The Curious Case of Judicial Impartiality: When is it 'Ignorant' to Question?
CASE A: The Sanctity of the Bench (for 'palatable' decisions) The NSW Chief Justice, Andrew Bell, expressed profound dismay at former PM Tony Abbott's 'regrettable, misconceived and ignorant' attack on a judge. Abbott had the temerity to suggest the judge had made a 'political judgment' regarding a pro-Palestine protest. Bell’s framing, as reported by The Guardian (2026), suggests such criticism
'threatened social cohesion.' The message is clear: question a judge on *this* particular issue, and you're not just wrong, you're a menace to society. The inference is that judges are above political influence, and to suggest otherwise is an act of civic treason. CASE B: The 'Political' Judge (when it suits the narrative) Curiously, this high-minded defense of judicial impartiality seems less
robust when judgments serve to inconvenience state power or established interests. Consider, for instance, the perpetual narrative surrounding judicial activism in the United States, particularly concerning environmental regulations or corporate-unfriendly rulings. Then, judges are frequently lambasted by politicians and media alike for 'legislating from the bench' or having 'personal political
agendas.' During the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision in 2000, for example, the Court's deeply divided ruling was widely, and publicly, criticized by academics and politicians as utterly political, yet no Chief Justice stepped in to declare such analyses 'misconceived and ignorant.' THE FRAMING: Selective Outrage The language used by Justice Bell – 'misconceived and ignorant' – is designed to