[Am-info] Do you think Kottar-Kelley will delay ruling until a Democrat is president?

[Hans Reiser]

Paul Rickard wrote:

>========== On 2002.10.20 11:32 PM, Hans Reiser typed: ============
>
>  
>
>>We need to cut judicial pay, eliminate court reporters, cut courtrooms 
>>down in size (keeping just a few large courtrooms for those rare cases 
>>where more than a handful of people attend), and multiply current number 
>>of judges by 5.  Do you know most judges have 300 cases pending at a 
>>time.  There is no way in hell a judge can write a good opinion on that 
>>many cases, and the result is that quality of justice sucks badly.  If 
>>you go to a court of appeals, they don't even read your brief, they 
>>don't have time to, they give it to their clerks to summarize for them, 
>>and then the clerks don't always read them fully or read both side's 
>>briefs.  Better to have cheaper judges with more time.
>>    
>>
>
>    Too bad none of the president's hundred-plus judge nominees have been 
>approved by the wonderful US Senate.... Might reduce that caseload a bit. 
>That's something to keep in mind when you go vote, if you do - Senate 
>control determines if we get open judge positions filled or not. Some on 
>the list probably prefer to see all those cases bottled up than to see 
>any Bush judges presiding over them. And some of us probably don't.
>
>  
>
It is more complex than you describe.  The Republicans did it first, 
during Clinton's presidency.  I have mixed feelings about whether the 
Democrats should let that tactic succeed by removing the backlog while 
there is a Republican president.

I am mostly a Liberal Republican, but I have to admit I tend to prefer 
Democrats as judges.  There are not a lot of judges like Stevens (the 
liberal Republican who voted against the majority in Gore vs. Bush).  If 
I have a choice between:

A) someone who thinks judges should be highly intellectual and for that 
reason does not listen to their heart, and is dumb.

B) someone who listens to their heart and is dumb.

then I'll take B every time.  

Most judges are dumb and authority figure following, we can't reasonably 
hope for them not to be except maybe for the Supreme Court who are 
frequently at least not dumb.

Most Bush/Reagan appointees are category A judges.  Most of them are 
toads who instinctively seek to please the powerful.  

This is why they hate anti-trust law:

A) it requires great intelligence to understand on a theoretical rather 
than observational basis.

B) persons who insulate themselves from their hearts also tend to 
insulate themselves from observation

C) it is inherently to the core a vicious attack on the authority 
figures that their beta-male herd instincts tell them to defend.

Hans