You state that:

Your response is entirely inapposite to anything that I said.  I said that we can get an extraordinarily good justice out of a trial judge, and that is precisely what we have in Mary Beth Kelly -- an extraordinarily good Justice.

as well as

If you want to really examine a person's record, you can't just look at one decision

To that, I say: Bullshit.

An "extraordinarily good Justice" wouldn't take the role of the petitioner when they don't show up. They would dismiss the damn case since the petitioner didn't show - ESPECIALLY since an individual's rights were on the line. At least adjourn things until later.

In fact, this is probably as bad as that assclown Kenneth Post when he tried holding Scott Millard in contempt for arguing for his client's Fifth Amendment rights.

So I suppose we should overlook this one giant abrogation of legal rights because other decisions were good? That's the judicial equivalent saying someone who murders another should get a free pass because they donated $100,000 to a charity.

But back to my original point, why we are having a debate about the merits and demerits of Justice Kelly's record in 2012 is a bit beyond me.