When news organizations fail to name judges in news stories

[Stevicus]

Cottle Family Murder: Police capture ex-boyfriend in killing of Chesterfield mother, 3 children (wtvr.com)

This story itself is tragic enough. A woman and her three children were allegedly killed by the woman's ex-boyfriend. The woman filed for an order of protection from a judge, but was denied. Then, this happens. It's probably unlikely that a protection order would have done any good in this case, since he was apparently hellbent on killing her.

However, what struck me about this is that, in the news article, it just makes a passing reference:

Burkett said officers found Cottle had previously filed for a protective order, but that it was denied by a judge. As a result, police focused their investigation on Adams and his whereabouts.

"Police were able to get information pretty quickly that Adams, from Clinton, Maryland, was in Chesterfield County around the time of the disturbance call and murders," Burkett said.

For whatever reason, either intentionally or inadvertently, they failed to name who the judge was in this case. To me, the judge should be a prominent part of the story. Judges are government employees and public servants, and they are accountable to the people when they pull a monumental screw up like this. It's the press's job and civic duty to inform the public of any incompetent judges who should be removed. But they failed to do so in this case - and in many other such articles I've read over the years (although never kept a tab, until now).

So, that's part of what this thread is for, in addition to welcoming anyone's comments, particularly from those who think that judges should be allowed to remain anonymous and that the press should help them in that regard. I'd like to know what your arguments are. Whenever I encounter a story where a judge's decision is a key element, yet the judge is not named by the media, I will post it here.

Thoughts?

 

[Shaul]

Journalist style guides and other editorial standards typically say to refrain from naming judges. Naming them could endanger the judges (from threats) and being under such threats it could inhibit their work. Judges are supposed to rule solely on the basis of the Law and not other concerns.

 

[The Hammer]

I think the judge should be investigated. And if proven that they did something wrong, then they should be named.

But judges have a lot of leeway with what they are allowed to do.

If the judge is named now that could undermine their credibility, and ability to keep good order and discipline in the courtroom.

 

[Wandering Monk]

So, dox the judges? Alito had a dose of that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Cottle Family Murder: Police capture ex-boyfriend in killing of Chesterfield mother, 3 children (wtvr.com)

This story itself is tragic enough. A woman and her three children were allegedly killed by the woman's ex-boyfriend. The woman filed for an order of protection from a judge, but was denied. Then, this happens. It's probably unlikely that a protection order would have done any good in this case, since he was apparently hellbent on killing her.

However, what struck me about this is that, in the news article, it just makes a passing reference:



For whatever reason, either intentionally or inadvertently, they failed to name who the judge was in this case. To me, the judge should be a prominent part of the story. Judges are government employees and public servants, and they are accountable to the people when they pull a monumental screw up like this. It's the press's job and civic duty to inform the public of any incompetent judges who should be removed. But they failed to do so in this case - and in many other such articles I've read over the years (although never kept a tab, until now).

So, that's part of what this thread is for, in addition to welcoming anyone's comments, particularly from those who think that judges should be allowed to remain anonymous and that the press should help them in that regard. I'd like to know what your arguments are. Whenever I encounter a story where a judge's decision is a key element, yet the judge is not named by the media, I will post it here.

Thoughts?

Naming the judge would be meaningless without
thorough analysis of their decision, in which case
something about the judge would be understood.
But this would make judges political figures, &
might have deleterious consequences...or not.

 

[Stevicus]

Journalist style guides and other editorial standards typically say to refrain from naming judges. Naming them could endanger the judges (from threats) and being under such threats it could inhibit their work. Judges are supposed to rule solely on the basis of the Law and not other concerns.

Well, that explains the reasons why they do it, although I don't accept this reasoning. The same reasoning could be used to not name police officers, politicians, or other government officials.

The way I see it, if they're working on the taxpayers' dime, the taxpayers have a right to know who they are and what they're doing.

 

[Stevicus]

Naming the judge would be meaningless without
thorough analysis of their decision, in which case
something about the judge would be understood.
But this would make judges political figures, &
might have deleterious consequences...or not.

Judges are already political figures. What gave you the idea that they were not? Judges are politicians, every bit as much as Trump or Hillary.

 

[Revoltingest]

Judges are already political figures.

No, not all. SCOTUS justices are rather political.
Judges who are elected might be slightly so.
But their politics can affect their rulings.

What gave you the idea that they were not? Judges are politicians, every bit as much as Trump or Hillary.

You're far too cynical.
Many judges are just appointed. And many
who must be elected, run campaigns that
look devoid of politics...results looks random.

 

[Stevicus]

So, dox the judges? Alito had a dose of that.

So did Kavanaugh, although when Supreme Court decisions come down, the media generally name who voted for what. It's not withheld from the public.

 

[Stevicus]

No, not all. SCOTUS justices are rather political.
Judges who are elected might be slightly so.
But their politics can affect their rulings.

You're far too cynical.
Many judges are just appointed. And many
who must be elected, run campaigns that
look devoid of politics...results looks random.

I remember reading an excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book "Outrage" in which he makes a strong case for viewing judges as politicians. He noted that the professions of politician and lawyer are held in relatively low esteem by the public, yet once the same politician-lawyer dons a black robe, they become totally different in the eyes of many people. They're practically viewed as clergy - above politics and everything else, apparently.

But that's really beside the point. They're still hired and paid by the public to do a job, and the public has a right to know who they are and what they're doing. The press is supposed to keep the public informed, and if they're known to be deliberately withholding key information from the public, then they're doing a grave disservice to the public interest and should be called out on that. The people have a right to know.

 

[Revoltingest]

I remember reading an excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book "Outrage" in which he makes a strong case for viewing judges as politicians. He noted that the professions of politician and lawyer are held in relatively low esteem by the public, yet once the same politician-lawyer dons a black robe, they become totally different in the eyes of many people. They're practically viewed as clergy - above politics and everything else, apparently.

But that's really beside the point. They're still hired and paid by the public to do a job, and the public has a right to know who they are and what they're doing. The press is supposed to keep the public informed, and if they're known to be deliberately withholding key information from the public, then they're doing a grave disservice to the public interest and should be called out on that. The people have a right to know.

What do you think "political" means.

 

[sun rise]

Journalist style guides and other editorial standards typically say to refrain from naming judges. Naming them could endanger the judges (from threats) and being under such threats it could inhibit their work. Judges are supposed to rule solely on the basis of the Law and not other concerns.

I agree.

 

[Stevicus]

What do you think "political" means.

Well, I know you'll accept a dictionary definition: Political Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

1a: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government
b: of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3: organized in governmental terms
political units
4: involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system
political prisoners

Of course, since "political" is related to "politics" (which is also contained in entry 2 above), that word also should be defined: Politics Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

plural in form but singular or plural in construction
1a: the art or science of government
b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy
c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2: political actions, practices, or policies
3a: political affairs or business
especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government)
b: political life especially as a principal activity or profession
c: political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5a: the total complex of relations between people living in society
b: relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view
office politics
ethnic politics

---

The judicial branch is one of the three branches of government, and politics relates to "the art or science of government." As you note, judges are appointed or elected to their roles, and they also have a certain amount of leeway and independence in carrying out their job functions. They're not simple clerks or flunkies. They have power.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I know you'll accept a dictionary definition: Political Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

1a: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government
b: of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3: organized in governmental terms
political units
4: involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system
political prisoners

Of course, since "political" is related to "politics" (which is also contained in entry 2 above), that word also should be defined: Politics Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

plural in form but singular or plural in construction
1a: the art or science of government
b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy
c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2: political actions, practices, or policies
3a: political affairs or business
especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government)
b: political life especially as a principal activity or profession
c: political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5a: the total complex of relations between people living in society
b: relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view
office politics
ethnic politics

---

The judicial branch is one of the three branches of government, and politics relates to "the art or science of government." As you note, judges are appointed or elected to their roles, and they also have a certain amount of leeway and independence in carrying out their job functions. They're not simple clerks or flunkies. They have power.

I'm interested in how you use the term in this context.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm interested in how you use the term in this context.

I referred to an excerpt in the book "Outrage." Perhaps by quoting the excerpt, it might make it more clear:


A word about judges. The American people have an understandably negative view of politicians, public opinion polls show, and an equally negative view of lawyers. David Kennedy, professor of history at Stanford University, in writing about politicians, says: “With the possible exception of lawyers, we hold no other professionals in such contempt. Who among us can utter the word ‘politician’ without a sneer?” Conventional logic would seem to dictate, then, that since a judge is normally both a politician and a lawyer, people would have an opinion of them lower than a grasshopper’s belly. But on the contrary, a $25 black cotton robe elevates the denigrated lawyer-politician to a position of considerable honor and respect in our society, as if the garment itself miraculously imbued the person with qualities not previously possessed. As an example, judges have, for the most part, remained off-limits to the creators of popular entertainment, being depicted on screens large and small as learned men and women of stature and solemnity who are as impartial as sunlight. This depiction ignores reality.

As to the political aspect of judges, the appointment of judgeships by governors (or the president in federal courts) has always been part and parcel of the political spoils or patronage system. For example, 97 percent of President Reagan’s appointees to the federal bench were Republicans. Thus in the overwhelming majority of cases there is a nexus between the appointment and politics. Either the appointee has personally labored long and hard in the political vineyards, or he is a favored friend of one who has, often a generous financial supporter of the party in power. Roy Mersky, professor at the University of Texas Law School, says: “To be appointed a judge to a great extent is the result of one’s political activity.” Consequently, lawyers entering courtrooms are frequently confronted with the specter of a new judge they’ve never heard of and know absolutely nothing about. The judge may never have distinguished himself in the legal profession, but a cursory investigation almost invariably reveals a political connection. (Of course, just because there is a political connection does not mean that the judge is not otherwise competent and qualified to sit on the bench. Many times he is.) Incredibly, and unfortunately, the political connection holds true all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where, for instance, the last three chief justices—Earl Warren, Warren E. Burger, and to a lesser extent William Rehnquist—have all been creatures of politics, like so many of their predecessors in history.

Although there are many exceptions, by and large the bench boasts undistinguished lawyers whose principal qualification for the most important position in our legal system is the all-important political connection. Rarely, for instance, will a governor seek out a renowned but apolitical legal scholar and proffer a judgeship.

It has been my experience and, I daresay, the experience of most veteran trial lawyers that the typical judge has little or no trial experience as a lawyer, or is pompous and dictatorial on the bench, or worst of all, is clearly partial to one side or the other in the lawsuit. Sometimes the judge displays all three infirmities.

It’s always a great relief and pleasure to walk into court and find a judge who has had trial experience, knows the law, is completely impartial, and hasn’t let his judgeship swell his head. There are, of course, many such admirable judges in this country, but regrettably they are decidedly in the minority.

For whatever reasons—undoubtedly the threat of being held in contempt of court ranks high—the great run of lawyers are intimidated by judges and continue to be outwardly respectful even when publicly humiliated by them. Lawyers’ complaints are made in private to one another and to their families. Commonly heard at any watering hole for the courthouse crowd is one lawyer crying to another over his first drink of the evening: “The judge is killing me in court.” No lawyer is exempt. For example, only a very few lawyers in the history of the legal profession have practiced law in as grand a fashion or sown more new legal ground (particularly in the area of tort law) than the celebrated San Francisco lawyer Melvin Belli. Yet, despite his considerable legal stature and characteristically gentlemanly behavior in court, he was treated with so much disrespect by a small-town judge a few years ago that he mournfully observed: “The judge is riding me so hard in front of the jury I’ve got spur marks on my back.” Predictably, the judge was a political animal, having run for the office a few years earlier. The judge’s campaign theme was to “end the reign of arrogance” of the incumbent judge.

 

[exchemist]

Cottle Family Murder: Police capture ex-boyfriend in killing of Chesterfield mother, 3 children (wtvr.com)

This story itself is tragic enough. A woman and her three children were allegedly killed by the woman's ex-boyfriend. The woman filed for an order of protection from a judge, but was denied. Then, this happens. It's probably unlikely that a protection order would have done any good in this case, since he was apparently hellbent on killing her.

However, what struck me about this is that, in the news article, it just makes a passing reference:



For whatever reason, either intentionally or inadvertently, they failed to name who the judge was in this case. To me, the judge should be a prominent part of the story. Judges are government employees and public servants, and they are accountable to the people when they pull a monumental screw up like this. It's the press's job and civic duty to inform the public of any incompetent judges who should be removed. But they failed to do so in this case - and in many other such articles I've read over the years (although never kept a tab, until now).

So, that's part of what this thread is for, in addition to welcoming anyone's comments, particularly from those who think that judges should be allowed to remain anonymous and that the press should help them in that regard. I'd like to know what your arguments are. Whenever I encounter a story where a judge's decision is a key element, yet the judge is not named by the media, I will post it here.

Thoughts?

You don't know the judge was incompetent. You would need a legally competent person to review the case to come to a conclusion on that.

But it might be that this case should be reviewed by the judiciary, precisely to see if the judge's ruling was sound on the facts presented or not, and if there are any learning points for similar cases in future. The judge's name will be a matter of public record in any case so nothing is being withheld. The judge is not "anonymous". It would have been an editorial decision by one particular news outlet whether to include the name of the judge in their article or not.

 

[Stevicus]

You don't know the judge was incompetent. You would need a legally competent person to review the case to come to a conclusion on that.

We know the results. We know the fact that the judge was asked by this woman for a protection order from this clearly dangerous and violent man. This is no different than when a cop shoots an unarmed suspect. Maybe it was a tragic mistake, but that's no reason to protect the cop from public scrutiny. Same principle applies for a judge.

But it might be that this case should be reviewed by the judiciary, precisely to see if the judge's ruling was sound on the facts presented or not, and if there are any learning points for similar cases in future.

If there's one thing I've discerned in observing the actions of America's government, particularly its judicial branch, it's that they do an incredibly poor job of policing their own. There's been a lot of talk lately about abuses of power, cops killing unarmed suspects, systemic racism in the courts and police departments. I consider that the judges are the ones primarily responsible - or at least, they've been in a key position to stop it. How good of a job they're doing speaks for itself, when one looks at the state of affairs in America today.

The judge's name will be a matter of public record in any case so nothing is being withheld. The judge is not "anonymous".

Then there's no real reason for the press to withhold their name, now is there?

It would have been an editorial decision by one particular news outlet whether to include the name of the judge in their article or not.

Yes, that's the topic of this thread. The question is why. Why should their names not be revealed? The press has had no compunction about publishing the names of cops or suspects - even if they haven't yet been duly convicted of any crimes. Should the press do that? Should they even report on these events at all, especially if they're going to make editorial decisions to withhold key information from the public?

 

[exchemist]

We know the results. We know the fact that the judge was asked by this woman for a protection order from this clearly dangerous and violent man. This is no different than when a cop shoots an unarmed suspect. Maybe it was a tragic mistake, but that's no reason to protect the cop from public scrutiny. Same principle applies for a judge.



If there's one thing I've discerned in observing the actions of America's government, particularly its judicial branch, it's that they do an incredibly poor job of policing their own. There's been a lot of talk lately about abuses of power, cops killing unarmed suspects, systemic racism in the courts and police departments. I consider that the judges are the ones primarily responsible - or at least, they've been in a key position to stop it. How good of a job they're doing speaks for itself, when one looks at the state of affairs in America today.



Then there's no real reason for the press to withhold their name, now is there?



Yes, that's the topic of this thread. The question is why. Why should their names not be revealed? The press has had no compunction about publishing the names of cops or suspects - even if they haven't yet been duly convicted of any crimes. Should the press do that? Should they even report on these events at all, especially if they're going to make editorial decisions to withhold key information from the public?

Who knows why they didn't include it? Maybe they were short of space and didn't think it that important.

But I do feel strongly on the topic of lay people criticising judicial decisions, when they have not attended the hearing or read the judge's written reasons for his or her decision. The avoidance of mob rule is why we have a legal system, after all.

 

[Stevicus]

Who knows why they didn't include it? Maybe they were short of space and didn't think it that important.

But I do feel strongly on the topic of lay people criticising judicial decisions, when they have not attended the hearing or read the judge's written reasons for his or her decision. The avoidance of mob rule is why we have a legal system, after all.

The same reasoning you're using to defend judicial decisions from lay people could be easily applied to other branches of government. Do you feel strongly about lay people criticizing when we go to war, when they have not served in combat or attended any conferences of the joint chiefs of staff (or even know all that much about geography or world affairs)? If not, why not? I'm just curious as to where you draw the line here.

 

[Father Heathen]

Judges that are corrupt or inept need to be held accountable.