Court Names 81 Red Shirts In Judges' Intimida

[Moruya]

I don't think the judges of any court should be treated differently to the general populace. However, they should not be subject to intimidation and to argue that their reaction to intimidation is censorship is a totally false claim.

The real problem is that PT &, in particular, the red shirt leaders think that once they get into power they have a mandate to do what they like. It was exactly the same when Thaksin was PM & almost succeded in subverting all of the checks & balances that are a part of a democracy.

It is surprising that a group of posters on this thread (& many other threads) go out of their way to defend the red shirt leaders who have instigated far too much violence on behalf of their paymaster. The latter, incidently, has made Kork-screw into a millionaire who is following his leader in having asset declaration problems.

There is a law in Thailand against criticising judges and verdicts.

Precisely.

So laws should be enforced

[tlansford]

- deleted -

I would agree with you if it were a reaction only against the intimidation - eg: the charges related to threatening their safety.

But throwing in the other groups who demonstrated in front of the court, filed the charges, etc, that is IMO a real attempt at censorship.

As for your other characterizations of the government, that is just the standard dismissal technique used here to trivialize an elected mandate. Yes, any gov't with 300/500 seats has a mandate, and no, it is not true that the gov't can just do whatever it wants regardless of the laws.

And AFAIK, posters here do not generally defend the violence of the UDD, but they do generally defend the violence of the military... just that it is a different group of posters than you meant.

Yes, it may be over the top to charge all of them. But those who gave out personal details & incited people to commit violence should be charged. However to claim it is censorship is equally over the top & doesn't help your argument.

You say the government can't do whatever it likes & I hope you're right, but PT & all it's predecessors have always tried to do whatever they want. The CC is doing what it should do - rein in the government when it oversteps its power.

I see you've pushed the 'but the military button' which is not the subject of this thread. I've not seen many supporters of the military crimes at Tak Bai or Krue Be (spelling?). There are those who defend the military for clearing out the take-over of Ratchaprasong. Someone had to do it & as the police, as usual, refused to do their job, the military had to do it.

I never claimed that pursuing charges against people passing out the justices details to incite violence is censorship. But IMO many of the charges ) eg against people protesting in front of the court - amount to censorship.

As for the court reining in the gov't - we have different views. I don't view it as the courts' position to halt debates in parliament.

I didn't push the "but military" button. You simply talk about defending violence, and I do not defend violence, regardless of which corner it comes from. As you mention, there are posters who support and justify the military violence under the last government. That is the only violence I have ever seen defended on this forum.

As I've said, charging 'Uncle Tom Cobly & all' is over the top but I do think it's understandable as the CC judges had become so fearful of the red shirts, that some wanted to withdraw from the recent case. Just charging someone is not censorship as they will have their day in court - as long as they don't run away.

Well, if you didn't 'push the military button', who did? I certainly didn't.

You say you don't condemn violence. You do seem to ignore it when the 'military violence' was in response to red/black shirt violence. How the government of the day was supposed to remove the occupants of Ratchaprasong - some of whom were armed - without some sort of violent response is beyond me. The occupants were given every opportunity to disperse freely. They, or more correctly, the leaders, just wanted a confrontation (on instructions from the paymaster) and, got what they wanted with sacrificial lambs thrown in. All of this in response to the paymaster losing some of his ill-gotten gains.

Finally when it is pointed out that Thaksin was responsible for far more violence & death, all you & your friends do is push the 'but Abhisit' button. It's a cop-out.

taking things one at a time,

"I see you've pushed the 'but the military button'" was your comment. My mentioning of the military stands above and it still is the only time on this forum where I see violence not only condoned, but rationalized, and out-right supported. Perhaps not from you, but from others. I would imagine that we could agree on that.

The over the top parts - I think we agree. Some of it was (IMO) over the top.

As for the justice withdrawing from the case, my understanding is that his decision had nothing to do with the violence, but rather his public position and statements regarding the current charter and its creation / approval process. But if you have other information, that would be interesting, as I only saw a single report on that in passing.

The military violence was in response to the red shirt violence.... assuming you mean 2010, I'm not sure that we're going to agree on that one. IMO, it is clear that there were times when the red shirt violence was in response to the military, and the military violence was at times in response to the red shirts. But there were other times where it is clear that the violence from both sides was not in response to anything at the time, ... it was just violence.

Finally, "Thaksin was responsible for far more violence & death" seems much more like the cop-out to me. Thaksin is responsible for his deeds and Abhisit for his, respectively. It isn't a contest to see who can be made out as the greater villain. IMO Abhisit should be held accountable for his decisions in 2008/9/10 and it would be nice to see Thaksin held accountable for his own actions - and I don't mean some trumped up inconsequential political conviction, but things which were actually intentional and serious. But then why stop at these two? All of us, I imagine, would like to see more accountability and transparency.

Which in any case, currently appears to be a very unlikely scenario.

[rubl]

"All of us, I imagine, would like to see more accountability and transparency.

Which in any case, currently appears to be a very unlikely scenario"

Especially when some people like to belittle courts when those get involved

[tlansford]

"All of us, I imagine, would like to see more accountability and transparency.

Which in any case, currently appears to be a very unlikely scenario"

Especially when some people like to belittle courts when those get involved

oh, come on Rubl, when did you get into trolling like r-man??

[rubl]

^ #64 tlansford:

Tom, excuses for having posted/replied like that, but as you know once in Opera browser lots of functions don't work. I eve had to get back to 11.64 as 12.00 kept crashing!

[whybother]

^ #64 tlansford:

Tom, excuses for having posted/replied like that, but as you know once in Opera browser lots of functions don't work. I eve had to get back to 11.64 as 12.00 kept crashing!

Dump Opera. Plenty of other browsers.

[sunkist]

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Don't you think that given the current political landscape here in Thailand, having groups of people, shown on TV, burning effigies of the judges as well as coffins was an incitement to violence?

Seems that in most democracies people have gathered in groups to protest things like the war in Vietnam (I am a veteran of), civil rights and the vote for women....so on. Seems like those people might just represent a lot of voters. People in power try to stop that almost always. I hated seeing flag burning, but I put my life on the line to protect their rights to do so.

[Moruya]

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Don't you think that given the current political landscape here in Thailand, having groups of people, shown on TV, burning effigies of the judges as well as coffins was an incitement to violence?

Seems that in most democracies people have gathered in groups to protest things like the war in Vietnam (I am a veteran of), civil rights and the vote for women....so on. Seems like those people might just represent a lot of voters. People in power try to stop that almost always. I hated seeing flag burning, but I put my life on the line to protect their rights to do so.

Burning effigies of judges, handing out their names and addresses and inciting a crowd to harrass them, invading hospitals etc. is not part of a fight for democracy any more than throwing rocks and heckling the opposition is.

I can't see how 30 people from Pathum Thani can represent a large part of the nation.

[maidu]

Check tomorrow's 'Letter to Editor' column in the Nation. There will be a letter addressing this issue from Kip Keino.

Letter is there today, as predicted.

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Don't you think that given the current political landscape here in Thailand, having groups of people, shown on TV, burning effigies of the judges as well as coffins was an incitement to violence?

Simply put, No. Did you see any violence happening as a result? If that was the intended result it seems to have been a resounding failure.

According to your logic, if I toss a grenade at a motorcade, and the grenade doesn't go off, then it's a 'failure' and mai pen rai, no legal repercussions.

[Buchholz]

Red Shirt Leader and Deputy Secretary-General to the Interior Minister Yoswaris "Jeng Dokjik" Chuklom

Naewna Newspaper (article in Thai)

http://www.naewna.com/

In reference to his charges, Dokjik said yesterday that he already apologized for his giving out the judges' names, addresses, and phone numbers and encouraging Red Shirts to call and intimidate the judges and their families.

Apparently, he feels that's sufficient action on his part.

.

[Skywalker69]

^ #64 tlansford:

Tom, excuses for having posted/replied like that, but as you know once in Opera browser lots of functions don't work. I eve had to get back to 11.64 as 12.00 kept crashing!

Dump Opera. Plenty of other browsers.

Out of topic, but I agree, Avant browser is my favorite.

[phiphidon]

Check tomorrow's 'Letter to Editor' column in the Nation. There will be a letter addressing this issue from Kip Keino.

Letter is there today, as predicted.

Simply put, No. Did you see any violence happening as a result? If that was the intended result it seems to have been a resounding failure.

According to your logic, if I toss a grenade at a motorcade, and the grenade doesn't go off, then it's a 'failure' and mai pen rai, no legal repercussions.

No it's not, that's a ridiculous suggestion. A few red shirts burning paper coffins is not

going to incite anyone to do anything than shout slogans.

Why do you people always have to up the hyperbole, heckling is against democracy,

we have "evil people doing evil things" alleged throwing stones becomes throwing rocks

until we get to the "man' himself, abhisit, who insists they were out to harm him. Wuss.

Democracy thai style:

Democrat MP Rangsima

(who incidentally wants breathalyzer tests in parliament)

plays hide and seek with the speakers chair - nice

Democracy British Style - No wusses here when campaigning

[phiphidon]

There is a law in Thailand against criticising judges and verdicts.

Precisely.

So laws should be enforced

You still think that there is need for a law making it a legal offence to criticise a judges verdict

after the recent decision to free convicted police murderers on bail?

[rubl]

There is a law in Thailand against criticising judges and verdicts.

Precisely.

So laws should be enforced

You still think that there is need for a law making it a legal offence to criticise a judges verdict

after the recent decision to free convicted police murderers on bail?

Strange question There is no law specifically targeting people criticizing judges' verdicts. There's a law of defamation and libel. The recent 'free on bail' of convicted police officers may be strange in the light of many Western countries way of doing, but it's within the legal framework in Thailand. You may think "Thailand your laws stink', but I'm not sure you're allowed to say so in public, certainly as a foreigner you're not supposed to mix in internal affairs even when you're an expert on Thai laws and have a workpermit which states law as your profession clearly

[Nickymaster]

Check tomorrow's 'Letter to Editor' column in the Nation. There will be a letter addressing this issue from Kip Keino.

Letter is there today, as predicted.

Simply put, No. Did you see any violence happening as a result? If that was the intended result it seems to have been a resounding failure.

According to your logic, if I toss a grenade at a motorcade, and the grenade doesn't go off, then it's a 'failure' and mai pen rai, no legal repercussions.

No it's not, that's a ridiculous suggestion. A few red shirts burning paper coffins is not

going to incite anyone to do anything than shout slogans.

Why do you people always have to up the hyperbole, heckling is against democracy,

we have "evil people doing evil things" alleged throwing stones becomes throwing rocks

until we get to the "man' himself, abhisit, who insists they were out to harm him. Wuss.

Democracy thai style:

Democrat MP Rangsima

(who incidentally wants breathalyzer tests in parliament)

plays hide and seek with the speakers chair - nice

Democracy British Style - No wusses here when campaigning

Isn't that the movie where the DEMS tried to stop Somsak when he abruptly ended a session on deliberation of the whitewash bill (when it was the DEMS turn to speak out), and called for an urgent vote (because it was an urgent bill)?

PPD would then say: Bad DEMS!

[rubl]

Regarding the "Computer Crimes Act" and feeling a response fits here more than in the thread the post was made

http://www.thaivisa....25#entry5535598

It seems worldover webmasters, companies and institutions feel a need to limit their liability.

"External Links:

The links identified by this graphic point to external contents for which the University of Stuttgart does not claim any ownership. The responsibility rests with the respective external provider (see Imprint - Provider Identification). The external contents were checked at the time the links were placed. It cannot be ruled out that the contents are subsequently changed by the respective providers. If you decide that the linked external pages violate existing laws or otherwise contain inappropriate contents, please inform us accordingly."

http://www.validate-...nglish/imprint/

"Limited liability: This website is provided free of charge, therefore we do not guarantee the accuracy, reliability or completeness of informations provided on this website. You recognize being the only person responsible for your safety on seas and that you will double check informations provided here with others sources, including officials ones. We also deny liability for external websites' links as there contents may change after we visited them. But we try to correct or remove inappropriate contents as soon as they are discovered. Please, report them."

http://www.cvberquy.org/about.xml

On email disclaimers, probably American website

"There is no disclaimer that can protect against actual libelous or defamatory content. The most a disclaimer can accomplish in this respect is to reduce the responsibility of the company, since it can prove that the company has acted responsibly and done everything in its power to stop employees from committing these offenses."

http://www.emaildisclaimers.com/

[chotthee]

Anyone who bad mouth Thai court should be put in Bangkok Hilton.

This is the law.

Farang no exception.

Edited August 1, 2012 by chotthee

[animatic]

I don't think the judges of any court should be treated differently to the general populace. However, they should not be subject to intimidation and to argue that their reaction to intimidation is censorship is a totally false claim.

The real problem is that PT &, in particular, the red shirt leaders think that once they get into power they have a mandate to do what they like. It was exactly the same when Thaksin was PM & almost succeded in subverting all of the checks & balances that are a part of a democracy.

It is surprising that a group of posters on this thread (& many other threads) go out of their way to defend the red shirt leaders who have instigated far too much violence on behalf of their paymaster. The latter, incidently, has made Kork-screw into a millionaire who is following his leader in having asset declaration problems.

I would agree with you if it were a reaction only against the intimidation - eg: the charges related to threatening their safety.

But throwing in the other groups who demonstrated in front of the court, filed the charges, etc, that is IMO a real attempt at censorship.

As for your other characterizations of the government, that is just the standard dismissal technique used here to trivialize an elected mandate. Yes, any gov't with 300/500 seats has a mandate, and no, it is not true that the gov't can just do whatever it wants regardless of the laws.

And AFAIK, posters here do not generally defend the violence of the UDD, but they do generally defend the violence of the military... just that it is a different group of posters than you meant.

Yes, it may be over the top to charge all of them. But those who gave out personal details & incited people to commit violence should be charged. However to claim it is censorship is equally over the top & doesn't help your argument.

You say the government can't do whatever it likes & I hope you're right, but PT & all it's predecessors have always tried to do whatever they want. The CC is doing what it should do - rein in the government when it oversteps its power.

I see you've pushed the 'but the military button' which is not the subject of this thread. I've not seen many supporters of the military crimes at Tak Bai or Krue Be (spelling?). There are those who defend the military for clearing out the take-over of Ratchaprasong. Someone had to do it & as the police, as usual, refused to do their job, the military had to do it.

I never claimed that pursuing charges against people passing out the justices details to incite violence is censorship. But IMO many of the charges ) eg against people protesting in front of the court - amount to censorship.

As for the court reining in the gov't - we have different views. I don't view it as the courts' position to halt debates in parliament.

I didn't push the "but military" button. You simply talk about defending violence, and I do not defend violence, regardless of which corner it comes from. As you mention, there are posters who support and justify the military violence under the last government. That is the only violence I have ever seen defended on this forum.

There is legitimate protest, and then there is threats and intimidation.

The red protests clearly crossed that line, for all to see on video.

From a legal stand point they are utter fools.

The KKK was once doing whatever protests they liked, but eventually many of their leaders went to jail, they found that if they wanted to protest they had to get permits and stay in specific areas, and if they crossed the line on the preceding points, and on hate speech content, they got prosecuted for it.

A similar out of control group being brought under control by the law and courts.

The KKK had similar feelings and things to say about the courts then too.

Edited August 1, 2012 by animatic

[tlansford]

- deleted -

I would agree with you if it were a reaction only against the intimidation - eg: the charges related to threatening their safety.

But throwing in the other groups who demonstrated in front of the court, filed the charges, etc, that is IMO a real attempt at censorship.

As for your other characterizations of the government, that is just the standard dismissal technique used here to trivialize an elected mandate. Yes, any gov't with 300/500 seats has a mandate, and no, it is not true that the gov't can just do whatever it wants regardless of the laws.

And AFAIK, posters here do not generally defend the violence of the UDD, but they do generally defend the violence of the military... just that it is a different group of posters than you meant.

Yes, it may be over the top to charge all of them. But those who gave out personal details & incited people to commit violence should be charged. However to claim it is censorship is equally over the top & doesn't help your argument.

You say the government can't do whatever it likes & I hope you're right, but PT & all it's predecessors have always tried to do whatever they want. The CC is doing what it should do - rein in the government when it oversteps its power.

I see you've pushed the 'but the military button' which is not the subject of this thread. I've not seen many supporters of the military crimes at Tak Bai or Krue Be (spelling?). There are those who defend the military for clearing out the take-over of Ratchaprasong. Someone had to do it & as the police, as usual, refused to do their job, the military had to do it.

I never claimed that pursuing charges against people passing out the justices details to incite violence is censorship. But IMO many of the charges ) eg against people protesting in front of the court - amount to censorship.

As for the court reining in the gov't - we have different views. I don't view it as the courts' position to halt debates in parliament.

I didn't push the "but military" button. You simply talk about defending violence, and I do not defend violence, regardless of which corner it comes from. As you mention, there are posters who support and justify the military violence under the last government. That is the only violence I have ever seen defended on this forum.

There is legitimate protest, and then there is threats and intimidation.

The red protests clearly crossed that line, for all to see on video.

From a legal stand point they are utter fools.

The KKK was once doing whatever protests they liked, but eventually many of their leaders went to jail, they found that if they wanted to protest they had to get permits and stay in specific areas, and if they crossed the line on the preceding points, and on hate speech content, they got prosecuted for it.

A similar out of control group being brought under control by the law and courts.

The KKK had similar feelings and things to say about the courts then too.

you lump everything together in order to justify your point, yet the point is that not everything was intimidation, and that you can not lump all of the plaintiffs accused by the courts together to be intimidation without getting into a situation of censorship. Draw the lines as you like, for most people some of the actions could be alleged to be intimidation and other could not be alleged intimidation.

But comparing the red shirts to the Klu Klux Klan, I wish that I had thought of that one first.

Your genius knows no bounds.

[Moruya]

Red Shirt Leader and Deputy Secretary-General to the Interior Minister Yoswaris "Jeng Dokjik" Chuklom

Naewna Newspaper (article in Thai)

http://www.naewna.com/

In reference to his charges, Dokjik said yesterday that he already apologized for his giving out the judges' names, addresses, and phone numbers and encouraging Red Shirts to call and intimidate the judges and their families.

Apparently, he feels that's sufficient action on his part.

.

even Hitler wouldn't have tried that.

[Moruya]

There is a law in Thailand against criticising judges and verdicts.

Precisely.

So laws should be enforced

You still think that there is need for a law making it a legal offence to criticise a judges verdict

after the recent decision to free convicted police murderers on bail?

I dint think judges should be criticised.

I do think that decisions should be.

[Moruya]

you lump everything together in order to justify your point, yet the point is that not everything was intimidation, and that you can not lump all of the plaintiffs accused by the courts together to be intimidation without getting into a situation of censorship. Draw the lines as you like, for most people some of the actions could be alleged to be intimidation and other could not be alleged intimidation.

But comparing the red shirts to the Klu Klux Klan, I wish that I had thought of that one first.

Your genius knows no bounds.

The thing is that nobody minds (except those inconvenienced by) the red foot clapper or the yellow hand clapper brigade. Or the music and food. Or the partying and singing. All part of a democratic society.

The things that people do mind are the threats, the racism and fascism, the arson and the violence. Whether you like it or not, that and the deaths is what will be remembered

[phiphidon]

I dint think judges should be criticised.

I do think that decisions should be.

Er, It's the Judges that make the decisions............

[Moruya]

I dint think judges should be criticised.

I do think that decisions should be.

Er, It's the Judges that make the decisions............

You you attack the personnel?

OK. Thaksin called the war on drugs so he is a murderer by the thousand?

The red shirts called for burning Bangkok ergo they are arsonists?

Is that how it works?

[lungmi]

I dint think judges should be criticised.

I do think that decisions should be.

Er, It's the Judges that make the decisions............

Stop postings. Amsterdam lost his job already (not really, he asks for more money in a lost fight. )

You are a free lancer, honored one, but now you have to cool down with samathit (wisdom) and than we are happy in the TV community to see you again

[nurofiend]

I dint think judges should be criticised.

I do think that decisions should be.

Er, It's the Judges that make the decisions............

You you attack the personnel?

OK. Thaksin called the war on drugs so he is a murderer by the thousand?

The red shirts called for burning Bangkok ergo they are arsonists?

Is that how it works?

^ that's obviously how it works for you anyway because we all know your answer to those questions....

i love these parts though:

"There is a law in Thailand against criticising judges and verdicts." - OK

"So laws should be enforced" - OK

"I dint think judges should be criticised." - OK

"I do think that decisions should be. " - Wait, what?

"There is a law in Thailand against criticising judges and verdicts."

"So laws should be enforced"

"I do think that decisions should be. " (criticised)

so you think the law on penalising people for criticising verdicts should be enforced.

while at the same time thinking that decisions ie 'verdicts' should be criticised by people.

ok then.

Edited August 1, 2012 by nurofiend

[hellodolly]

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Don't you think that given the current political landscape here in Thailand, having groups of people, shown on TV, burning effigies of the judges as well as coffins was an incitement to violence?

Rearrange the first three words to

You don't think

The first thing he doe's when he sees some thing negative towards the pay master and his horde cloned and non cloned is go on the defense. Did you notice the "and proven" he slipped in his little speech. Like even a ostrich with his head in the sand knows their guilty but he has to leave the door open for them.

He knows they are guilty but can't bring himself to admit it. I am surprised he hasn't come up with a long list of things the Dem's did wrong or he see's as wrong to justify their actions. Personally I think that they should all be given double the maximum penalty to send a strong and clear message this kind of action will no longer be tolerated.

[phiphidon]

I dint think judges should be criticised.

I do think that decisions should be.

Er, It's the Judges that make the decisions............

Stop postings. Amsterdam lost his job already (not really, he asks for more money in a lost fight. )

You are a free lancer, honored one, but now you have to cool down with samathit (wisdom) and than we are happy in the TV community to see you again

Lungmi, Are you honestly telling me to stop posting on Thai Visa Forum?

[tlansford]

I dint think judges should be criticised.

I do think that decisions should be.

Er, It's the Judges that make the decisions............

Stop postings. Amsterdam lost his job already (not really, he asks for more money in a lost fight. )

You are a free lancer, honored one, but now you have to cool down with samathit (wisdom) and than we are happy in the TV community to see you again

Lungmi, Are you honestly telling me to stop posting on Thai Visa Forum?

in a zen way... I read it as "agree with us and you are welcome here"

not like that in new news...

[phiphidon]

I dint think judges should be criticised.

I do think that decisions should be.

Er, It's the Judges that make the decisions............

You you attack the personnel?

OK. Thaksin called the war on drugs so he is a murderer by the thousand?

The red shirts called for burning Bangkok ergo they are arsonists?

Is that how it works?

There are posters on here that do so , yes. I do not agree with them.

I also haven't got a clue why you have used those "statements" as analogies to the obviously clear statement that Judges are responsible for their decisions, just like normal people.