Skip to main content

View Diary: It's not as sexy as waterboarding, but.... (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nonsense on stilts! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Braising Kane

    What would happen if such a suit was filed?  It would be sent to the US Attorney's office; if the suit was truly frivolous, the USA would file a successful Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and that would be the end of it.  Besides, people sue judges in their official capacity all the time, and the sky hasn't fallen.  Besides, there is Rule 11 to be considered here.

    By contrast, what do you say to the litigant whose rights have been obliterated by a judge who took a bribe?  "Tough shit; I got mine, and I don't give a damn about you?"  Why, how REPUBLICAN of you, my friend!

    If the number of instances in which legitimate abuse of judicial power is occurring is as high as I believe (with record support) they are, civil liability for judges is the only way to stop it.  OTOH, if what you assert is true, the number of cases that would even survive summary judgment is so small that the effect on judges would be de minimis.

    •  Summary judgment is not a panacea. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Justanothernyer

      Summary judgment occurs often YEARS after the lawsuit was filed and after expensive and laborious discovery process.

      Second, FRCP 12(b)(6) would afford no protection, because it is not meant to test sufficiency of the evidence.  Nor is Rule 11 of great help, as it does not mandate sanctions, and to the extent sanctions are imposed they are most often in form of a reprimand.  And of course, they are of little consequence to pro se litigants.  The point is, under your proposed theory, there would never be any end to the litigation, because the aggrieved litigant could sue every judge in the chain who denied his motion.  And he could also sue the US Attorney who opposes said lawsuits.

      Third, it seems that what you call "abuse of power" amounts to nothing more than disagreement with the outcome.  You do not provide any evidence for the assertion that judges routinely take bribes or otherwise act nefariously.  And if all you are unhappy with is the outcome, there is a process called "an appeal."    

      Finally, to the extent that in your case you can show that the opposing party gave a bribe and the judge accepted it, you could probably have the verdict set aside, without resorting to suing the judge.

      •  There are so many things wrong with what you (0+ / 0-)

        are saying here, it almost deserves its own blog entry.  I'll see if I can't attend to a comprehensive rebuttal later today.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site