This is what it is:
And this is what it means in the "legal world".
This judge, Robert W. Sweet, appointed for life to "serve" on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (on the right) who is just 6 years away from turning 100, is, apparently, a DGAF judge. He is a senior judge, too, who assumed "senior status" on March 1, 1991, but did not stop judging cases.
He allows himself to make comments that surely would require any self-respecting jurist to recuse.
But, self-respect does not equal mandate to recuse.
Of course, there is a statute mandating recusal, 28 U.S.C. 455, and there are court precedents mandating recusal as a constitutional point, a lot of them, but, see above, who gives a F... , yes, that word?
We have judges with wet-brain eating diseases, hallucinations, demented judges who still do not resign - they just disappear when there is no longer a possibility to hide the fact that they are demented or wet-brained delirious alcoholics.
And, we have judges whose dementia shows up in other ways - by DGAF arrogance.
Apparently, Judge Sweet is such a judge.
And, of course, attorneys are deathly afraid to make motions to recuse judges, and thus sent just a letter seeking to "discuss" potential bias of the judge against the Plaintiff
- which the judge who was challenged with the letter, "deemed" a motion, ordered to be fully briefed, and denied.
Imagine what he will do next to the Plaintiff in this litigation.
With amazing frankness, the legal blog Above the Law states:
A translation for non-lawyers: "do not criticize a judge, he will retaliate".
Imagine that you are given the power over the critics of your own potential bias or misconduct. Will you be just exercising such a power? Do you think it is appropriate to even give such power to you over your own critics? Or, maybe, somebody else should handle such motions to recuse? Because, remember, at the age of 94, the judge is a DGAF judge,
and, if he DGAF, he may also DGAF whether he is biased or not.
But, as to the claim that "few things antagonize judges more than an unjustified motion to recuse", isn't retaliation by a judge, or the fact that judges are even antagonized by "unjustified" motions to recuse them actually point at the fact that the motion to recuse WAS justified, that the judge DID have bias, and that the judge MUST recuse, as not being impartial?
Let's see what this Sweet - pun intended - judge will do to the Plaintiff later in litigation, as a consequence of the Plaintiff's "unjustified" motion to recuse.
And it is especially interesting that the lawsuit was by a whistleblower (critic) for firing her after she blew that whistle (criticized).
To have a 94-year-old, possibly demented, "sweet" judge presiding who himself views retaliation by a person in power against a person with less power as "humor" is, in my view, a denial of judicial review altogether.
Of course, we will never know whether the judge was "snarky" because he was demented until he either starts leaving home and wandering around on the highway in a daze, like federal judge Edwin Kosik did, or become delirious like federal judge in Louisiana Patricia Minaldi did, to such a degree that another judge of her court sued her claiming Judge Minaldi cannot even "safely" take care of her own affairs - much less of the court affairs in front of her.
Let's remember that these "humorous", "snarky", nearly-centennial, wet-brained and demented judges may potentially preside (or are actually presiding) over death penalty cases.
Maybe, it's enough?
Let's introduce terms for federal judges. Short terms, too. Not more than 2 years. With a strict age cut-off of 70. Not enough to "build a business" out of their appointment. And, not enough to develop a dementia.
And, by the way, after judge Sweet refused to recuse - he was taken off the case anyway.
The docket report features another judge as assigned to the case now:
Such reassignment, and especially after denying of a motion to recuse, does not usually happen unless something is wrong with the previous judge.
The docket also shows that Judge Sweet's refusal to recuse, Dkt. 228 of April 14, 2017, was followed by a motion to reconsider that decision on April 18, 2017, a "sealed document placed into vault" on April 19, 2017, and a "Notice of reassignment" of Judge Cote on April 20, 2017.
So, we have another undisclosed demented judge now?