Judge nullification

Maybe this seems tacky to some but anything that strips away the myth that judges are somehow a-political or act outside of the influence of the interests who elect them is good.  If, for example, you are suing the oil and gas industry over the irreparable damage it has inflicted on your parish's coastal environment and you know the judge presiding over your case works for the oil companies, well then you ought to do what you can to get that judge out of the way. 

Will Crain, who was elected to one of the seven seats on the Supreme Court late last year after a bitter race, has been the subject of three recusal motions from the Talbot, Carmouche and Marcello law firm since the start of the year.

The firm often represents landowners or governments in coastal and property damage lawsuits against oil and gas companies. In asking for Crain's recusal, the firm's attorneys have pointed to a mailer from Crain’s campaign that targeted attorney John Carmouche and questioned his spending in support of Crain’s opponent, appeals court judge Hans Liljeberg. Carmouche’s firm has argued that the mailer, which warned voters “don’t be deceived” by Carmouche, showed that Crain harbors “actual bias” against him.

Yes, there is some transitory reasoning at work here.  But that's how politics works. Before you understand anything else, make sure you figure out who is giving money to whom and why.  (Remember this, also, as the First City Court runoff develops.  There is likely to be an awful lot of real estate money interested in that outcome.)