(AM post bumped for PM update.)
A judicial panel is still deciding whether the Great American Pants-Suit plaintiff will keep his job as an administrative judge. A delayed decision is expected early next week.
Update to the update: Marc Fisher is reporting that the decision will be to start the bureaucratic process of firing Pearson. Amazingly, the chief ALJ recommended reappointing Pearson&mdash:until Pearson showed his typical good judgment by blasting the chief ALJ in an internal email as “evil,” causing his target to change his mind. Pearson will be entitled to a hearing (and who knows how many rounds of appeals) before he is officially fired; since April, he has been in a fully-paid no-work position as an “attorney-advisor.”
3 Comments
How about the judges who let this case go so far? I hope they’re held accountable in some way.
The conduct of judges these days surely leaves something to be desired – in and out of the courtroom. For instance, look at the spectacle of the judge down in Florida deciding where to bury Anna Nicole Smith’s body. He’s been given his own show for his antics!
To extend Joan’s question, how can suits be filtered?
Daubert helps us with respect to the truly quack science cases. But we have had the adverse effects from the “protect the little guy” consumerism since the 1970 that gave rise to the recent “flood” claims, and from the “protect the children” activism that led to the crazy day care center cases where suggestion and obsession trumped common sense.
Judges are unable to filter these cases mainly because they are creatures of the general culture. They miss the logical forest for the legal trees
Pointing the finger at a judge misses our general misunderstanding of civic duty. Could Mr. Nifong, for example, reveal the full DNA report when the report reflected poorly on the accuser?