वकीलों को कोई भी कसर बाकी न छोड़ना बहुत पसंद है, बशर्ते उन्हें हर कसर के हिसाब से फीस वसूलने का मौका मिले।
Lawyers like to leave no stone unturned, provided they can charge by the stone.
Lawyers like to leave no stone unturned, provided they can charge by the stone.
जैसा कि डेबोरा रोड बताती हैं, "जब मिशमीगन के ११०० प्राथमिक विद्यालय के बच्चों से यह पूछा गया कि यदि वे विपरीत लिंग के होते तो उनका जीवन कैसा होता, तो ४० प्रतिशत से अधिक लड़कियों ने लड़का होने में फायदे देखे; जैसे कि उन्हें बेहतर नौकरियां, अधिक आय और ज़्यादा सम्मान मिलता। वहीं पंचानवे प्रतिशत लड़कों को लड़की होने में कोई फायदा नहीं दिखा, और एक बड़ी संख्या का तो यह मानना था कि लड़की होने से बेहतर आत्महत्या करना है।"
As Deborah Rhode describes, “When 1,100 Michigan elementary students were asked to describe what life would be like if they were the opposite sex, over 40 percent of the girls saw advantages to being male; they would have better jobs, higher incomes, and more respect. Ninety-five percent of the boys saw no advantage to being female, and a substantial number thought suicide would be preferable.”
As Deborah Rhode describes, “When 1,100 Michigan elementary students were asked to describe what life would be like if they were the opposite sex, over 40 percent of the girls saw advantages to being male; they would have better jobs, higher incomes, and more respect. Ninety-five percent of the boys saw no advantage to being female, and a substantial number thought suicide would be preferable.”
महिलाओं, रंगभेद के शिकार जजों, और साथ ही समलैंगिक जजों पर इस तरह के पक्षपात के आरोप लगाने का एक दुखद इतिहास रहा है। इसके पीछे यह सोच होती है कि वे अपने पहचान वाले समूहों से जुड़े मामलों पर निष्पक्ष फैसला देने में असमर्थ होंगे। यह मुद्दा तब बहुत चर्चा में आया जब कॉन्स्टेंस बेकर मोसले, जो पहली अफ्रीकी-अमेरिकी महिला संघीय जजों में से एक थीं, के सामने यौन भेदभाव का एक मामला आया।
There's a sorry history of these kinds of charges of bias being leveled at women and judges of color, and also gay and lesbian judges. The theory being that they're going to be incapable of a disinterested judgment on matters that involve their own identity groups. And it came up famously for Constance Baker Motley who was one of the first African American federal judges in a case involving sex discrimination.
There's a sorry history of these kinds of charges of bias being leveled at women and judges of color, and also gay and lesbian judges. The theory being that they're going to be incapable of a disinterested judgment on matters that involve their own identity groups. And it came up famously for Constance Baker Motley who was one of the first African American federal judges in a case involving sex discrimination.
कुछ मामले ऐसे होते हैं जिनमें किसी ने स्वीकार्य सीमाओं का इतना घोर उल्लंघन किया होता है कि आप चाहते हैं कि उसके खिलाफ जवाबदेही तय करने का कोई पैमाना हो।
There are cases in which somebody has demonstrated just such an outrageous disregard for the bounds of an acceptable decision that you want a measure of accountability.
There are cases in which somebody has demonstrated just such an outrageous disregard for the bounds of an acceptable decision that you want a measure of accountability.
व्यक्तिगत रूप से मुझे लगता है कि न्यायिक स्वतंत्रता के संबंध में जो संदेश जाता है, उसके मद्देनज़र हमें किसी लोकप्रिय फैसले की वजह से रिकॉल (पद से हटाने की प्रक्रिया) के प्रावधान का इस्तेमाल करने से बहुत बचना चाहिए।
I personally think that we should be extremely reluctant to use a recall mechanism for an unpopular decision simply because of the message it sends about judicial independence.
I personally think that we should be extremely reluctant to use a recall mechanism for an unpopular decision simply because of the message it sends about judicial independence.
मैं मानती हूँ कि न्यायिक जवाबदेही का पूरा मुद्दा काफी पेचीदा है। एक तरफ, आप न्यायिक स्वतंत्रता को बढ़ावा देना चाहते हैं। और मुझे लगता है कि यह हमेशा चिंताजनक होता है जब कोई अलोकप्रिय फैसला किसी रिकॉल चुनाव को जन्म देता है। क्योंकि इससे जजों को कमज़ोर महसूस कराने वाला संदेश जाता है। दूसरी तरफ, मतदाताओं के पास यही एकमात्र ऐसा तरीका है जिससे वे ऐसे व्यक्ति की नकेल कस सकें जिसके विचार जनता की मुख्यधारा की राय से इतने अलग हों कि वे न्याय प्रक्रिया की वैधता को ही खतरे में डाल दें।
I do think the whole question of judicial accountability is a complicated one. On the one hand, you want to encourage judicial independence. And it's always, I think, problematic when an unpopular decision triggers a recall election. Because it sends a disempowering message to judges. On the other hand, it's the only way that voters have to rein in someone whose views are really so out of the mainstream of public opinion that they jeopardize the legitimacy of the judicial process.
I do think the whole question of judicial accountability is a complicated one. On the one hand, you want to encourage judicial independence. And it's always, I think, problematic when an unpopular decision triggers a recall election. Because it sends a disempowering message to judges. On the other hand, it's the only way that voters have to rein in someone whose views are really so out of the mainstream of public opinion that they jeopardize the legitimacy of the judicial process.
एक आम धारणा यह है कि संघीय अपील अदालत के जज बनने की योग्यता बस इतनी होती है कि कोई किसी सीनेटर को जानता हो। मेरा मतलब है कि चयन की यह प्रक्रिया बेहद राजनीतिक होती है और फिर भी हम यह उम्मीद करते हैं कि इसका परिणाम इन सबसे ऊपर निष्पक्ष रहेगा।
The cliché is what are the qualifications for a federal Court of Appeals judge is somebody who knew a senator once. I mean the process of selection is deeply political and yet we expect the result to somehow stand above it.
The cliché is what are the qualifications for a federal Court of Appeals judge is somebody who knew a senator once. I mean the process of selection is deeply political and yet we expect the result to somehow stand above it.
अगर आप डोनाल्ड ट्रंप के तर्क पर चलें, तो यह कहना पड़ेगा कि वे नागरिक अधिकारों से जुड़ा कोई भी फैसला नहीं सुन सकते थे क्योंकि वे पक्षपाती होते। ज़ाहिर है, हम एक ऐसी विविध और समावेशी न्यायपालिका चाहते हैं—जो उन लोगों जैसी दिखे जिनकी वे सेवा करते हैं। और हम विभिन्न पृष्ठभूमियों के प्रतिनिधित्व के मूल्य को समझते भी हैं।
If you follow Donald Trump's logic, say that he couldn't decide any civil rights cases because he would be biased.I mean, we do want a diverse and inclusive judiciary - one that looks like the people that they serve. And we do recognize the value of having diverse backgrounds represented.
If you follow Donald Trump's logic, say that he couldn't decide any civil rights cases because he would be biased.I mean, we do want a diverse and inclusive judiciary - one that looks like the people that they serve. And we do recognize the value of having diverse backgrounds represented.
अगर यह कोई जीतने वाला तर्क होता, तो डोनाल्ड ट्रंप अपनी पृष्ठभूमि के आधार पर कुछ भी बेहद आपत्तिजनक कहकर अपने मामलों से किसी भी जज को बेंच से हटवा सकते थे।
If that were a winning argument, Donald Trump could get anybody off the bench on his cases by just something deeply offensive based on their background.
If that were a winning argument, Donald Trump could get anybody off the bench on his cases by just something deeply offensive based on their background.
ऐसे कई उदाहरण हैं जहाँ अपार ईमानदारी वाले बेहद योग्य जजों को अपनी पोजीशन गंवानी पड़ी क्योंकि वे किसी विवादास्पद फैसले के बचाव में खुलकर बोलने में असमर्थ थे।
There have been so many examples of highly qualified judges of enormous integrity who lost their positions because they were in fact disabled from speaking out to defend a controversial opinion.
There have been so many examples of highly qualified judges of enormous integrity who lost their positions because they were in fact disabled from speaking out to defend a controversial opinion.
आप समझ सकते हैं कि न्यायिक नैतिकता के शुरुआती रचयिताओं को क्यों लगता होगा कि जजों द्वारा कीचड़ उछालना गरिमा के खिलाफ होगा और इससे न्याय-निर्णय प्रक्रिया की वैधता पर सवालिया निशान लगेगा; लेकिन अपार ईमानदारी वाले लोगों को अपना बचाव करने से रोकने वाली यह व्यवस्था, उन राज्यों में जहाँ जज चुने जाते हैं या जिन्हें रिकॉल के ज़रिये हटाया जा सकता है, मेरे हिसाब से बेहद समस्याग्रस्त है।
You can understand why the original framers of judicial ethics thought it would be undignified and would call into question the legitimacy of the judicial decision-making process to have mudslinging by judges, but the way that we hobble people of enormous integrity from defending themselves is, I think, deeply problematic in states where you have an elected judiciary, or a judge is subject to recall.
You can understand why the original framers of judicial ethics thought it would be undignified and would call into question the legitimacy of the judicial decision-making process to have mudslinging by judges, but the way that we hobble people of enormous integrity from defending themselves is, I think, deeply problematic in states where you have an elected judiciary, or a judge is subject to recall.
थर्गड मार्शल ने भेदभाव का खुद सामना किया था, इसलिए वे अदालत में एक अलग और अनूठा नज़रिया लेकर आए थे। अदालत में उनके साथी इसी बात के लिए उनकी बहुत कद्र करते थे, जैसा कि उनके रिटायरमेंट के बाद आई प्रशंशाओं से साबित भी हुआ।
Thurgood Marshall because of his experience of discrimination did bring a special perspective to the court. That’s what his colleagues on the court so valued him for as all the tributes pouring in after his retirement attested.
Thurgood Marshall because of his experience of discrimination did bring a special perspective to the court. That’s what his colleagues on the court so valued him for as all the tributes pouring in after his retirement attested.
विडंबना यह है कि अगर मामला नस्ल से जुड़ा हो, और कोई यह दावा करे कि नस्ल एक अयोग्यता का कारक है, तो कोई भी उस मामले की सुनवाई नहीं कर पाएगा। हर कोई इन मामलों में कुछ पूर्वग्रहों के साथ आता है, और हमारी न्याय प्रणाली का मूल आधार यह है कि जज अपनी ट्रेनिंग और नैतिक आचार संहिताओं के कारण उन पूर्वग्रहों को एक तरफ रखकर केवल तथ्यों और कानून के आधार पर फैसला लेने के लिए बाध्य होते हैं। और यह दावा करना कि कोई सिर्फ अपनी नस्लीय पहचान के कारण ऐसा नहीं कर सकता, बेहद आपत्तिजनक है।
Ironically enough, if the case involves race, and one claims that race is a disqualifying factor, nobody could hear the case. Everybody comes to these cases with some preconceptions, and the premise of our judicial system is that judges by training and by ethical codes are obligated to set those prejudices aside and to decide on the facts and the law. And to claim that somebody can't simply because of their racial identity is deeply offensive.
Ironically enough, if the case involves race, and one claims that race is a disqualifying factor, nobody could hear the case. Everybody comes to these cases with some preconceptions, and the premise of our judicial system is that judges by training and by ethical codes are obligated to set those prejudices aside and to decide on the facts and the law. And to claim that somebody can't simply because of their racial identity is deeply offensive.
यह कहना कि कोई व्यक्ति अपनी पहचान की वजह से निष्पक्ष फैसला नहीं दे सकता, बेहद अपमानजनक है और उस न्याय प्रणाली के सभी आदर्शों के खिलाफ है जिसे हम अहम मानते हैं।
Individuals because of their identity can't render an impartial judgment is just deeply offensive and contrary to all the ideals of the judicial system that we value.
Individuals because of their identity can't render an impartial judgment is just deeply offensive and contrary to all the ideals of the judicial system that we value.
हम उन लोगों को अयोग्य घोषित नहीं करना चाहते जिन्हें आंशिक रूप से इसलिए चुना गया है क्योंकि वे अपने उस विविध अनुभव को अदालत में लाते हैं जो ऐसे मामलों में सबसे ज़्यादा असर डाल सकता है।
We don't want to disqualify individuals who are selected partly because they bring that diverse experience to the court in cases where that experience is most likely to make a difference.
We don't want to disqualify individuals who are selected partly because they bring that diverse experience to the court in cases where that experience is most likely to make a difference.