Is this surprising? A Judge can't preside over suits against a company he's invested in. That's because we don't think anyone can render impartial answers to

Is this surprising? A Judge can't preside over suits against a company he's invested in. That's because we don't think anyone can render impartial answers to questions that affect them personally. But the average judge must have more invested in the legal profession than anywhere else. Interesting follow-up questions: - What goes on in a judge's mind when she rules on a question like this? Is she cynical about it? Does she just not think about it? Or does she rationalize with happytalk like "sacred ancient rights and traditions"? If she does rationalize, does that mean all such arguments are cynical at root, or are some power plays more cynical than others? - What's kept this idea out of the journals until now? - Does it bother you as much that doctors probably get better health care than the rest of us? That the children of teachers tend to get better grades? That airline pilots fly for free?