Is That Legal?

Wow. Assuming that the commenter really was who he claimed to be, I predict disciplinary action, a la what happened to Judge Calabresi after he made his comments about President Bush. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1113296711316

Might I also go out on a limb and predict the conservative Fifth Circuit will not be renewing his appointment.

I also find it amusing that the judge states that he is "a federal judge" to bolster his argument, when of course a bankruptcy judge has absolutely zero expertise in the issues raised by the Tribunals bill. A local probate lawyer would be as qualified to opine on the issue.

[Note to Prof. Muller - I'm using Camino, and if I preview, I can't then get past the spam filter to post. I had to cancel, cut and paste.]

So, I can't tell if Nom is gleeful that this judge will be disciplined. I suspect that he/she/it is.

And of course, Nom's complaint that a man who has gone to law school and presumably practiced law doesn't have the ability to read the bill and opine on it, well, that complaint is ludicrous. If the judge doesn't have the ability to opine, why should most of the members of congress have had the right to vote on it and make that law? After all, many are not lawyers, and of those who are, how many of them are lawyers familiar with military process, habeas corpus, or the Geneva Conventions?

Bill Cat-Killer Frist? He's a doctor by training. Denny Hastert was a high school wrestling coach -- fine training for parsing the questions of international law and habeas corpus, no? For that matter, George W. Bush is not a lawyer -- he's a failed businessman. Why should he get to say anything about this?

Nom clearly thinks that one standard for credibility applies to people who *make* law and another applies to people who *read* law. If the Democrats manage to take over Congress, I expect Nom's standards will be the same, but the application will be reversed.

One also notes that the punishment for this judge that Nom seems to relish would be entirely inappropriate, since as a bankruptcy judge, he will NEVER be involved in a case addressing this kind of question. So for what is he being punished? Insufficient obeisance to the Bush regime?

Wow. Very well spoken. I'll really miss him.

Paperweight, the judge's discipline, if it comes, will not be for an "insufficient obeisance to the Bush regime." Rather, it would likely be for violating Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, which instructs that judges should "refrain from political activity" and "should not…publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."

And to answer your other question, yes, that is a different standard: Congressmen can opine about political matters in a way that judges cannot. Contrary to your point, it actually IS the case that there is a different standard for those who make the law than those who apply it. That might strike you as unfair or "ludicrious," but that's the way the system is set up.