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
16 March 2017

On Trump

Or is Trump like [19th century US President] Franklin Pierce? If you want to check it out, I’ll bet people at Franklin Pierce’s home in New Hampshire would be really, really happy to have more visitors. And since Pierce is usually near the bottom of the charts, it’s another camp that’s hoping the Trump administration just keeps going the way it is now. Like Trump, Pierce was into cleanliness. And neither man was wiretapped by his predecessor. See, there’s a lot of commonality.

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