The Problem with the Judiciary

Anna Nichole Smith died recently in what some refer to as a tragic death. While any death is tragic it was not hard to see that this woman was on a path to destruction. Her lifestyle finally took its toll on her and she succumbed to the stress. There have been several post mortum battles going on involving a number of men who claim to be her baby’s father as well as battles regarding where she will be laid to rest.

I don’t really care how this plays out. Someone is the baby’s father and she will eventually be buried. This all played out in court this past week and the circus posing as a courtroom provided insight into what is wrong with the judiciary. The judge in the case, Larry Seidlin, had the difficult task of deciding who had the right to decide where Smith was to be interred. He anguished over this before taking a decision to release her remains to the baby’s guardian. In so doing, he began to cry on the bench and then he did something that is beyond comprehension. He imposed his beliefs into the matter. He said that HE wanted Smith buried in the Bahamas with her recently deceased son.

The role of a judge is to hear and see facts presented in a case and to take a decision regarding that case based solely on the facts disclosed. Seidlin interjected his desire into the case and that is wrong. His sole responsibility was to hear the case and decide who was allowed to determine Smith’s final resting place. It was not up to him to tell people where he wanted her buried because, in all honesty, he had no dog in the race. It was not proper for him to express his wishes. This little piece of information might unduly influence the unlucky person who was charged with control over the fate of her remains. Perhaps that person had not decided or was leaning to toward burying her in another place. The judge basically said you have custody and this is what I want done.

This courtroom was not the court of Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown where the judges routinely express their personal beliefs and push their value systems on those before the court. This was a court of law, and while the aforementioned are as well, their primary goal is to increase ratings and revenue. Seidlin’s court was charged with carrying out the law and he failed to do that professionally. Perhaps he was playing up to the cameras and all the media attention in order to get his own TV show. If so, he put his personal goals above his professional responsibilities and that is not in keeping with the time honored traditions of our courts.

If this guy gets a show I can not imagine who would watch it. He is a buffoon and would probably use his crying shtick as the basis for the show. “Your wife left you for a woman? (sobs and tears begin to flow) Oh how terrible! Boo hoo, judgment for the plaintiff, bring me a tissue…”

Related item:
ABC News

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

3 Responses to “The Problem with the Judiciary”

  1. ‘Round The ‘Sphere…

    Around The Blogosphere that is….here are some improper weekend reads for your pleasure.
    Blue Collar Republican is not happy with the idiotic, career-mongering, permissive pansy-assed liberals and says, “fine…just bring the troops home…

  2. Judge should be removed from the circuit court for his ridiculous, unprofessional behavior!

  3. Big Dog says:

    Did you mean the CIRCUS court?