When we finally got electricity - and high-speed Internet - again, I was amazed, first, that the blog has now reached over a million views:
I thank my readers for their attention to the not so easy topics I am covering on this blog. I appreciate you attention and will strive to provide good coverage of access-to-justice issues, which include independence of court representatives and necessity for transparent, honest, unbiased and competent judiciary - something that our nation is lacking at this time, in my personal opinion, of course.
What was also amazing, after just a week of my absence from the blogging scene is the avalanche of news that have been posted on the subject of attorney misconduct, judicial misconduct and impropriety, and judicial corruption.
When I was starting this blog 2.5 years ago, the topic of attorney misconduct and judicial misconduct was a definite taboo in the news.
The fact that this topic is now discussed more and more actively, and I would say, aggressively, not only in social media, not only by us bloggers, but also by mainstream media, indicates just how influential the rapid exchange of information through social media has become.
Mainstream media has no choice but to pick up and cover these previously "taboo" topics, too.
I must add that the public is becoming very vocal as to what it does not like in its government - and I doubt that the government can ignore such a powerful voice.
For example, reportedly, over 40,000 people have signed a petition to remove from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama, a Trump supporter, who claimed that grabbing women by their genitals does not constitute a sexual assault.
The public considers the Senator's post in choosing the nation's federal judges and setting laws regarding federal courts too important to be entrusted to a sexist jerk, even if he is an old sexist jerk.
In Rhode Island, a female litigant has filed an ethic complaint against a judge who handled her sexual abuse lawsuit against a Catholic priest without disclosure - in his mandatory financial statement, too - that for years, Rhode Island Supreme Court Judge Francis X. Flaherty
has had a leading role in Catholic church, and thus should not have been presiding over her lawsuit against a Catholic priest alleging sexual abuse.
And, in New York, a state Supreme Court judge Michalek, convicted of a felony and disbarred, is now a "cooperating witness" in a corruption investigation against a political power broker.
And in Texas, an appellate judge was exposed for receiving $11,000 in campaign contributions from attorneys appearing in front of the judge for the past 2 years only.
And in Missouri, increased public interest in judicial elections is noted, and the question that judicial candidates are bought by those contributing to their election campaigns, is publicly raised and debated.
And, finally, New York Times raises the issue of improper failure to recuse by U.S. Supreme Court justices and questionable exercise of discretion by the U.S. Supreme Court.
New York Times correctly questions
- why the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan did not recuse from the "Affordable Care Act" case after participating in that case as a representative of the U.S. Justice Department, and
- why the U.S. Supreme Court justices Stephen Breyer and John Roberts did not recuse from cases of corporate litigants whose corporate stock they held; and
- why the U.S. Supreme Court self-servingly refused to take a 1st Amendment case about protests on the plaza in front of that same U.S. Supreme Court.
Corrupt judicial candidates, conflicts of interest in the judiciary, in its top echelons - the top state courts and even in the U.S. Supreme Court justices - topics which were only hushed and tabooed now plunge into mainstream.
You know why?
The American public is not dumb, and it does not want to receive in its courtrooms - instead of fair resolution of disputes - abuse by bought judges.
Through exchange on social media, through its own experiences in the courtroom, it sees that the "presumed integrity" of the "honorable" judiciary that gives itself immunity from malicious and corrupt acts is a mockery of the rule of law that the American public as the employer of its judges, is entitled to.
And, the movement to clean up the judiciary and make it more transparent, more accountable to the people, and actually adhering to the rule of law instead of the rule of "discretion" (whim) is on the rise, too.
I am glad the tide has started to turn, at least judging by the news.
And, I believe that, propelled by instant information sharing in the social media, possibility of real reforms of our judicial system does not seem a utopia any more.
No comments:
Post a Comment