Should judges be "holistic" in their rulings?

Should they reach out beyond the issues presented before them and try and protect or heal a litigant, or look out for their interests beyond the case presented to them?

Honestly, this scares the crap out of me when we're talking about lifetime appointed judges.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/09/22/cause-the-harm-and-then-say-nothing-trump-has-aileen-cannons-proof-of-his-injury-for-a-week-and-said-nothing/

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

windinhishair · 61-69, M

Judges are there to adjudicate the law. There are always going to be judgment calls, but Cannon's decision on Trump isn't one of them. Her ruling suggesting Trump could be damaged by an adverse ruling was clearly beyond existing law, as the 11th Circuit made pretty clear yesterday. What party would NOT be injured if a judgment went against them?

By the way, did you notice that Trump actually got two judges he appointed on the 11th Circuit panel? That was only a 1 in 5 shot. He must be livid that they did not rule in his favor. After all, he appointed them, so they owe him and in his mind have no choice but to rule for him as "his" judges.