• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« The Morning Wrap | Main | Former Lobbyist Sues Psychiatric Association for Job Discrimination »

March 11, 2010



There are no real checks and balances with respect to judges (and prosecutors for that matter). Biased judges control trials and instructions to the jury. In a case depending on whether or not there was a contract, the judge refused to give the jury a definition of a contract. Appellate courts believe their role is to affirm the lower court, even if that requires them to ignore all facts supportive of the opposite conclusion. Appellate courts do not apply law to the facts of the case, but rather reach their conclusion and then use only those facts that support their previously chosen (often biased) conclusion. They even used fallacious reasoning to do so. The Constitution failed to put checks and balances for judges; that should be rectified asap.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad