EPISODE198 – Get Your Justice Live! Bob Discusses Appeals & More w/ “Max”
Bob Norton has guest that goes by the pseudonym of “Max” on to discuss issues surrounding Massachusetts appeals, judicial accountability issues, and more with a focus on Massachusetts issues and policies. Max’s ongoing cases in the court of appeals causes him to appear anonymously to discuss policy issues with Bob. Heated discussions occur when Bob Norton indicates that Mass. Trial judges should be held accountability to the “chief” judge in each jurisdiction. Although in practice it certainly sounds good to the entrepreneur mind, it simply is not feasible as each judge controls absolutely their own docket, not to be interfered with or pressure exerted on, by other judges in the same district/circuit. To create such a role would require a Supreme Court Administrative Order, which certainly would raise independent/impartiality issues and would have to be carefully thought out.
EPISODE198 - Get Your Justice Live! Bob Discusses Appeals & More w/ "Max" [1:24:14m]: Play Now | Play in PopupIn retrospect, the chief administrative justice makes assignments, sees to the resources [budgets], assures uniform standards for procedures [such as employment, staffing, and case flow management]. and is generally responsible for the management of that division of the court system. The chief administrative justice position does not afford any collateral review, appellate review, or legal conflicts that have appellate remedies at law. Rule making authority is the express power of the Supreme Court over its lower branches, therefore any changes to that position that changes the “general operation of the courts” would have to result in an administrative order directing the courts to modify its procedures.
No Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL