政務二課

The 7th Circuit is the only circuit court that considers an order only damaging to a lawyer's professional reputation as never appealable, although it does leave open the possibility of relief through a writ of mandamus. The 5th and D.C. circuits allow lawyers to appeal orders finding misconduct, without the need for additional monetary sanction. In addition, the 9th Circuit allows appeals of orders that go beyond "routine judicial commentary" to find willful ethical violation. Only the 1st Circuit limits attorney appeals to those cases in which the challenged order is expressly identified as a reprimand. Earlier this year, the 3d Circuit ruled that whenever a district court imposes sanctions on an attorney, the lawyer must be given an opportunity to be heard. It joined the 5th, D.C. and 9th circuits.

當然，以上這些”眉角”對菜鳥法官來說可說是步步陷阱，但只要混了一，二年，這些東西都不再是問題，自然而然變成”法律專業”的一部分。久而久之，也就習慣於在這種枝微末節的繁瑣工作中浪費時間。殊不知一個人的精力是有限的，花越多時間在這種無聊的沒收規定上，就越少有精神可以集中在查明事實，評斷屈直的大事上。更不用說花在文書往返和鑑定工作這種公家資源的浪費了！難道國家發了這麼高的薪水給法官，是要法官把精神花在這種無關痛癢的小事嗎？

台南地檢署偵結前台南市副市長許陽明特別費案，起訴許陽明需單據核銷部分，但以領據核銷特別費部分則予以不起訴。綜觀起訴書內容，與遭查黑中心起訴的前國民黨主席馬英九相關主張，有著許多雷同之處；包括對特別費性質、有無主觀犯意、大水庫概念等，都與馬英九主張一致。 南檢檢察官也露骨地批評侯寬仁：「司法者應站在歷史的高點來觀察特別費性質？還是該匠氣十足如堆積木般將『法律概念』堆砌起來？當相當多數首長都可能經不起此種檢驗時，就是執法者應停下腳步來思考『究竟這是一個犯罪問題還是一個制度瑕疵問題』的時候了。」

二、…多元而專業的時代，法官原就不可能是任何領域的專家，而法官在專業方面的空白，正是沒有成見，能作公平審判的重要基石。當事人兩造無能提出專業意見，透過詰問與辯論說服法官，是當事人的過錯，不在法官的無知。 三、參審官的特定領域專業在其內心中，未在法庭上受公開檢視與詰問，很多專業領域中的專業見解，也有見仁見智，若其有專業有所一偏，對任一方當事人都不公平。 四、參審官的專業領域經驗，有時可能正是法律所欲改正之錯誤，則參審官參與審判之形成，將使法律目的無法達成。…… 六、與其推動「專家參審」制度，不如落實現行法制「專家證人」之規定，借助審判過程中，專家意見之提出，透過法庭公開詰問與辯論，使法官獲得確切之心證。 司法審判仍是一項高度專業的工作，應由具此專業之人，依正常訴訟制度為之，始足以獲得民眾信賴，進而公正地保障人民權利。必須是受過嚴格選取與訓練的「法官」，才具公信力，始能在審判席上定紛止爭。

Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye on Friday termed the ongoing and as yet unsuccessful battle for judicial pay raises the "ultimate assault on judicial independence."

The Constitution itself says little about federal judges, except for two provisions: life tenure, and a bar against reduction of their salaries. Both, says Duff, are "pillars of judicial independence," and both are "directly in play" because of the current level of pay for judges. Judges have long argued that when Congress does not even give them cost-of-living adjustments -- none was given last year, or in several years during the 1990s -- it is, in effect violating the salary-reduction provision of the Constitution. Real earnings of judges have declined by nearly 25 percent since 1969, Roberts pointed out. But the impact of salary on the life-tenure provision of the Constitution is emerging as a strong argument as well, Duff says. Judges are leaving the bench at a higher rate than ever before -- 17 in the past two years alone -- obviously shortening their tenure. Beyond that, at a more subtle (though equally ominous) level, Duff expressed concern that the purpose of life tenure might be thwarted in other ways by salary concerns.