My article last week on the problem of judging judges—superior court judges rarely face competition on Election Day and, so, most never even appear on the ballot—coincided with the weird tale of 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinksi. LA Times reporter Scott Glover revealed that Kozinski maintained a porn site; truth is the site is a personal one replete with mostly lame poo humor, and no appreciable porn (see it right here).

My point was that we voters know so little about the secret lives of judges—and what they do all day—that we’re not competent to judge them. A two-week investigation into Long Beach superior court judge Joseph E. Di Loreto showed that the judge had been twice admonished for misuse of his office.

The Di Loreto called me after the story ran on June 11, and declared it “a hatchet job. That of course supports my thesis: even after 14 days, interviews and a record search, none of us can really ever judge a judge.

Kozinski has since pulled himself from an obscenity case, and has asked an independent panel to review his conduct.

Tags: di loreto, girl painted like a cow, judge, kozinski, Ninth Circuit, porn, superior court, voters

Viewing 3 Comments

jesus 2 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Jesus thinks that the guy with the Donkey may be Father Euletario Ramos formerly of the Diocese of Orange dubbed King of the Pedophiles by Gustavo Arellano.

reply edit reblog flag

Dwight K Snider 2 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Citizen Journalist Quote of the Day: "Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

"I, (name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

"Public officer and employee includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.”

(Source: SEC. 3. California State Constitution -- Required Oath of Office.)

reply edit reblog flag

Joe Weinstein 2 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Let's get back on track. Porn or no porn, your problem of adequately judging judges is real. But actually your problem it's just a part of a larger one - the inadequate (I'm tempted to say idiotic) approach followed in our system of selecting and then anointing long-term public decision-makers - judges or legislators or executive officers.

There's no reason that the public should have to perform ill-informed - or else excruciatingly time-consuming - character analyses and comparisons of candidates in order to see to it that good public-affairs decisions are made. The ancient Athenians had a far better way - genuine democracy - which is both less costly and more reliable. Namely, public-affairs decisions are made by short-term ad hoc decision juries of randomly selected but motivated ordinary citizens, not by career politicians selected by ill-informed expensive popularity-contest elections.

reply edit reblog flag

http://joeweinstein.info