Judicial accountability should be a clear promise, not a whispered hope. Yet across several states, we’re watching courts fail the very transparency they demand from those before them.
In South Carolina, a new procedure finally cracks open what has long been a judicial “black box.” For decades, complaints against judges—no matter how serious—vanished into silence. No public sanctions. No upper court accountability. Just a vague assurance that the system was working. The state Supreme Court now pledges quarterly summaries of dismissed or privately disciplined complaints, naming courts but not judges. It’s a start, but anonymity still shields patterns the public deserves to see.
Contrast that with Michigan, where the disciplinary spotlight shines sharply on Judge Joseph D. Slaven. Accused of everything from obscene gestures to promoting political candidates from the bench, Slaven claims his behavior was resistance against surveillance—not misconduct. But intent doesn’t erase impact. Whether paranoia or principle, these aren’t the actions of a judge protecting the dignity of the courtroom.
Meanwhile, in Colorado, ethics met clarity—not controversy. The Judicial Ethics Advisory Board carefully considered a question that could easily raise eyebrows: can a state prosecutor serve simultaneously as a part-time municipal judge in the same district? After reviewing the state’s judicial conduct code, the board ruled it ethically sound. Their rationale was clear: the roles occupy separate legal spheres with no overlap in appeals or authority. It’s a reminder that not all judicial headlines carry scandal—some carry thoughtful guidance.
But back in Ohio, concern resurfaces. A family seeking answers about a loved one’s cremation alleges that both the trial and appellate courts dismissed key evidence, overlooked forged documents, and refused to correct the record. The result? A legal maze with no clear exit and due process hanging in the balance.
Across jurisdictions, these stories remind us: when justice hides behind procedure or politics, public trust erodes. Transparency isn’t a luxury. It’s the backbone of a system that must answer not just to itself—but to the people it serves.
Disclaimer: The news on Abusive Discretion is from the public record. Editorials and opinions are light-hearted opinions about very serious topics not stated as statements of fact but rather satirical and opinion based on the information that is linked above.
