Read on Twitter
One of the underappreciated and underdiscussed aspects of Judges -- at least American judges but I suspect that this is pretty universal -- is that most of them are mostly trying to turn the temperature of the conversation down. https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1328848555663126528
Instead of two people yelling at each other in a conference room, or two politicians making angry accusations against each other in speeches, the idea is that the parties will lower their voices and tried to have a calm discussion.
Pretty much EVERY aspect of a US courtroom is designed (if that's the right word) for this result. People stand far away from each other, in proscribed places. They (mostly) take turns talking. They address each other by last names and the judge as "Your Honor"
Part of the goal here is to have a SYSTEMATIC conversation about (1) what EXACTLY is the plaintiff (the person suing claiming) happened (i.e. landlord refused to fix the hot water heater and the broken window)
(2) why EXACTLY does that mean that she is entitled to some kind of order from the judge (that violates civil code section 123 that sets forth the requirements for habitability) (3) what EXACTLY is the Plaintiff requesting (a refund? order that she's allowed to break her lease?)
And an important part of that process -- and this gets corroborated again and again by field research -- is that everyone, win or lose (and most of the time it's a little of both) feels that "I had my day in court"
Remember that mostly (or at least a lot of) what a judge is incentivized to do is to get this thing RESOLVED. Not perfectly, mind you, but resolved. And part of that means lettting people -- especially the losing side -- walk a way feeling that they've been heard
and that they've been treated respectfully by the judge.
