A federal judge has ruled that former judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella, in Luzerne County, PA are immune from damages in civil suits stemming from the kids-for-cash scandal for actions they took in court, but not for their out-of-court actions.
Please explain this logic to me. If a judge knowingly abuses his judicial role why should he be immune from paying the damages he caused? Why does a crooked judge get this kind of break? I understand the notion of indemnifying them for “honest” mistakes but that is not the case here.
The federal judge ruled that the former judges could be at risk for their administrative actions but not their actions on the bench. But why make the distinction?
Dirty judges are more dangerous than crooked cops or crooked politicians. Nothing will damage our system more than actions like these two.
An interesting new college model - Minerva
10 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment