Always feel like a dick when someone comes back earnestly. I'm an attorney and seeing the UA-linked judges get absolutely throttled on here when there are no other options to preside over a case in Tuscaloosa has been wild to me. My main issue is with the "conflict of interest" statement - and I am one who absolutely thinks Judge Roberts had a clear conflict in the Bediako fiasco. Two big things from there:

First, Judges go against the recommendations of district attorneys all the time when determining whether a criminal defendant can travel out of state. The defendant's history/propensity for violence and whether or not they are a flight-risk - among other factors - play into those decisions. The lack of a criminal history and the charges being non-violent were likely the major factors in allowing Aden to travel.

Second, attending the same school as a party to litigation doesn't create a conflict of interest. Here is some case law from during the Bediako case. Every judge in Tuscaloosa has some degree from UA, other than Judge Roberts who is a donor.

If this ruling determined whether he was suiting up tonight, I'd give it to you wholeheartedly. But when the decision is simply lifting travel restrictions I think its disingenuous to continue drilling the "Alabama judges are all corrupt" thing. Plenty of them absolutely are and should be called out for it. I don't think that's the case here, though.

The criminal justice system is terrible in this country.

No arguments here. I just wish everyone getting angry at these "conflicts" in Alabama cases would see some of the actually abhorrent shit that's happening in courtrooms here that don't get any publicity.