A whimsical idea

In addition to the wonderful writing and fascinating substance of the blog, I like the masthead of The Volokh Conspiracy.  It reads, “Mostly law professors, blogging about whatever we want since 2002.” That got me thinking. (I know. Don’t say it.)

What if a bunch of senior and retired federal district judges started a blog about the federal trial courts entitled, say, “The aging (and self-styled) aristocrats of the Article III trial courtroom.” The masthead might read: “Probably pompous, but certainly old, federal trial judges (sometimes) blogging about stuff they know something about.”

Alas, there is no chance. As trial judges, we are too used to being the monarch. But, then again, it could be wicked fun.

RGK

 

5 responses

  1. We would only meet in secret. But, maybe we could make you our pool photographer. Let me think.

    All the best.

    RGK

  2. RGK: we are too used to being the monarch.

    I would like just one federal judge to explain to me how it is that they came to believe that we somehow appointed them to be our absolute monarchs. As we were reminded yet again in McCutcheon, “precedent,” “judicial restraint,” and “original intent” are just quaint 18th century concepts, relegated to the dustbin of history. Standing Bear would have a tear in his eye….

    You’re better off doing this either solo or anonymously, because the only time you get a hint of brutal honesty– and from the appellate bench in particular–appears to be in dissent. As Justice Eisemann of the Idaho Supreme Court recently observed:

    Courts decide cases in one of two ways: (a) they apply the law to the facts and thereby arrive at the result or (b) they determine the desired result and then twist the law and/or the facts to justify it. The error made by the district judge was applying the law to the facts, which produced a result that the majority does not like. …

    There is a saying that hard cases make bad law. That saying is incorrect. It is courts that make bad law in the process of deciding cases based solely upon whom they want to win or lose. A court must have the integrity to decide cases by applying the law to the facts.

    Nield v. Pocatello Health Svcs., Inc, 2014 Opinion 20 (Ida. 2014) (Eisemann, J., dissenting) (unpaginated slip op. per Google Scholar).

    McCutcheon resembles that remark. “I pledge allegiance to the Corporate $tates of America, and to the gross profit for which it stands….”

%d bloggers like this: