[orbitingpluto]

Nothing astounds me more than the Herculean lengths a judge will go to to avoid the 'core legal questions' in a case. Not only in the judgement, but by disallowing even the most basic testimony or evidence to be presented. While this violates due process or 'the principle of natural justice', no judge on appeal ever seems to rule that the lower court judge was acting in an obviously corrupt manner. The fiction of the system of justice has to be preserved.

This is further compounded by how vague judges will be in their decisions in some attempt to prevent a successful appeal. The judgements relation to the facts are so intentionally obtuse.

[gohrt]

> no judge on appeal ever seems to rule that the lower court judge was acting in an obviously corrupt manner.

There are a few reasons for this: 1. Judges are not legislators. Judges apply the law, and if they don't like the law, or if the law is contradictory, they write a note in the decision asking legistlators to review the law.

2. If a lower-court judge is corrupt, but didn't violate legal procedure, what does "corrupt" mean?

[orbitingpluto]

Many judges seem to exert themselves in finding excuses to not have to apply the law, to not have to do their job at all, and to escape consideration of the lawsuit at hand.

A higher court will only consider an error in law from a lower court. But when the lower court commits an violation of natural justice/due process by not even considering what the original lawsuit is about and being incredibly obtuse about what they did consider, a higher court has nothing to rule on.

[Kliment]

The supreme court routinely smacks down the federal circuit verbally for not following higher court guidance, but it seems to have no repercussions.