You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In Florida, not too long ago, a judge, horrified at the misbehavior of a fellow judge, removed his own judicial robe, vowing not to wear it again until dignity and respect were restored to the bench. It is clear that for him, at least, the simple black piece of cloth which in this country passes for the judicial robe was invested with a deep emotional meaning, expressive of the judge's moral and social obligations.
For the late Jerome Frank, of the United States Court of Appeals, the robe also had an important significance. However, far from considering the robe as an inspiration to its wearer, and a reminder to him of the duties of his high calling, Frank was merciless in his condemnation of what he called the “Cult of the Robe”, and all that the institution represents.(1) For him the robe is “an anachronistic remnant of ceremonial government”, (2) “historically connected with the desire to thwart democracy.” (3)
Its heredity is not all that condemns it, however. Frank feels that the judicial robe has adverse psychological effects on both the wearer and the public. It also has certain specific detrimental effects since, in general, it conceals the judge's humanity (4) from both himself and the public. For convenience we may group these adverse effects into those on the public and those on the judge himself.
As to the former, Judge Frank argues that: “In the minds of all too many persons the judicial garb inspires excessive awe.” (5) The result of this is to introduce an antirational air of mysticism, (6) augury, (7) and consequent