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.
Tuesday’s post is satire ?
ReplyDeleteAn excellent point! Thank you for making this a consideration.
ReplyDeleteSAO is a sinking ship. Poor management.
ReplyDeleteThe administration is running it to the grown.
DeleteSupervisors are dumb as fuck
DeleteHave 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.
ReplyDeleteIt’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”
Please stop with the Michael Hanzman bullshit. We get it that you have a crush. He was a fine judge who did excellent work on Surfside. We had other excellent judges. Don't forget that we once had Beth Bloom, Robert Luck, Darrin Gayles and Rudy Ruiz all on the bench at the same time with Monica Gordo, Brownyn Miller and Flower Lobree. Spare us the Hanzman is the best judge ever serve crap. Milt Hirsch's orders are better.
DeleteSeriously. It nauseating. I just had to listen to my friends mom go off on him this weekend for screwing the “economic” victims. He did get it done in record time but now without the massive amount of work the lawyers did. And not the purely ceremonial “leads” (HT & AP) on either side.
DeleteI 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?
ReplyDeleteWin at all cost!
DeleteIt’s not Leonard’s fault. He just does what he’s told. The top brass on the 4th floor is to blame at all levels.
DeleteWin or else what? Try me!
DeleteSet up a meeting with Jose If you don’t agree with Thompson
DeleteNot even county court likes Leonard, he makes 90k a year to bully everyone and isn’t even respected
DeleteLeonard Thompson wouldn’t make it anywhere else. They had to send him to county court where the crimes are not serious.
DeleteUnfortunately 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.
ReplyDeleteIntellectual 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.
ReplyDeleteLeonard Thompson is scary. Have you seen him walking the halls with troops of ASA's following behind in a line? Extremely ambitious with a win at any cost mentality. The ends justifies the means. His actions need to be closely watched. I hope a whistleblower comes forward soon. When he was in felony division, he took great sadistic pleasure in hearing a Judge give a young 20 year old offenders a life sentence. Would hate to see him in a position of even greater power.
ReplyDeleteWould a whistle blower be protected?
DeleteThompson is Talpins boy.
DeleteMVZ always had an entourage.
DeletePeople did whistleblow. The SAO protects him and his Assistant Chiefs.
DeleteI purchased the Scalia / Garner book at the suggestion of a lawyer friend in Tampa. It is interesting reading even though I disagree with the premise of the book. It is entitled Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. For those of us who wish to see where our increasingly conservative state courts are heading, I recommend reading it.
ReplyDeleteI just left SAO. I cannot fathom why KFR keeps Leonard Thompson in county court. He's rude and threatening to the kids over there. He makes it clear that if you don't win, your possible future at SAO is doubtful. Please put someone with integrity in charge of the kids.
ReplyDeleteOh just shut the hell up. You Gen Z’ers don’t know what hard work is.
DeleteThis guy has little man syndrome. Thinks he’s the best when in reality not even his own ASAs like him
DeleteIt's not a matter of Hard Work, it's a matter of ETHICS.
ReplyDeleteYou got a problem with ethics call Jose Arojo
DeleteYeah, the ‘Ethics Czar’. Ask him about shadow dockets, the use of his personal email for official business and the Miami Beach Police police exams. KFR hand-picked him to come back for a reason. Don't let his title fool you. SAO Miami remains one of the most unethical entities in Miami.
Deletehttps://www.floridabulldog.org/2020/10/cheating-on-miami-beach-police-exams/