|
|||
Judge Jackson is a citizen of the US and has a right of free speech. But professionals in various professions have an obligation of silence beyond that of the law. I am an engineer and I know a great deal about the business dealings of the various companies for which I have worked over the years. This is inevitable, because I can't do my job of product design without knowing that, and if I were to reveal my knowledge it could cause my former employers a great deal of damage. I don't reveal that information; I feel a professional obligation to keep silent unless there's an overriding concern. I would reveal information about a crime, for instance. Doctors and ministers receive information from their patients under confidence. They are not legally compelled to keep that information confidential, but they are professionally compelled to do so, and a priest will go to prison rather than violate the confidentiality of the confessional. Our legal system has as its foundation the idea of the impartiality of the judges who make it work. If no-one believes in impartiality, then the legal system will ultimately collapse. Judges know this, and there is a strong professional ethics among judges to not mouth off about cases as they're being tried. It would take a very compelling reason in a specific case to make doing so more important than the resulting overall damage this would do to the judiciary. Even if Judge Jackson did think the things he talked about, and even if his evaluations of the parties in the case were valid, there was no compelling reason for him to talk about them while the case was being tried. He was scathingly denounced for it by the appellate ruling, and rightly so. (discuss) |
|||
