Judges self-excusing themselves from work to go contributor-chasing

When a judge is elected to the bench, the judge's first and foremost duty is to be a judge.

Right?

Well, maybe.

A Wisconsin #judgeRebeccaBradley is being criticized for leaving the bench in the middle of the oral argument and adjourning such argument because she reportedly needed to meet with the state business lobby who would fund her re-election campaign.

It may be, as Judge Bradley's "spokeswoman said", that judges "routinely excuse themselves for personal or scheduling reasons".

There are four questions (at least) about that though:

1) with the caseload congestion claims being made by all courts in all states, how justified was the "self-excuse", and are there policies in courts across the country to monitor the "self-excuses" of judges "for personal and scheduling reasons";

2) Did Judge Bradley - and other judges who practice such "self-excuses" report their "self-excuses" in their time sheets and are also "excused" from being paid for the "self-excused" time.  I will try to verify whether Judge Bradley charged the state for the time of her "self-excuse" through a Freedom of Information request;

3) Did Judge Bradley had the decency to notify parties and attorney appearing in front of them that she will have to leave, and that the court dates will have to be adjourned.  With attorneys paid by the hour at hourly rates well exceeding $100/hr, it is a disservice to the parties to have them pay for their attorney's appearances (since it is contempt of court and attorney misconduct not to appear to a scheduled proceeding) and then be blatantly "advised" that the judge "excused herself" in the middle of an oral argument for "personal reasons" not related with disability, and they have to come again, inconvenience themselves again, ask their employers to allow them to take time off work again - and pay their attorneys again.

Reportedly, the judge "read the briefs" and "had no questions", but that's not the point.

An "opportunity to be heard" includes a right to an oral argument of the brief, and that right may only be waived by the party and not by the judge.

Did Judge Bradley offer to pay for the lost time and for attorney fees incurred by parties because of her abrupt disappearance in the middle of a court session, her self-excuse and self-adjournment?

I know, I know, it is a rhethorical question.  But it should not be.

Judges should not be allowed to act as if they can do whatever they want with the taxpayer-paid time, and there should be some real accountability for misconduct such as Judge Bradley's.

Judge Bradley who is so head-over-heels to get to the sources of funding for her election campaign that she has left her job in the middle of a court session (in order to get funds to retain her job, makes a lot of sense, doesn't it), is also known for hateful speech as a student.

After election of Bill Clinton she reportedly wrote this:

""Either you condone drug use, homosexuality, AIDS-producing sex, adultery and murder and are therefore a bad person, or you didn't know that he supports abortion on demand and socialism, which means you are dumb. Have I offended anyone? Good — some of you really need to wake up."

Adultery?

Bad person?

Huh?

Judge Bradley reportedly condoned adultery by engaging in an extramarital affair with a married man while representing him in a child custody proceedings.

Is she a self-described bad person? 

What disgusts me is that such people as Judge Bradley remain on the bench forever, because, no matter what misconduct and ethical violations they engage in, they know which side their bread is buttered.

Judge Bradley knew parties and attorneys appearing in front of her are helpless to hold her accountable for "self-excusing" from oral arguments where they arrived, having spent time, money for travel and money lost in days off work.

But, Judge Bradley also knew that she will lose money if she does not make it on time to her potential sources of funding for re-election.

And funding won over Judge Bradley's service as a judge.

As to whether Judge Bradley also charged the state for the time when she "excused herself" to go elsewhere for personal business, I will try and use Wisconsin access-to-records law, will try to verify that information and will publish the results on this blog.

Stay tuned.