I'm glad your searches paid off to some extent. I guess McHenry isn't "suburban" enough for the "suburban" Bar. [grin]
On the other point in your other response: Yes, the Bar associations are kind of a priesthood (more like political clubs), but unlike in medicine, there aren't several ways to treat a trial case: There's the legal way, and the not legal way. A judge who makes it up to suit some other agenda or different idea of the law is not innovating to help the patient; that judge is acting contrary to the law. That's what some call "activist" when it's at the appellate level (where at least all sides agree there could be a question of interpretation to be decided). But at the trial level it's plain out arbitrary and unfair to decide contrary to what the superior courts have held or against the clear letter of the law (where it's also plainly Constitutional). At the trial level, it's process and procedure, evidence, and fairness. It breaks the rule of law for a judge to diverge from the legal mainstream, for the very reason that It's The Law.
So, anyhow, when every political gradation of bar recommends against retaining a judge, I sit up and take notice.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: McHenry Judges
Date: 2004-11-01 01:15 pm (UTC)On the other point in your other response: Yes, the Bar associations are kind of a priesthood (more like political clubs), but unlike in medicine, there aren't several ways to treat a trial case: There's the legal way, and the not legal way. A judge who makes it up to suit some other agenda or different idea of the law is not innovating to help the patient; that judge is acting contrary to the law. That's what some call "activist" when it's at the appellate level (where at least all sides agree there could be a question of interpretation to be decided). But at the trial level it's plain out arbitrary and unfair to decide contrary to what the superior courts have held or against the clear letter of the law (where it's also plainly Constitutional). At the trial level, it's process and procedure, evidence, and fairness. It breaks the rule of law for a judge to diverge from the legal mainstream, for the very reason that It's The Law.
So, anyhow, when every political gradation of bar recommends against retaining a judge, I sit up and take notice.