American humorist H. L. Menken defined a judge as a law student who gets to grade their own papers. To me they are often just an attorney who was looking for an easier route; no billable hours or malpractice insurance worries; easy street with little performance goals other than to keep out of trouble. Whether elected or appointed, judges are winners of a popularity contest, and mindful of just that; beholden to those who put them there. Well, sort of because when judges fail to protect the public good by preventing waste of resources, and permit their courts to be tied-up with frivolous cases, they neglect best interests of the citizenry. They have prerogative to punish litigants for pestering the innocent with phony accusations but Judge Justin Patrick Fay and others are inclined to let them go free; no worry of paying attorney fees to the harmed party or face charges of perjury. This sends the wrong message. Maybe some judges just don’t care; why bother with process improvements and true justice; too much extra work.
An effective judge possesses excellent and reliable logical reasoning, analytical and decision-making skills. They exhibit sound legal expertise, rule with impartiality, are thoughtful, engaged, open-minded, adaptable, even-tempered, and compassionate. They will be actively invested in the fact-finding process. That’s a rare find indeed. As with any profession, some judges are better than others. It also depends on jurisdiction; some places are just better at demanding excellence from court employees. Attorneys will privately tell you the reality of judge horror stories; sleeping on the job, lackadaisical, inattentive, disrespectful, unprepared, lacking legal knowledge, irregular and inconsistent rulings, and more. They are reluctant to do anything about it; certainly won’t voice concerns to a judge. Truth is the justice system fails far too often; a frustration felt by many.
Court procedure is revealing; the use of Latin to imply tradition and sophistication when in reality, it’s just obscurant club member dialect; smoke and mirrors. Another one: rising for the judge in feigned respect as they come and go as if they were emperor. A judge in robes is reminiscent of an executioner just lacking their hood; they can wield a heavy hand. A colossal fraud foisted on the public is that a law degree entitles someone to sit in judgement. We the people get stuck with judges who lack pertinent aptitude. Credentials required to work as an attorney are about as applicable to being a judge as a motor vehicle operator’s license is to piloting a jumbo jet. Some lawyers are shysters yet manage to wrangle a judgeship; we get bad and good apples in the mix. With only minimal subjective performance standards in their way, it should concern us all that attorneys magically turned into judges can become isolated and casual in their thinking, and even become immune to logic and common sense. They mostly learn on-the-job or mimic what they saw as attorneys in court. There appears to be only one national judge college in the USA – it offers on-line curriculum in critical thinking, ethics, decision making, effective communication, time and case management, and other skills. To protect us, someone please sign-up Judge Justin P. Fay and his brethren for a full suite of classes!
Appointed judges enjoy pretty much absolute job security, elected judges just slightly less so. One way to put a judge out of work is, if conditions warrant, to recuse (have them procedurally removed from a case) or legally enforce disqualification should a judge not do so voluntarily. The law here suggests that if a judge has a “bent mind” that will prevent them from dealing fairly, they should recuse themselves. Given the questionable honor system of judgeships, this action is unlikely. Grounds for disqualification include question of impartiality. Efficacy and standing of motion to recuse may differ between civil and criminal cases. Said and done, for the most part judges are unlikely to be challenged.
Relegated to not much more than spectator, it was frustrating to have my attorney speak for me because there was much more to say; we covered but a fraction of my accuser’s fictions. Before court she cautioned to be careful how I presented myself for if the judge took a dislike, he would rule against me. Based on what? Surely not the facts. What, the judge has to like me in order to get a fair shot? That says a lot about the so-called justice system; the fragility of the process and crippling fear attorneys hold close; don’t upset the judge. I learned something new too; innocent until proven guilty does not apply to a temporary protection order (TPO); petitioners can dream-up anything and it is given weight. Judges don’t want liability for getting it wrong so will approve a TPO just about no matter how preposterous. I get that. Judges, with clear mind please do pay better attention once the accused has their day in court.
Where amateurs reside: Archuleta County Fred C. Harman III Justice Center
