Quote of the week

Although judicial proceedings will generally be bound by the requirements of natural justice to a greater degree than will hearings before administrative tribunals, judicial decision-makers, by virtue of their positions, have nonetheless been granted considerable deference by appellate courts inquiring into the apprehension of bias. This is because judges ‘are assumed to be [people] of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances’: The presumption of impartiality carries considerable weight, for as Blackstone opined at p. 361 in Commentaries on the Laws of England III . . . ‘[t]he law will not suppose possibility of bias in a judge, who is already sworn to administer impartial justice, and whose authority greatly depends upon that presumption and idea’. Thus, reviewing courts have been hesitant to make a finding of bias or to perceive a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of a judge, in the absence of convincing evidence to that effect.

L'Heureux-Dube and McLachlin JJ
Livesey v The New South Wales Bar Association [1983] HCA 17; (1983) 151 CLR 288
3 March 2016

On the madness of Trump, Cruz and Rubio

How many of you Trump alarmists are ready to defend Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio as somehow more reasonable or mature than Trump? Both men are ambitious nihilists bought and paid for by corporate sugar daddies. Neither one can point to a single original policy idea. They’re just peddling the same tired brand of obstruction that has come to define the “Republican agenda.” Cruz is basically Sen. Joe McCarthy with a Bible and a better comb-over. Rubio is like some dry-mouthed hate-bot dreamed up by Ayn Rand during her lost weekend in the Caribbean.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest