There are some things about judges as a group that might surprise those outside the legal priesthood but I’m accustomed after wearing the black robe off and on for 36 years.

I first heard the remark that the police had stopped a man for “black in a no-black zone” at a judicial conference. It drew hearty laughs, but there was no failure to communicate. Everybody knew what the judge meant, and the laughter did not signify agreement. It was just a common affirmation that overt racism is common enough on the streets that we are forced to recognize it.

I remember being in a class with over a hundred other judges and speaking out against the practice of sentencing criminal defendants more harshly after a trial than I would have if they had just pled guilty, a practice I referred to as “charging for the use of the courtroom.” I thought then and now that every denizen of the US (not just citizens) shoulders a tax load that pays for the courthouse and pays my salary, and it’s wrong to make them pay a second time if they decide to use the courtroom and my time for their intended purposes. I was a minority of one, and from the hoots and hollers my argument scored zero points with my colleagues.

I’ve also been in disagreements with my colleagues about charging “personal bond fees” for people to get out of jail if they are not subsequently convicted of a crime. The argument on the other side is that the personal bond fee supports a program without which people would have to pay bail bondsmen, whether are not they are subsequently convicted of a crime.