Disagreeable People

Reflecting on the judicial role: how valid is the analogy that ‘judges are like umpires’?

“…Nevertheless he suggests that, if it is a mistake to suppose that justices are like umpires, it is likewise a mistake to assume that they are just politicians or ideologues. 103 The application of legal rules by a judge is therefore often very different from the application of baseball rules by an umpire.…”

“…The strong commitment of judges to impartiality prohibits them 119 from favouring certain persons, groups, constituencies, or causes over others. 128 Furthermore, they must remain above the fray, not descending into the arena where the combat is being conducted.…”

“…Simplistic models of the judicial role, particularly used in an American context, view judges either as 'neutral umpires who never invoke anything other than their apolitical, technical expertise about legal rules', or as 'ideologues who decide cases on the basis of a political agenda'. 130 Neither of these models provides an adequate account of what judges do.…”