When I read these articles on the Judging The Judges survey, it seems that the low rated judges are well-served when they say nothing.
It seems very few people are capable of saying something innocuous like "I will take the results to heart and try to learn from them"
Instead, they are far more likely to say what a low rated RJC judge just did. He fell back on the absurd old chestnut favorite of low rated judges–that being that the attorneys resent him for knowing and enforcing the rules and expecting the attorneys to be prepared. For this to make any logical sense we would need to assume that the highly rated judges are beloved because they neither know nor enforce any rules and are quite welcoming and accommodating to totally unprepared attorneys.
But perhaps my favorite is the Family Court Judge who blames his low ratings on efforts by the group Veterans In Politics. Assorted politicians and judges, as well media outlets, have been quite aggressive with their public view that Veterans In Politics has no credibility, no influence, no rational person would listen to them, etc.
But then these same critics turn around and clearly give this organization the great credulity and viability that it supposedly totally lacks. There have been a few newspaper columnists who have written articles about the organization, and that they have no credibility, and no one should listen to them. Yet the mere publishing of such columns, in prominent placement in the daily paper, obviously provides the organization with some degree of credibility and influence. After all, no one kicks a dead dog. Nor do newspapers spend precious column space on matters which supposedly have no credibility, influence, and no newsworthiness.
And now we have judges blaming their low ratings on this organization. If nobody listens to anything this organization says, how did the organization supposedly get dozens of attorneys to score a judge poorly? Plus, I recall a politician who kept claiming that the organization has no influence or credibility, subsequently blame the organization for the politician's defeat at the polls.
I'm in no way taking up for this organization. But if they are that worthless and insignificant, then let's not later on turn around and blame them for the destruction, or damage, to the careers of judges and elected officials. It may well be that they do lack any real credibility or influence, but simply become an easy target to blame when a public official fails at something.
Me thinks these low rated judges should realize that the fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.
I had the same reaction as 9:49 as to that low-rated RJC judge. He is criticized by responding attorneys for knowing nothing of the rules governing Criminal Law, nor how to properly and judiciously enforce such rules. But he then turns around and claims attorneys dislike him because he is an expert as to knowing the rules, and a stickler for enforcing them.
As to that whole bit about Veterans In Politics, this dynamic is as old as the hills. If someone fails at something, the hardest thing to do is take accountability and blame themselves. And this is even more true of people like judges and politicians, many of whom have quite healthy sized egos. The easiest thing is just to blame other people outside groups, intervening circumstances, etc.
That all said, the survey is badly flawed in some key respects.
11:49–I hope it was purely a face saving move. I hope that even he is not delusional and grandiose to the point that he believes he is reviled and despised for being the cerebral rule expert and the only one with the courage to enforce such rules, while his highly rated colleagues know nothing and thus enforce nothing.
Again, even he can't really believe that…or can he?
Guest
Anonymous
November 19, 2019 6:51 pm
If survey was conducted as feedback form parents what is wrong with our Family Court and why there is an increase in caseload the result will be more concerning, truthful and DIFFERENT…Why only judges and attorney were participants?
Or perhaps the answer lies in that attorneys appear regularly in front of Judges whereby parents appear only on their matter and have no frame of reference case to case, period to period, jurist to jurist. Parents and other litigants are welcome to (and often do) voice their opinions and experiences.
As for Margaret Rudin I don't think she is much risk to be a black widow at her age, current appearance, and current health. So, I don't think there is a great risk of her attracting a multi millionaire, marrying him, bleeding him dry, and then butchering him.
But I wouldn't be surprised if she got involved in some form of financial based fraud, like forcing herself into the life of some really needy, impaired or disabled person, appointing herself their unofficial caretaker, gaining access to their funds, etc.
Becoming a formal guardian for anyone would be real problematic based on her extensive criminal record, disturbing notoriety, etc.
So, it would more likely be something unofficial and under the radar–like targeting a really infirm and impaired neighbor and trying to get access to their money with the "voluntary" cooperation of such individual.
When I read these articles on the Judging The Judges survey, it seems that the low rated judges are well-served when they say nothing.
It seems very few people are capable of saying something innocuous like "I will take the results to heart and try to learn from them"
Instead, they are far more likely to say what a low rated RJC judge just did. He fell back on the absurd old chestnut favorite of low rated judges–that being that the attorneys resent him for knowing and enforcing the rules and expecting the attorneys to be prepared. For this to make any logical sense we would need to assume that the highly rated judges are beloved because they neither know nor enforce any rules and are quite welcoming and accommodating to totally unprepared attorneys.
But perhaps my favorite is the Family Court Judge who blames his low ratings on efforts by the group Veterans In Politics. Assorted politicians and judges, as well media outlets, have been quite aggressive with their public view that Veterans In Politics has no credibility, no influence, no rational person would listen to them, etc.
But then these same critics turn around and clearly give this organization the great credulity and viability that it supposedly totally lacks. There have been a few newspaper columnists who have written articles about the organization, and that they have no credibility, and no one should listen to them. Yet the mere publishing of such columns, in prominent placement in the daily paper, obviously provides the organization with some degree of credibility and influence. After all, no one kicks a dead dog. Nor do newspapers spend precious column space on matters which supposedly have no credibility, influence, and no newsworthiness.
And now we have judges blaming their low ratings on this organization. If nobody listens to anything this organization says, how did the organization supposedly get dozens of attorneys to score a judge poorly? Plus, I recall a politician who kept claiming that the organization has no influence or credibility, subsequently blame the organization for the politician's defeat at the polls.
I'm in no way taking up for this organization. But if they are that worthless and insignificant, then let's not later on turn around and blame them for the destruction, or damage, to the careers of judges and elected officials. It may well be that they do lack any real credibility or influence, but simply become an easy target to blame when a public official fails at something.
Me thinks these low rated judges should realize that the fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.
I had the same reaction as 9:49 as to that low-rated RJC judge. He is criticized by responding attorneys for knowing nothing of the rules governing Criminal Law, nor how to properly and judiciously enforce such rules. But he then turns around and claims attorneys dislike him because he is an expert as to knowing the rules, and a stickler for enforcing them.
As to that whole bit about Veterans In Politics, this dynamic is as old as the hills. If someone fails at something, the hardest thing to do is take accountability and blame themselves. And this is even more true of people like judges and politicians, many of whom have quite healthy sized egos. The easiest thing is just to blame other people outside groups, intervening circumstances, etc.
That all said, the survey is badly flawed in some key respects.
Is he bad in criminal law? I do 100% civil and he is the only judge I preempt every time no matter the nature of the case.
Did he make that statement to the RJ to save face or does he really believe it?
11:49–I hope it was purely a face saving move. I hope that even he is not delusional and grandiose to the point that he believes he is reviled and despised for being the cerebral rule expert and the only one with the courage to enforce such rules, while his highly rated colleagues know nothing and thus enforce nothing.
Again, even he can't really believe that…or can he?
If survey was conducted as feedback form parents what is wrong with our Family Court and why there is an increase in caseload the result will be more concerning, truthful and DIFFERENT…Why only judges and attorney were participants?
Perhaps the answer lies in a desire by certain interest groups to control the outcome, thus control the court.
Or perhaps the answer lies in that attorneys appear regularly in front of Judges whereby parents appear only on their matter and have no frame of reference case to case, period to period, jurist to jurist. Parents and other litigants are welcome to (and often do) voice their opinions and experiences.
Thanks for your comment Judge
I notice 1:30 didn't say 1:00 is wrong.
As for Margaret Rudin I don't think she is much risk to be a black widow at her age, current appearance, and current health. So, I don't think there is a great risk of her attracting a multi millionaire, marrying him, bleeding him dry, and then butchering him.
But I wouldn't be surprised if she got involved in some form of financial based fraud, like forcing herself into the life of some really needy, impaired or disabled person, appointing herself their unofficial caretaker, gaining access to their funds, etc.
Becoming a formal guardian for anyone would be real problematic based on her extensive criminal record, disturbing notoriety, etc.
So, it would more likely be something unofficial and under the radar–like targeting a really infirm and impaired neighbor and trying to get access to their money with the "voluntary" cooperation of such individual.