JUDGES, OPINIONS, AND WHY THE ROBE ISN’T A MUZZLE
Let’s get something clear right off the bat: judges are not robots. They don’t just press F1 on the keyboard and out comes a court order (although Chat GBT is changing this). They read (supposedly). They reflect and genuflect. They wrestle with consequences. And they are, whether they admit it or not, influenced by their lived experiences, their judicial philosophies, and—dare we say it—their personal sense of justice.
So why do so many judicial orders read like they were ghostwritten by HAL 9000?
Here’s the thing: judges are not legislators. Legislators make law. Judges apply it. But in applying it, they are interpreting it. And interpretation is inherently personal. The law isn’t math; it’s a messy, evolving ecosystem of words, history, precedent, and policy. When judges pretend that their rulings are devoid of personal perspective, they’re either lying to us—or to themselves.
Which brings us to the point: judges need to include their personal views of the law in their orders. Not because we need to know what they had for breakfast or how they vote. But because transparency is the bedrock of trust. When a judge decides a close case—when they weigh constitutional principles, public safety, rehabilitation, or freedom—they owe it to the litigants, the lawyers, and the public to explain why they ruled the way they did.
Not just “because the law says so.” But because they, the person we entrusted with the robe and the power of the state, believe that this is the right application of justice.
Hiding behind phrases like “the plain meaning of the statute” or “binding precedent compels” does nothing to further justice when the case is a toss-up and precedent cuts both ways. Give us the reasoning. Give us the context. Give us the thought process. That’s what being a judge means.
Judges are paid to be thoughtful. To be courageous. To stand apart from political tides and call balls and strikes when the crowd is screaming for a walk-off homer. If we wanted algorithmic neutrality, we’d let ChatGPT decide suppression motions (though, honestly, some of us would take that trade).
So next time you issue an order, Judge, don’t just tell us what you ruled—tell us why. Show us the struggle. Show us your voice. That’s not activism. That’s authenticity. And in this business, it’s all we’ve got.
9 comments:
Tuesday’s post is satire ?
An excellent point! Thank you for making this a consideration.
SAO is a sinking ship. Poor management.
Have you ever read one of Judge Mike Hanzman’s complex orders? They are about 40 pages long, not written by a law clerk and well resourced and legally reasoned. Structured in a way to analyze the law and aptly apply the specific facts of the case. He makes it easy to read and is persuasive in his analysis. Rumpole - Judge Hanzman does exactly what you suggest - he lays out his rationale of the law that he follows and in many ways will critique the law. He explains why he rules the way he does.
It’s a “Masterclass” in how a judge must write an order for a party and thus - appellate review.
I know the upper courts are in awe when they see who the presiding judge was and would be very safe to stamp it “presumptively 100% correct - affirmed”
The administration is running it to the grown.
I hear that Leonard Thompson, the SAO boss at Kounty Kourt is rather unkind to a young ASA who hears these words: "We the jury find the defendant not guilty, so say we all." It appears that the new ASA's are told to win or else. Kathy, what the hell are you doing?
Unfortunately the DeSantis-bots rely upon their own version of the Bible/Torah. No, not the Constitution. Just one book co-authored by Scalia and Garner. That's it. No matter how insane the result. Oh, and , of course, they ignore binding precedent because it was decided long ago by real judges.
Supervisors are dumb as fuck
Intellectual struggles such as you describe can occur only if there is no overriding ideology that swamps nuanced reflection. Good thing the judicial selection process these days carefully screens out judicial candidates who have strong ideological beliefs.
Post a Comment