. . .
K “A judge shows all-consuming ‘empathy’ for pensions and will use all of the powers at his or her disposal at any and all costs at any and all times and in all and any ways to protect his or her pension.”
J “So they are too ‘empathetic’ about pensions?”
K “Exactly. They are way, way too ‘empathetic’ and have a conflict of interest that precludes them from addressing such matters neutrally, but they address such matters first and foremost.”
. . .
K “By contrast, judges are given nearly free health care and can flash their ‘judge badge’ if any dispute arises over coverage. However, when a private citizen encounters a judge who has no experience with criminally intransigent health insurance companies, the judge rules for the insurance company.”
J “And thus judges make asinine comments in court such as ‘How could the health insurance company make a mistake in coverage because it is their job to know what is covered and not covered’ and then dismiss the case and sanction the injured and uninsured party.”
K “Indubitably.”
. . .
K “When it comes to Fourth Amendment protection for cell phones . . . .”
J “Justices have cell phones.”
K “Justices have cell phones, but some of them are so cocky that they are above the law that they don’t have to stoop to relying on the mere Fourth Amendment.”
. . .
K “How many of the Justices flirt with personal pregnancy?”
. . .
K “The only way to engender empathy is to put the judges in the shoes of the populace or to put the populace in the robes of the judge.”
J “The latter is more promising.”
K “Law is too complex and too important to be left to the lawyers and the judges.”
. . .
[See the e-commentary at “Pensions, Conflicts Of Interest And The Illinois Supreme Court (June 1, 2015)”.]
Bumper sticker of the week:
There is no law, there is only ideology
e-commentary 