Florio's "lose-lose" ruling proposal

Bobsyouruncle said:

Getting it out of the court system is not their job. That's like saying my job as a bank teller is to get people out of the bank.

Click to expand...

Good analogy. That IS a bank teller's job.

https://www.bai.org/bankingstrategies/article.aspx?Id=60bfbd47-e685-4ab5-873f-fcf3d76ae5a8

Bobsyouruncle said:

But that is their job. Not wanting to do something you signed up to do is a pretty piss poor excuse.

And the precedents exist already, he can follow or change them but "judging" what is correct, then avoiding making a judgement doesn't strike me as an ethical standard for someone who holds the title "judge".

Click to expand...

Their job is to see to it that this gets resolved. Settlement avoids setting precedent and doesn't tie up more of other courts' time on appeals. If the judge drives both parties to a settlement, he has done his job. Although in this case it's a moot point because a settlement isn't going to happen.

fester said:

A judge's job on the day to day/district court level is dispute resolution.

Click to expand...

Dispute resolution in accordance with the law. They could simply do nothing and the dispute is resolved.

A typical judge has way more cases assigned to them then they have court room days available for trial.

Click to expand...

It's not his job to solve courtroom crowding issues. The government should address that by having more judges. Berman shouldn't address it by doing a half assed job.

If a judge can get two parties to resolve a dispute without a trial, most of the time, that is doing the job of resolving a dispute effeciently as a non-externally imposed solution (the judge's decision) is far more likely to move a solution outside of a theoretical agreement zone where the two parties would have been willing to settle.

Click to expand...

Yes he can manipulate people to get a resolution by settlement by making them think they will lose. I'm saying that is unethical. If they choose to settle great, if not just judge IAW the law. I fail to see how justice would be served if he manipulated Brady into taking a settlement if he feels the punishment should be vacated. I also fail to see how time is saved.

Think about this hypothetical scenario: My neighbor likes to sunbathe in the nude. Not a problem for me as she is quite cute, but I have two young kids who really don't need to see everything hanging out. So we have a minor dispute.
We could resolve this by having a judge declare that either I am a nosy pervert, or requireing my neighbor to build an 8 foot privacy fence or to cease and desist entirely OR my neighbor and I could discuss this over a beer and have her accede to my minimal demand is that she brings a towel with her so when she gets up to go to her back door, she is covered up. She is amiable to that demand.

The judge has far more things to do than resolve a piddling dispute that can be resolved on its own with a tiny bit of prodding.

Click to expand...

If Berman feels that this case is beneath him he should resign. He is not there to decide which laws are important and worthy of the courts. If he would like that role he can run for office and make laws.

Fencer said:

Good analogy. That IS a bank teller's job.

https://www.bai.org/bankingstrategies/article.aspx?Id=60bfbd47-e685-4ab5-873f-fcf3d76ae5a8

Click to expand...

No it isn't.

Bobsyouruncle said:

Getting it out of the court system is not their job. That's like saying my job as a bank teller is to get people out of the bank. It's not, his job is to be a judge, therefore judge the case. Whether he thinks contract disputes belong in court is irrelevant. The law says it belongs there, and he should judge what's correct legally, not what's convenient or most expeditious for him.

Just my take, but this is article number one thousand on how the judge should be manipulating people so there's a settlement, and I question the ethics of that plan. I don't see anything about being a judge that confers that they should avoid ruling for the sake of convenience.

Click to expand...

Having watched judges do their thing up close and personal when I worked in the courts, they sometimes care more about expediting things than justice.

Especially now in America when we've had automatic cuts because of the congressional budget freezes, and this has lead to severely underfunded court systems.

Bobsyouruncle said:

No it isn't.

Click to expand...

In their employers' opinion it typically is.