Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Martin68

(27,364 posts)

3. I think the headline is misleading. It appears to me there was no watering down of the determination that judges should

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Mar 16, 2024, 10:46 AM

Mar 2024

be assigned to cases on a random basis. The article merely states that the authority and discretion of the judge assigned to a case will not be impaired. The issue in question is how judge are assigned two cases, and a random assignment will preclude "judges shopping."

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judicial body says courts have discretion on new 'judge-shopping' policy after GOP backlash [View all] BumRushDaShow Mar 2024 OP

Ouch! Means judge shopping can and will continue I guess. If so, why in the heck did the Conference.... machoneman Mar 2024 #1

I don't think they backed off their initial recommendation BumRushDaShow Mar 2024 #2

I think the headline is misleading. It appears to me there was no watering down of the determination that judges should Martin68 Mar 2024 #3

The news release makes it clearer BumRushDaShow Mar 2024 #4

So this can continue republianmushroom Mar 2024 #5