2/6 is back "open" & avoiding stare decisis "herd mentality"

Ventura Clerk’s Office will no longer require appointments beginning March 1, 2023 -- In accordance with Governor Newsom's announcement in October 2022 that the Covid-19 State of Emergency would end on February 28, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal Clerk’s Office in Ventura will no longer require appointments beginning March 1, 2023.

The Recorder has ‘Disturbed by Some Language:’ Judge Concerned by Rise in Combative Opinions

• A federal appeals court judge said he’s concerned by overly combative language from others on the bench as of late that risks undermining the public’s confidence in the judiciary.
• Judge D. Brooks Smith, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, emphasized the importance of collegiality among judges even when they disagree and said using sharp words in opinions can send the wrong message to the public, during a talk hosted by the Supreme Court Historical Society about judicial independence.
• “I’m a little disturbed by some language I see from time to time in the present day that is a bit more combative than what I’ve seen in the past… It’s something we judges need to keep in mind. It makes for great ink if you’re in the news media to draw on differences between judges and what seem to be sharp exchanges between judges. If for no other reason than the fact that it does make for a good angle is probably a reason to avoid it,” Smith said last week. 

• Though Smith didn’t single out a particular opinion, a number of judges in the past few years have garnered headlines for their fiery dissents and concurrences. Judge Lawrence VanDyke, for instance, wrote a biting concurrence last year in a ruling on COVID-19 gun shop closures that included an “alternative draft opinion” he said the majority of the court could use en banc to reverse the panel’s ruling in favor of the gun advocates.

And Bloomberg Law has Judge Tomas Moukawsher in Judges Should Avoid Herd Mentality and a Default to Precedent, which begins:

Judges know a lot about consensus. Consistency is an important attribute of a legal system. That’s why precedent from a higher court must be followed by a lower court. But sometimes judges go too far, treating like binding precedent anything other judges have said. They do this even when the other judge is their equal, and even when the other judge’s reasoning is weak or even non-existent.

Binding precedent is vital to our legal system. It creates settled expectations that help us know our rights. But judges who rely on other judges’ nonbinding rulings without explaining why give legal proceedings the appearance of authority while lacking sufficient substance.