As written in my post "[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)](comments in 2009 and before)[/background]"
Indeed, the recent comments are useless & excessive.
Which qualifications were needed to rate judge Griesa in 2009 and before?
Does that mean that anyone who had lost a case could (and can) give him a negative rating?
Are unqualified, anonymous ratings trustworthy?
Does that mean that the older ratings are as useless & excessive as the new ones or is there something supernaturally right about ratings from before 2009?
Rating Hon. William D. Keller:
"The Honorable William D. Keller is a very old, but respectable man. He has immense patience for even the most distasteful lawyers, including ones that sit on the wrong side of the counsel's table and inside the well. Some attorneys may equate his physical health to competence, but they are wrong. His health may be deteriorating, but his mind is as sharp as a tack, and he is somehow able to put up with bad attorneys. A great judge."
"This senior judge [William D. Keller] is a dolt. He doesn't know, much less care about, the law. He is lacking in intelligence, arrogant, and extremely rude. He still is the mentor of his former law clerk, now a Los Angeles deputy district attorney, who runs the Paternico's Pontifications right-wing blog, whose contents are fully consistent with this bench-warmer's neanderthal views. Fortunately, for everyone, he takes few cases and hides in his cave in Santa Barbara, most of the time. "
Two very reliable ratings, aren't they, disagreeing on everything?
What about this rating of judge Griesa: "Unpleasant personality. Does the government's bidding."
Griesa totally ignored the US government's amicus curie brief. Did he then do the government's bidding?
Are unqualified, anonymous ratings trustworthy?
