4 ms·

>Compared to many others cases where the Judge were clearly biases from the very beginning. Judges in the US certainly have varying political persuasions and v

by YPPH 5y ago

>Compared to many others cases where the Judge were clearly biases from the very beginning. Judges in the US certainly have varying political persuasions and values, but you would be hard-pressed to find a federal court judge who isn't trying to faithfully decide each case on its merits. It's part of their oath or affirmation. Judges are professionals and can express preliminary views on issues without being 'biased'.

ksec 5y ago
>but you would be hard-pressed to find a federal court judge who isn't trying to faithfully decide each case on its merits. >Judges are professionals and can express preliminary views on issues without being 'biased'. Except that is not what's happened. I dont mean biased just in their verdict but actual ruling. The worst and most eye opening was Apple vs Qualcomm. Where evidence and explanation from Qualcomm were completely tossed out by the Judge. It was so bizarre that I wasn't the only only one who noticed it. But Twitter, Social Media and MSM only wants to cover Apple's narratives.
- YPPH 5y ago
  An assertion of bias against a judge is not to be made lightly and an adverse evidentiary ruling against a party falls well short of indicating bias. There are many good reasons why evidence may be rejected that does not result from judicial bias. A judge who is biased against a party is not qualified to sit on a case. And if bias was established, the aggrieved party would no doubt seek the judge's recusal. I see unfounded accusations of judicial bias as being similar to unfounded claims an election was rigged. You need a good basis to make such claims. The fact the media may have construed it this way is of no moment. It's not beyond the media to embellish reality for a good story. I'm referring here to explicit bias: that the judge leaves court and says 'Well, I like Apple, so I'll decide for them'. This is not what is happening. I'm not venturing into the area of implicit/social biases, like what is dealt with in the book 'How judges think' by Richard Posner.

by YPPH 5y ago

ksec 5y ago

>but you would be hard-pressed to find a federal court judge who isn't trying to faithfully decide each case on its merits. >Judges are professionals and can express preliminary views on issues without being 'biased'. Except that is not what's happened. I dont mean biased just in their verdict but actual ruling. The worst and most eye opening was Apple vs Qualcomm. Where evidence and explanation from Qualcomm were completely tossed out by the Judge. It was so bizarre that I wasn't the only only one who noticed it. But Twitter, Social Media and MSM only wants to cover Apple's narratives.

YPPH 5y ago
An assertion of bias against a judge is not to be made lightly and an adverse evidentiary ruling against a party falls well short of indicating bias. There are many good reasons why evidence may be rejected that does not result from judicial bias. A judge who is biased against a party is not qualified to sit on a case. And if bias was established, the aggrieved party would no doubt seek the judge's recusal. I see unfounded accusations of judicial bias as being similar to unfounded claims an election was rigged. You need a good basis to make such claims. The fact the media may have construed it this way is of no moment. It's not beyond the media to embellish reality for a good story. I'm referring here to explicit bias: that the judge leaves court and says 'Well, I like Apple, so I'll decide for them'. This is not what is happening. I'm not venturing into the area of implicit/social biases, like what is dealt with in the book 'How judges think' by Richard Posner.