicly available, and much of the rest comes from interviews that Lazarus conducted over several years of working on the book. In Part I of this Review, I argue that Lazarus did nothing wrong and that the criticisms of Kozinski and others are misguided. (<< this from former U S C professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who is now a law professor at Duke)
The point, Kozinski goes off 1/2 cocked, like a hottie