Thanks for your knowledgeable answer.
Again, pardon my ignorance of the law, but is it possible to appeal to a higher court (or someone/something) to force a judge to hear a case (in a reasonable amount of time)?
I know you stated already that you knew of no way for them to force Greer to stop postponing. But I guess it's just hard to believe that in the court system there would be no way at all to make a judge hear a case after a certain length of time.
Seems like that would be a dangerous weapon in the hands of any (corrupt) judge, and laws should be passed to correct this.
Doesn't some "body" have the legal right to rule on this judge's actions and let the case be heard?
I believe that in most states, there are procedures by which one may file a writ of mandamus to try to force a judge to hear a case. Unfortunately, such procedures very seldom offer relief.
One of the problems with the court system is that judges are fundamentally presumed to be honest. This presumption applies not only to the fact that they're given power in the first place, but also to metters related to appeals, recusals, continuances, etc. Although appeals courts don't mind sometimes saying a judge made an honest mistake, they are **EXTREMELY** loath to do anything that would imply a judge is dishonest, corrupt, or even incompetant; worse, they tend to regard very harshly anyone who would try to make them do such a thing.
My vague understanding is that if the Schindlers were to apply for a writ of mandamus compelling Judge Greer to actually hear their case, he would be required to explain why he wasn't hearing it. He would most likely claim that he had a good reason for not having heard it yet, and--for that stage of request--that would be that. Although the Schindlers could appeal, claiming that Judge Greer did not actually have a good reason for delaying the case, remember what I said about appeals court judges. For them to rule that Greer should hear the case would be for them to basically accuse him of lying about having a good reason not to hear it; thus, they would be very loath to do such a thing.
Worse, the appeals court would probably sympathize with Judge Greer if he was annoyed at the Schindlers for having had the audacity to force him to hear the case, and he was consequently biased to rule against them. The appeals court would likely feel that if Judge Greer was biased against the Schindlers it was their own fault for having filed a writ of mandamus against him.
The checks and balances in the judicial system generally work well if judges are fundamentally honest. But there are almost no checks against dishonest judges. It is frightening to think that all it takes is one lowly probate court judge to sentence a person to death, but if all the courts in the state defer to that person's judgement, that is in fact all it takes.