Should judges be "holistic" in their rulings?

@TexChik

Chill. I'm afraid of "holistic" judging in general because I generally think that judges shouldn't be overreaching into the legislative realm, putting their fingers to heavily into elections, or trying to favor politically significant litigants over others.

I liked the idea of "judicial restraint," even before I went to a Catholic law school that beat the hell out of the Warren and Berger Courts over Roe and capital punishment.

Honestly, I think it's pretty hysterical when I get called out for being hypocritical for calling out judicial misconduct for overreach and get the ninth circuit thrown in my face while the eleventh circuit is in front of me.

Why was the 11th Circuit even created in the first place?

If you care to Google it, check out John Minor Wisdom and Alvin Rubin, among others.

All that crap aside, though, do you really think that judges should reach beyond the issues before them and try to help litigants "holistically?," potentially ignoring the crap presented to them and trying to help them out with other issues that might affect them?

@MistyCee There is no restraint in government now whatsoever. There are no checks and balances when socialists control congress and the White House . Their corruption and endangerment of our national security is treasonous at best . Your complaints about conservatives courts blocking the socialist agenda seem very self serving . You never complained about it when when Obama was in office and he packed the 9th circuit with radical libs , but now it’s evil when conservative justices sit on the bench? ?

@RedBaron "Tens of thousands"?

That number seems really high to me.

The thing is, Article III judges are all subject to the same political appointment process, which never seems to have been perfect and in my lifetime, seems to have gotten worse, whether you blame Biden for Thomas or the Bork mess, or Trump's picking Federalist Society folks.

Without getting personal (because I've known and worked with a few) or political (because, well, you know), I'm skeptical that we're vetting them right and not really thrilled with the Senior Status deal as far as the lower courts go.

@MistyCee I don't know what Article lll judges are, but if you think about all the judges at the municipal, state, and federal levels - administrative law judges, magistrates, justices of civil courts, county courts, criminal courts, family courts, district courts, courts of appeals, and justices of supreme courts, there are many.

In New York state alone, there are 324 supreme court justices, 125 county court judges, 39 district court judges, and 54 appellate court judges. There are 120 civil court judges and 100 administrative law judges here in New York City. Conservatively, 300 judges times 50 states is 15,000.

The federal government in 2017 employed about 2,000 administrative law judges and 10,000 administrative judges and other adjudicators.

So there are indeed tens of thousands of judges across the US.

@RedBaron Ok. I get your point, especially with State Court Judges.

Article III judges are federal district, appellate and Supreme Court judges under Article III of the Consitution, not Magistrates, Bankruptcy Judges or ALJs. There's about 870 of them.

@RogueLoner
Are you indicting government, plus the media, or humanity as corrupt?

And if all of the above, what are you proposing to replace them with?