"Transparent, equality, and EXACT laws." - President Thomas Jefferson In recent years, there has been a rising crescendo of complaint over the legitimacy - sometimes even the honesty - of particular judicial conduct. From political conservatives come charges that judges are overriding the will of the people as expressed in statute and referenda relating to abortions, gay rights, affirmative action, religion, and other subjects. From political liberals come charges of bias against women, sexual misconduct, harshness towards the interest of minorities, and forced imposition of deeply conservative political views. From both sides come charges of overriding the people"s views and protecting the professional politicians by striking down term limits. From all venues, even high-priced corporate lawyers, comes tyrannical and arbitrary conduct by trial judges. Misuse of position and even bribery are known to have sometimes existed. Beyond these matters, one dean of a law school"s thirty-four years as a law professor and litigator persuaded him that there is yet another problem, one that is widespread. It is that judges too often are unwilling to listen to facts or reasons. They start with predilections heavily favouring one side; predilections, which they, of course, deny, and then prove impervious to facts and resulting reasons contrary to their bias. When judges act on the basis of their prior predilection, ignore facts, and even make up supposed counter facts, they destroy a central tenet of the judicial system: the decision of cases based upon facts rather than prejudice. They also destroy faith in the judicial system. About the Author: Yinka Bamgbelu hails from Nigeria. Publisher"s website: http://sbprabooks.com/YinkaBamgbelu