Suppose you own your own company and you decide to take a walk around the premises to see what’s going on. You get reports from all of the department heads on a regular basis and you feel like you’re on top of things, but there’s nothing like seeing for yourself, and it’s good to let the employees know that you care and are paying attention.
Everything’s going smoothly until you get to this one department where they won’t let you in. “Excuse me?” you say. “I’m the boss. I own this place. You work for me. I can observe anything I want to observe. Don’t tell me I’m not allowed in here.”
Such a scenario sounds too ridiculous ever to happen. What employee would dare to be so insubordinate?
You might say Circuit Judge Christopher Kolker, employed by St. Clair County voters, is acting in such a way. He’s denying people the opportunity to observe an exceptionally important case being tried in his court, which is among the first trials being conducted post lockdown.
First, he ordered the unvaccinated to stay out of his court. Fine, that’s his prerogative as our divided nation debates the issue as a 1) moral question, and 2) a public health question.
Then, Kolker denied a request from Courtroom View Network to videotape the trial that began July 12 involving claims that Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder caused the ovarian cancer of the deceased plaintiff.
Why? Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant objected to the recording of the trial.
It’s not as if the plaintiff’s claims here are novel or require some special level of circumspection. Many similar J&J talcum powder cases have been decided by juries across the land, and even a mammoth verdict came from across the river in St. Louis in 2018. It was recorded by CVN, which is now welcome in courts in 37 states.
It leaves us to conclude, as we often have, that St. Clair County does not value transparency, and in this case, nor does Judge Kolker.
But let's not forget the agency relationship here. His court is really our court. It belongs to the citizens of St. Clair County. Kolker and his fellow jurists seem to be confused about who works for whom.
Enough of the insolence!