"Judges must be impartial in their rulings and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Yet, in practice, that standard is poorly enforced. The judiciary itself decides in most cases what constitutes a conflict, and its current guidelines state that judges may even receive payments from defendants while a case is ongoing-so long as the judge's ruling will not impact the amount they get paid."
"To the extent they're following the rules, they can't really be faulted. But from a systemic standpoint, do you really want judges to be drawn from a pool of people who have a stake in the industry?"
"In Louisiana, where many judges profit from petrochemical investments, the question of whether the courts can be trusted to fairly judge the oil industry has enormous stakes."
An investigation revealed that numerous federal judges in Louisiana have financial ties to petrochemical companies involved in major environmental lawsuits. These connections include stock holdings, previous legal work for the companies, and family ties to law firms defending them. Despite these conflicts, judges rarely violate ethical rules. The judiciary's self-regulation raises concerns about impartiality, especially in a state where judges benefit from the oil industry. The environmental impact of these companies has been severe, affecting local ecosystems and communities.
Read at The Nation
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]