[Kranar]

When a court says that there is no evidence for something, they mean that no evidence was presented to them by the plaintiff (or defendant). It is not the job of the court to be an expert on every subject, it is the job of the plaintiff to present whatever evidence is necessary to support their case. The role of the judge is to weigh the evidence presented to them instead of seeking out evidence of their own to support or refute a claim.

It is a matter of ethics that the decision of a judge is based on evidence presented on the record in open court, and that is available to all the parties.

[threatofrain]

Is a judge crossing ethical boundaries when they have their clerks research into technical, medical, historical, policy and scientific matters, or even case law from another nation? I believe this happens all the time.

Aren't judges also free to consider or disregard information from friends of the court?

[Kranar]

A judge crosses ethnical boundaries when they research questions of fact, they are not crossing ethical boundaries when they research questions of law. The scope of a law clerk's research is restricted to legal questions such as legislative matters, case law (as you point out), etc... It would not only be crossing ethical boundaries for a clerk to research a scientific finding and use that finding to advocate for or against a position, a judgement that is made on the basis of independent research is grounds for reversal by an appellate court. Here are some additional sources you can review on this matter:

An article from an official provincial court's website about whether judges can use their own subject matter knowledge to make a decision:

https://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/enews/enews-16-02-2016

The ABA's position on the issue, although it focuses mostly on using the Internet for research, it also touches on researching subject matter facts more generally:

https://www.abajournal.com/images/main_images/FO_478_FINAL_1...

A much more formal and comprehensive treatment of the subject, that goes into details about the difference between researching questions of law vs. questions of fact:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_201

Appellate court reversing a trial court's decision over the judge's independent research, even when that research was correct/valid:

https://www.wiggin.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/36113_ri20...

[sanxiyn]

You are right, but judge should make use of common sense. The quote is explicitly "we do not think such an inference can be made on the basis of logic or common sense", which is completely ridiculous.

Edit: In other words, is this judge willing to bet? If not why not?

[dahfizz]

You're ignoring the second half of the quote:

> > In contrast, there is no evidence to suggest that these negative diversity impacts would exist in the context of a mandatory math course (i.e. that racialized teacher candidates might disproportionately fail these math courses), and we do not think such an inference can be made on the basis of logic or common sense.

[Kranar]

I'm not ignoring it, you can not deduce an empirical phenomenon on the basis of logic. Whether racialized teachers disproportionately fail these math courses is an empirical finding that must be presented as evidence, not a logical conclusion that one can deduce.

You can deduce empirical phenomenon from common sense, but the idea that it would be remotely appropriate or responsible for a judge to rule on a matter involving the relationship between race, standardized testing, and the ability to teach on the basis of common sense is patently absurd. A judge is not some random commenter arguing on the Internet their personal biases with nothing at stake; a judge is a highly trained professional who is required by long standing ethical standards to be very careful about their decision making.

[dahfizz]

> you can not deduce an empirical phenomenon on the basis of logic.

Fish are unable fly. Let us set up a flight training course comprised of all different sorts of birds and fish. The ability to fly is required to pass the course. We may logically conclude that the fish would disproportionately fail this course.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The judge said that they think its reasonable to expect teachers could pass a math training course, regardless of race. Do you disagree?

[Kranar]

Your comment is the epitome of what makes discussing nuanced legal issues an absolute farce on this site.