Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 February 2

= February 2 =

Judge Joe Bob
Won't name names but some of you might find it obvious who this is. Federal district court in eastern Texas, Judge Joe Bob presiding. Plaintiff files a certain bogus suit, case is litigated, Joe Bob decides in plaintiff's favor because he always does in disputes of this type. His decision is overturned on appeal. That's overturned I tell you, binding precedent with a capital B.

Nonetheless, another case comes in that's almost the same, but Joe Bob finds a little detail that's different enough to decide in favor of the plaintiff again. Result: this decision overturned too.

Another one or two of these go by, with the circuit court opinions basically saying "god damn it Joe Bob, we thought we explained this already, decision is reversed AGAIN". They create some new rule to allow defendants to get the venue changed out of Joe Bob's court on the slightest pretext. Joe Bob likes him some plaintiffs, so he finds ways to deny these change of venue motions, and those denials get appealed and overturned too, at least some of the time.

This has been going on for something like 15 years with the same judge. Plaintiffs bend over backwards to get their cases into his court.

Short of the FBI catching plaintiffs bringing suitcases full of cash into Joe Bob's chambers, what kinds of mechanisms exist for dealing with this? You would think Joe Bob might get more enjoyment from being a plaintiff attorney, but he's an Article III judge, appointed for life, and he seems to like it that way.

I'm not seeking legal advice, I'm just an amused but dismayed onlooker to some of these cases, and am wondering if there is really a hole in the system going on here. Thanks all. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I find conflicting statements from sources that look authoritative:
 * "Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate." [ "The Judicial Branch". obamawhitehouse.archives.gov]
 * "Contrary to the orthodoxy, nothing in the Constitution mandates that impeachment be the exclusive method for removing misbehaving judges." [ Saikrishna Prakash & Steven D. Smith. "Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment". The Yale Law Journal&thinsp;]
 * Given the explicit contradiction of the "orthodox view" – which seems to apply to Article III judges and thus to the Honourable Judge Joe Bob – I am inclined to trust the latter position. Nevertheless, if I understand the learned article correctly, there are no current other statutes allowing the removal of judges for judicial misbehaviour. --Lambiam 10:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between "could" and "have"; much of the law is based on legal precedent; coulds don't become cans unless they become haves. Which is to say that while Congress could create some alternate mechanisms to remove federal judges (such as some kind of independent review board or tribunal) it never has.  Of all of the federal judges to ever be removed from office, 100% of them have gone through the impeachment process.  -- Jayron 32 18:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I hadn't thought of impeachment as a remedy for this judge. The FBI finding him taking payoffs was hypothetical.  In reality I don't think he has really done anything I could call a high crime or misdemeanor.  He has a judicial and legal philosophy that tilts to the advantage of certain types of litigants, which is to say he's a biased judge, to the point of having achieved a measure of fame and (mostly negative) notability for it.  But, appointing biased judges and getting them confirmed has always been one of the spoils of politics.  It just usually shows up in more partisan or social types of issues, rather than in a particular area of business disputes. So, I was really asking if there is a way to say "enough" once a judge has been overturned enough times in a particular area, e.g. the equivalent of a Wikipedia editor getting a topic ban.  Judges hear all sorts of cases and idk if this guy has known probs in other than one particular area.  He just really really likes a certain interpretation of a particular law, so he is in the habit of overstretching it. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * On matters of interpretation of law, judges are not normally (read: ever) sanctioned or removed from office. The prerogative of the party in power is to be able to appoint judges that will interpret the law a certain way; that is not a bug, it's a feature of the system.  "Bias" generally just means "people who think differently than I do", and I'm afraid that's not sanctionable.  -- Jayron 32 12:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. I had hoped that the long series of appellate reversals could be said to indicate something.  Oh well.  Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It mostly just means the appellate judges were nominated to their position by a president from the other party. Very little of American life in the 21st century is based on greater principles than base tribalism.  -- Jayron 32 14:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can see that for some kinds of controversies, but this guy's particular hobby horse is not really partisan. Everyone seems to think that he gets it wrong.  2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

West Berlin population size 1949 -1989
Is there a population chart for West Berlin, excluding East Berlin, between 1945 (or 1949) and 1989? I just need total population, not age or gender demographics. --Lgriot (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything directly, but Census in Germany lists a number of censuses done in the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) during the years of division. That may give you some leads.  -- Jayron 32 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This webpage is the Berlin-Brandenburg office of statistics. It is in the German language, but that may be another lead for you to follow.  -- Jayron 32 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Try de:West-Berlin. The numbers with asterisks are census results. --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks you very much --Lgriot (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Need of closure for tasks
I am aware of Closure (psychology), but this mostly is about "closing" a certain period in life, especially after difficulties. **Is there literature** about need for closure about tasks? For example I notice that if I (or others I talked with) have too many tasks open and we never finish a good chunk of those, the mental health gets affected, as if one feels unable to complete anything. Edit: it seems that people took this as mental issue, now it doesn't feel like it. I mean rather something in the direction of "closing/completing tasks helps the mood, having too many open doesn't". --Pier4r (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The inability to complete tasks is a known sign/symptom of a number of mental health conditions, this search turns up both Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and various kinds of executive function disorders. I would start my research with those disorders.  -- Jayron 32 16:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Many executive function disorders are exhibited by the executive branches of democratic governments. Non-democratic governments have no disorders. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Completion bias? From this, first relevant hit from a web search about task completion.  2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding: quite a lot of literature came up when I tried “unfinished tasks” as the keyword. For example, a prof at University Trier has done a lot of studies on the correlation between unfinished work and sleep quality. Trying the opposite, “finished tasks” brings up papers on the effect on memory. And finally, the autocomplete also suggested the term “task closure theory” which seems to be mostly about the best ways to get people to keep using your apps. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Pier4r (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It's only a problem if you worry about it too much. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not a very helpful comment and I suggest you withdraw it. We're talking about a mental health issue here. --Viennese Waltz 09:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the OP's mental health issue, so it seems. If he's concerned, he should see a doctor, not fish for random opinions on the internet. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The OP was asking explicitly for literature about need for closure about tasks, not for "random opinions", and most definitely not for your snide comments. And yes, I do get angry. If you cannot constructively contribute, then at least show some respect for the people posting questions here. --Lambiam 21:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking to the editors who first raised the "mental health" subject. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry maybe I misworded the request, why my mental issues? The case was from work. Work comes in faster than we can process the tickets, that is the problem. When I (and colleagues) are able to finally close some tickets that were always postponed, it feels good. Conversely if we are unable to close "old" tickets because new pressing matters take precedence (it happens too often), we don't feel that good (at least I). Hence my question related to "is there any literature about this feeling good that comes from closing/completing tasks?". --Pier4r (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Human Condition, 1958, by Hannah Arendt - is basically about the idea of work - sorry, it's in labor- as a necessary way for feeling good. --Askedonty (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you --Pier4r (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What sprung to my mind is:
 * Oh Lord God, when thou givest to thy servant to endeavour any great matter, grant us to know that it is not the beginning but the continuing of the same, until it be thoroughly finished, which yieldeth the true glory. (Sir Francis Drake)
 * I don't suppose they teach children that sort of thing these days. Alansplodge (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Was that as he lay dying, i.e. "thoroughly finished"? --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was the "great matter" which was to be finished, not the writer. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are some links:, , , , . --Lambiam 21:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you --Pier4r (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)