Judge Wall's decision to leave the bench, effective August 27th (!), is certainly the shocker here. Wall is, in our humble opinion, the best judge currently sitting on the EJDC bench, and his absence will certainly be felt. We are clearly not alone in our respect for him - Wall was one of two judges (David Barker being the other) who scored a 91% retention rating in the latest Judging the Judges poll.
Which brings up an interesting issue (to us, anyway): Does an elected judge have a duty to the public that elected him to stay on the bench for his entire term? Wall's 6-year term does not expire until 2014. Assuming the world doesn't end in 2012, he's skipping out on the voting public (who - let's be honest - likely picked his name on the ballot because it's also a noun) a bit early.
What do you think, commenters? Should we hogtie Wall to the bench and force him to continue to make rational, informed decisions for the next 3.5 years? We know there's (apparently) no legal basis for making him finish out his term, but as an elected judge, should there be?
(News 3; Thanks, Tipsters!)