Although I agree with the ultimate outcome of the case, a Florida appeals court issued a funny (or tragic?) decision the other day when it effectively ruled that “benevolence and compassion” have no business affecting a judge’s decisions.  The appeals court reversed a lower court decision wherein the judge delayed a foreclosure sale on compassionate grounds.  (The trial court explained, inter alia, that she ”was just trying to make everybody happy.”)  Noting the poor economy, the trial court hoped to allow the couple enough time to file a bankruptcy petition.

Quoting Justice Cardozo, the appeals court reminded the lower court about all the things a judge is not:

The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to “the primordial necessity of order in the social life.” Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains.

In other words, no matter how bad the economy gets, judges still have to apply the law, not their feelings.

-Michael

 (via ABA)