Thompson, 1981)
The weaknesses to Judge Johnson's case included the fact that there was a law on the books by constitutional stipulation that has in the past denied the legislature the power to provide for retirement benefits for state officers, including, by implication, judges (Alabama Const. Art. IV, Sec. 98, 2011). Another weakness is that of the fact that even though she was officially retired from the state she was still working at the federal level. It is possible that this could be construed as double dipping, since technically she would be getting paid from both systems.
It is very easy to see in this case that there is a possibility that the judges involved would not be very objective in making their decision. One would think that they thought would have to go through their minds that this may in fact one day be them in the same position that Judge Johnson was in. If they were to rule against her then they may in fact be jeopardizing...
It is very possible that the decision that they made in this case would in the future become precedence for a future court to base other decisions on. This is what makes the decisions that judges make so critical. They not only affect the case at hand, but cases in the future as well. This is an issue that is always present when judges are making decisions that involve other judges and it seems as if in these cases there should be a neutral third party that could make these decisions, but that is not currently how the system is set up. So judges make decisions regarding other judges all the time.
References
Alabama Const. Art. IV, Sec. 98 (2011)
Amendment XIV. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h232.html
Code of Ala. § 12-18-6 (2011)
James v. Thompson, 392 So. 2d 1178 (Ala. 1981).
Johnson v Board of Control 740 So. 2d 999 (1999).
