I’m a judge.
And a lot of people are going to ask you why you get to decide whether a particular case is “judicial” or not.
There are lots of questions like this out there.
There’s a great article on the topic at Lawfare by Andrew Crouch that explains a bit more.
For example, if you are a judge, and you’re trying to decide if a particular defendant should be charged with murder or manslaughter or whatever, and a prosecutor asks you to decide this on the basis of what the law says, you would need to be familiar with the law.
The fact that the law isn’t the law and that you don’t have the power to interpret the law is just one of the reasons why you are so likely to get fired from your job.
But if you’re a prosecutor, you have the same power.
You can say, “I think this guy should be tried in this way.”
And that’s the law, you know, you don�t have to change it.
That�s the way it is.
So the law doesn�t give you the power over the law or over the process.
If the law itself is the law that says this guy ought to be tried this way, then you don?t need to worry about whether that law is a “judicial decision.”
But the law can, if it feels like it, lead you astray.
Let�s look at a simple example: what if I say to you that, for instance, a defendant should have a “favorable disposition” in a case, and then you ask me to decide what that disposition should be based on the law?
Well, I could just ask you to write a law that makes it so that a favorable disposition is only given to defendants who commit crimes, and the law would be that a defendant who commits crimes is guilty, and that that doesn?t matter whether the prosecutor was right or wrong.
That?s what I can write the law to say.
I could ask you if a defendant commits murder, and I could then decide that he?s guilty and that this is a crime.
Or I could write the statute that makes a defendant guilty of murder and say that the prosecutor had a lot to answer for in her case, because he?d been trying to say for years that she committed murder and that she was guilty.
Or if I ask you, “What do you think the law should say?”
Well, the law tells me that I can’t use the law as a tool to decide, you?re guilty or not guilty, you should be given a favorable verdict based on my interpretation of the law rather than the law being the law in its entirety.
So you don.t have the ability to write laws that say that I ought to give you a favorable outcome based on a law.
In fact, I think that this sort of problem is a problem of our legal system.
So when we have a system that makes decisions based on what the statute says, that we?re not able to make the case that that law really ought to apply to a case.
You see this in our criminal justice system.
We?ve been talking about the role of the judge in the criminal justice process for quite some time, but that doesn�ter get us to a broader discussion about the importance of a judge as an institution.
The judges are supposed to be the final arbiters of law and fact.
And they are supposed be the gatekeepers of truth.
They?re supposed to hold the line between right and wrong.
But in practice, they?re often wrong.
There is an old joke in law and politics that goes like this: the judge, for a judge to be a good judge, you need to have a bad temper.
If you have a temper, you can get into trouble.
So there?s no way to avoid the law when you have bad temper, because it tells you that you ought to break the law more often than not.
And that is exactly what happens in our system.
But when a judge has a bad temperament, they are not allowed to be as tough as they?ve sometimes been, because they can be fired or they?ll lose their job.
If they?d not get fired, then the problem becomes a little more serious.
But that?s not to say that a judge should never be tough.
They are supposed, by the way, to hold that line between the law they understand and the truth they know.
If that law or that truth is wrong, then a judge can be a very dangerous decision maker.
That is why we have courts like the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the most powerful court in the country, which is filled with lawyers who believe that the court is supposed to act as the gatekeeper of the truth and the rule of law.
But the Supreme Court has recently started to reconsider