Robert Kennedy

The National Judicial College teaches thousands of judges. As a faculty member for 22 years I have learned a great deal more than I have taught. The student judges’ collective experience and wisdom have often been what I have looked to when I was not sure where else to turn with a difficult situation.

For instance, when I feel myself getting angry at someone in front of me, say a recalcitrant spouse in a divorce, an unfeeling defendant in a child molesting case or an attorney whose style is of the button-pushing genre, I remind myself of what Socrates said:

“A judge’s duty is to do justice, not make a present of it.”

In other words, the power I can wield is not Jim Redwine’s power; it belongs to the people.

And when a problem such as lack of resources or a need for courthouse renovation becomes so severe people are denied justice I remind myself of what Robert Kennedy said:

“Some look at things and ask ‘Why?’, I dream of what things could be and ask, ‘Why not?’”

Or more prosaically, my quote the National Judicial College just published in their magazine, Case In Point, page 35:

“It’s better to go ahead and do good than to fear the lack of authority.”

The NJC collected such guidelines from 50 judges from all over America for the most recent edition. I find several of their thoughts helpful both for judges and those who may need a judge. The college asked us for brief statements of, “What we wish we had known before we became judges”. I will set forth a few.

“That I was giving up my individual identity. Your personal opinions and views are restricted in context at all times. Pretty soon you can begin to forget who you are.”
Judge Jan Satterfield, 13th district Court, KS

“The job doesn’t pay enough to be a jerk! Mistakes in applying law or reviewing facts are expected. Arrogance from the bench is inexcusable. Litigants will often decide how all judges act from their contact with you. Don’t get us a bad review.”
Judge Gregory D. Smith, Municipal Court, TN

“That folks would really believe that my court would be just like Judge Judy’s show.”
Judge Cynthia L. Brewer, Chancery Court, MS

“How dangerous it is to walk down stairs in a robe!”
Judge Stephen D. Hill, Kansas Court of Appeals

Perhaps we can look at some other gems of judicial learning later.

There have been bunches of people running for the Democrat and Republican nominations for President. It is possible some of them have constructive ideas on addressing issues such as war, healthcare, jobs and pollution. Perhaps some of them are neither venal nor stupid. Most of them are familiar with and even good friends with one another, or were. Many of them have served in public positions of trust. So I ask you, what don’t we know about their positions and why don’t we know?

President Barack Hussein Obama was reelected November 6, 2012. November 7, 2012 the pundits of the national media began handicapping the 2016 race. Did these purveyors of political propaganda seek to inform us about the policies of the potential contenders? With a clean slate and three years to investigate and analyze the bona fides of that extremely small sample of Americans who might soon lead the Western World, did the media strive to have us informed so we could make rational choices? Did the organizations which proudly call themselves “News” outlets eschew ratings for information?

We have had numerous events called debates involving both major party candidates. You may wish to fact check my memory, but to my recollection no one has had more than twenty minutes at a time, usually two minutes or less, to outline and explain the candidates’ plans governing America. It takes Peg longer than that to assign my weekend chores.

I recall Robert Kennedy responding to criticism of his motives for running in 1968. He said, “Isn’t it possible I just want to serve?” Is it vital to our country’s interest to turn debates that should be about issues into mud wrestling? Does the media think so little of the average American’s intellect that questioners must push for ad hominem attacks on other candidates instead of logical responses to positions?

Even when a candidate is interviewed one-on-one the opening question is never about the interviewee’s own plans. It is always some red-meat gambit such as, “Your opponent says you are a tea sipping progressive. Is your opponent competent to launch a nuclear strike against Iceland?” Should a candidate be adroit enough to reply, “You may want to address that question to the other candidate”, the media ratings hog will demand a negative response or announce a lack of backbone during the inevitable one-way post-interview.

I suggest if we abhor dog and cock fights, we should afford our future president at least that much civility.

Judicial Lodestones & Amulets

Like this:

Reality Politics

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: