The Nebraska State Paper has an article headlined "Too Many Critics Do Not Understand The Duty of Judges". It seems a lot of very earnest and passionate people either don't seem to understand or perhaps don't care that judges are supposed to be impartial.
Let's step back for a minute and define the word impartial. My Oxford Dictionary (10th ed.) says the following: "adj. treating all rivals or disputants equally." My Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.) defines it as "Unbiased...".
What this means is that the judge is supposed to treat everyone the same, regardless of who may have the more vocal following. Even if it means the judge's life is at risk, he or she is to issue an impartial opinion, based only on the facts of the case and the law.
There are judges that have been killed because they refused to issue a biased opinion. An opinion based on what one group, or even the majority may have wanted, but was contrary to the rule of law. But to do so would have been contrary to what John Adams once hoped: "to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."
As the article's author put it "Too many people don't understand that a judge is never supposed to make a decision based on what is politically or socially popular with any group - or even with a popular majority, statewide or local." [emphasis in the original] So, for certain groups to loudly proclaim that a judge is not listening to them, and them alone, is not a criticism of the judge. But it may be a criticism of them.
As I've said before, if people have problems with a law, and not all laws proposed by men may be just or fair, then petition their legislators to change the law. In a democracy, this is a way to defend freedom for all.
The author closes with "The independent judiciary is supposed to be independent. The former is obvious. Sadly, it is not obvious to everyone." Let us never forget why the judiciary needs to be independent. For if we fail to do so, the solutions we arrive at may be worse than the problems.
Aloha!
