|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Jul 27, 2004 22:02:48 GMT -5
What, it surprises everyone that these clowns...er, I mean judges, are not EXPERTS in the areas of law upon which they sit in judgment? I've got news for you: it's the same EVERYWHERE. For example, in Connecticut, the average Superior Court justice on any given day will hear criminal cases, family law cases, civil cases (i.e., personal injury cases and contract disputes) and God knows what else. These are discrete areas of the legal profession, each involving its own set of procedural and substantive rules and laws. Clerks are supposed to brief the judges on unknown points of law, but, as you've correctly surmised, most judges make decisions by the seats of their pants. With so few courts and so few judges, the system really offers no other choice. Thus, if you get a judge who's asleep at the switch (in New York, a new snoozer makes headlines every day), you get absolute chaos. Anyhow, that's why I do real estate law...I rarely if ever see the inside of courthouse. ;D
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jul 29, 2004 0:31:14 GMT -5
Yeah well Shooter...honestly nothing against you personally ...but lawyers in general...and for me- real estate lawyers in particular- don't rate much higher with me on the food chain than politicians and judges...
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Jul 29, 2004 22:23:23 GMT -5
Mr. Shooter, what people are getting at here is not so much judges lacking expertise in various aspects of the law, but the number who lack any knowledge of the law at all. For example I'm a teacher. In order to teach, I had to get my teaching degree and then a teaching certificate. You are a lawyer. Set aside the right of private citizens to represent themselves in a court of law. Every citizen has the right to represent themselves, but only themselves. They can't represent another person. You represent other people and in order to do that you needed to get your law degree, pass the bar exam and obtain a license to practice law. I can drive a car, but that doesn't mean I can drive an 18 wheeler. That too takes special training and a specific license. So how can someone absolutely unqualified, with no knowledge or the slightest understanding of the law, get a position of power presiding over a court of law that affects people whether in minor cases or in those where a life hangs in the balance?
|
|
|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Jul 31, 2004 11:32:06 GMT -5
Yeah well Shooter...honestly nothing against you personally ...but lawyers in general...and for me- real estate lawyers in particular- don't rate much higher with me on the food chain than politicians and judges... No harm, no foul, LS. 'Tis the horrid reputation of my profession, and, apart from me attempting to do right by my own clients, there's nothing I can do to salvage the reputation of the bar in general. I'm proud of what I do, but I know well that many of my colleagues are bottom of the proverbial barrel.
|
|
|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Jul 31, 2004 12:31:00 GMT -5
Mr. Shooter, what people are getting at here is not so much judges lacking expertise in various aspects of the law, but the number who lack any knowledge of the law at all. For example I'm a teacher. In order to teach, I had to get my teaching degree and then a teaching certificate. You are a lawyer. Set aside the right of private citizens to represent themselves in a court of law. Every citizen has the right to represent themselves, but only themselves. They can't represent another person. You represent other people and in order to do that you needed to get your law degree, pass the bar exam and obtain a license to practice law. I can drive a car, but that doesn't mean I can drive an 18 wheeler. That too takes special training and a specific license. So how can someone absolutely unqualified, with no knowledge or the slightest understanding of the law, get a position of power presiding over a court of law that affects people whether in minor cases or in those where a life hangs in the balance? Roland, I'm a little confused. Are you talking about the village magistrates and small-town judges who, as non-lawyers, adjudicate parking tickets and disputes between neighbors, or are you talking about lawyer-judges who, for whatever reason, render stupid decisions? The former indeed lack any knowledge of the law, but their decisions are generally innocuous. The latter can be said to have at least SOME facility with the law - after all, they went to law school, passed the bar exam and obtained a license to practice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you're driving at is that many of these lawyer-judges lack either the moral acuity and character or the common-sense needed to dole out "justice." All of the legal training in the world cannot compensate for a judge's failure to appreciate what is just and right under a given set of circumstances. By the way, are you suggesting special training for lawyers who seek to become judges? As it stands now, most lawyer-judges learn how to judge (literally) by trial and error. No new LEGAL training occurs (that is, there aren't any "refresher" courses in contract law or criminal law), and the "mechanics" of the job are picked up over time.
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Jul 31, 2004 18:33:03 GMT -5
What he's also getting at is throwing these judges at areas of the law in which they have no expertise. For example, your area is real estate. If you were to become a judge, that would be fine in say the dispute over WFUV if I read it correctly, but they can just as easily transfer you to dealing with murder cases. I don't mean to impinge, but from what you yourself know of your training, do you feel confident in your knowlege of this area where a man's life is in the balance, where an incompetant judge can end a man's life. What about child law, where you decide what's best for the child? Judges are seeing cases that they have rudimentary knowledge of at best? Were you even required to learn about law outside your specialty?
|
|
|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Jul 31, 2004 20:36:09 GMT -5
What he's also getting at is throwing these judges at areas of the law in which they have no expertise. For example, your area is real estate. If you were to become a judge, that would be fine in say the dispute over WFUV if I read it correctly, but they can just as easily transfer you to dealing with murder cases. I don't mean to impinge, but from what you yourself know of your training, do you feel confident in your knowlege of this area where a man's life is in the balance, where an incompetant judge can end a man's life. What about child law, where you decide what's best for the child? Judges are seeing cases that they have rudimentary knowledge of at best? Were you even required to learn about law outside your specialty? Roughneck, I would NEVER want to be a judge because, as you suggest, my knowledge is pretty much confined to the area of real estate law. In law school, I, like every other law student, had exposure to many areas of the law, but this exposure was fleeting at best. Specialization only comes into play after graduation, when a lawyer cuts his teeth in the "real world." There is no way I could be comfortable sitting in judgment over a murder case, or even a civil dispute for that matter. But the judicial system is structured in such a way that judges are not formally trained in the art of "judging," and the system, furthermore, does not allow for a certain group of judges to hear only criminal cases and another group to hear only family law cases. There are too few judges and much too many cases to be heard to allow for such specialization. Today, most judges on both the state and federal level MUST hear a variety of different cases, regardless of their particular legal backgrounds. Many federal judges, for example, were either law school faculty members (i.e., bookworms who never saw the inside of a courtroom) or high-end corporate lawyers before being named to the federal bench; their qualifications included either deep pockets or the rarified skill of writing about the law in long, fancy prose. On the state level, many fine PRACTICING lawyers become judges, but, again, they lack the broad-based, multi-faceted knowledge that the modern judiciary requires. Heck, as a real estate lawyer, even I could be a judge, especially if I made the right political connections. Given how little I know about the many discrete areas of the law outside of real estate, the notion that someday I could make it to the bench scares the crap out of me!
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jul 31, 2004 23:34:34 GMT -5
Shooter I think you're misunderstanding. As Roughneck touched on earlier, the Constitution doesn't outline the qualifications needed to become a judge whatsoever- and being a lawyer is not a stipulation or requirement, although to the the best of my knowledge all of the justices who've ever sat on the federal Supreme Court were. That said, federal level aside- on state level (which in turn dictates most county and municipal levels) the law and judicial requirements vary from state to state. In NYS the only judges who are required to have a degree in law (including passing the bar) are state Supreme Court judges and Appellate Court judges. In the other courts it's 'generally' the rule that judges have 5 years of law experience- but that word 'generally' happens to leave a lot of leeway that's open to 'interpretation.' 75% of the judgeships here are 'elected' positions, however judges are not permitted to campaign in the way politicians do. So when we go into the voting booth- we may be looking at 3 or 4 names per seat with say 8 or 9 seats open. That's all the information we are given. We are not given information on the qualifications or record of the incumbents nor any information on the qualifications or background of the challengers. So due to lack of information, most people either skip those rows of levers completely or do the 'eeny, meeny, miney, moe' thing. I can't speak for what Roland means, but it's probably the same thing I mean...My eyes were opened last year when the scandals in the Brooklyn courts surfaced...that set off a pretty big deal here- and the Daily News did a weeklong expose looking into the courts- focusing on judges in Brooklyn and Queens in particular. Shooter- we're not talking about 'village magistrates' who perform marriages or 'small town' judges who settle disputes between a couple of bickering neighbors...these are judges who are sitting on criminal cases that include murder, rape, robbery, drug dealers, etc. or family law or civil litigation, etc. - and they're not 'lawyer-judges.' One judge from Brooklyn (I'm sorry I can't recall his name, though I can probably track it down in their archive) was so arrogantly smug, he actually bragged to the reporter that he indeed had ZERO experience in the law before he became a judge...he never spent a day in law school and 'the bar' is somewhere you go to get a beer- and admitted rather gleefully- he couldn't tell you what the 1st amendment is- or any of them, let alone state or local law...he just makes it up as he goes along (his words). His only 'qualification' was that he was politically connected to the right people- simply put- another means of cronyism. They uncovered a similar case in Queens and found that 100% of her rulings were overturned in Appellate Court. (And then anyone has to wonder why the courts are so backlogged??) Out on the Island it's no different- you have people who's 'law' experience runs from dog catcher to construction company owner who run for these elected judgeships...and most often as long as they're politically connected to the right people- they'll get party endorsement- qualifications be damned and since the voting public is left in the dark about the candidates and their qualifications (or lack of) people will continue to bypass voting for these powerful and important positions or figure if a party is backing them then it must mean they are qualified. At which point now we have a twofold situation- unqualified people sitting on the benches who are then beholden to politicos and other assorted wealthy fatcats (something that unfortunately also applies to even those who may very well be qualified) which is where too many 'questionable' rulings are coming from . I'm mean come on Shooter...just look at the infamous Lizzie Grubman or the current Marks/Alysworth cases. Of course now the state's judicial branch is in the process of investigating and looking into finding a remedy to this state's mostly corrupt judical system...but then you're talking about a state that hasn't handed in a budget on time (or even remotely close to on time) in 20 years...
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Aug 1, 2004 0:48:30 GMT -5
Shooter I think you're misunderstanding. As Roughneck touched on earlier, the Constitution doesn't outline the qualifications needed to become a judge whatsoever- and being a lawyer is not a stipulation or requirement, although to the the best of my knowledge all of the justices who've ever sat on the federal Supreme Court were. Pretty much. I mean, you yourself Shooter said you wouldn't be qualified to sit on a murder trial, and you'd be more qualified than most. And you have a conscience. A lot of these judges turn around and have probably already decided the issue and are merely looking through the books for justification of a predetermined ruling. And that's for those with experience. There's no such thing as impartiality. Just the fact that two judges can come up with justification to either support abortion or denounce it, or any other issue, proves that. And then, there's no way to remove most of these folks simply for being bad judges. I used to get Reader's Digest and remember that section. Most people don't follow court rulings, so even if you do have a bad judge, most people won't know or care. Slate just did an article on how no one is paying attention to judicial appointments that have and could happen. Whoever wins the election will probably be appointing at least one Supreme Court justice, and there's no check on who they appoint. Look at Scalia. Obviously should have recused himself, but since he's on the highest court, no one could force him to, except maybe Rhenquist, and you know that wasn't happening, and no way to appeal based on his conflict of interests to a higher court.
|
|
|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Aug 1, 2004 12:16:14 GMT -5
Oh, I think I understand quite well, LS. The system is broke, and the likelihood of fixing it any time soon is slim to none. LS, you appear to be suggesting nationwide judicial standards, including law school graduation, bar passage in the jurisdiction in which a judge will sit, a certain measure of post-graduation, post-bar practical experience, half a brain, and a lack of arrogance. That's all well and good, but is it realistic? I'm afraid that special interests and politics would render any attempt to homogenize state and local judgeships a lost cause. Judicial reform, like tort reform, is a noble idea. But at the end of the day, it's just that: an idea. Believe it or not, I actually have met a few good lawyers and a few good judges.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Aug 1, 2004 16:15:02 GMT -5
Ah Shooter- as far as the judicial system goes- was there ever a time in the history of this country when it wasn't broke?? Hangin' judges, kangaroo courts...This country likes to present itself as the epitome of equality, fairness and righteousness- that rug looks so crisp and clean on the surface- but look underneath it and there's plenty of dirt. Yes I've got the utter audacity ;D to suggest a nationwide standard that ALL judges be required to hold a degree in law and pass the bar in the jurisdiction they will be presiding...and they must prove they possess a minimum of 1/2 a brain (obtaining a law degree and/or being a practicing lawyer doesn't automatically insure the presence of functioning brain cells). Post degree/bar experience is not a necessity as the first two requirements would show they possess at least a basic overall knowledge of the law. Arrogance I'm afraid is just one of those human afflictions that not much can be done about and exists in some people no matter the profession or walk of life they come from. That said, you are quite right when you said as far as the law goes- it all comes down to how 'is' is interpreted. Few laws are black and white and knowledge of the law is necessary, but only a part of it. The larger part is the need for old fashioned common sense on how to apply a given law on a case by case basis- a decision that might be the right one in one instance, but may not be the right one in another. Taking another life is a crime unless it can be proven that it was an act of self-defense- and even then the final decision is ultimately left up to the presiding judge. How many battered women sit in prisons after killing a husband/boyfriend in a proven 'kill or be killed' situation because judges passed a blanket 'by the book' sentence instead of a common sense application of the law reflecting the unique set of circumstances?? Is having a nationwide standard realistic and necessary?? Yeah. So are other things like tort reform and campaign reform. Will it happen is a totally different question. Not as long as capitalism is the primary force that drives this country. The concept of capitalism is also a somewhat noble one, unfortunately as with all things, throw man into the mix and it breeds corruption where the pursuit of power and the almighty dollar becomes the only force that matters. But in the end though- the unquenchable thirst for power and riches have become the very downfall of thousands of empires, countries and governments since the beginning of time. Over the past few years I've gotten a very strong feeling I've begun witnessing the beginning of the end to this one...
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Aug 1, 2004 22:49:11 GMT -5
Roland, I'm a little confused. Are you talking about the village magistrates and small-town judges who, as non-lawyers, adjudicate parking tickets and disputes between neighbors, or are you talking about lawyer-judges who, for whatever reason, render stupid decisions? The former indeed lack any knowledge of the law, but their decisions are generally innocuous. The latter can be said to have at least SOME facility with the law - after all, they went to law school, passed the bar exam and obtained a license to practice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you're driving at is that many of these lawyer-judges lack either the moral acuity and character or the common-sense needed to dole out "justice." All of the legal training in the world cannot compensate for a judge's failure to appreciate what is just and right under a given set of circumstances. By the way, are you suggesting special training for lawyers who seek to become judges? As it stands now, most lawyer-judges learn how to judge (literally) by trial and error. No new LEGAL training occurs (that is, there aren't any "refresher" courses in contract law or criminal law), and the "mechanics" of the job are picked up over time. In belated response due to a lengthy honey-do list this weekend no to all of the above. Either the lone conservative is playing devil's advocate or you missed my point completely. LS however, seems to have done a very competent job of clarifying, so no need to beleaguer the particulars. Mr. Shooter, my overall point is, before the last few years when I found out otherwise, I'd always been under the assumption that having a degree in law was required of judges. All judges. I was not able to just stroll into a school and take it upon myself to start teaching. A person cannot simply decide to walk into a police station, put on a uniform and be a police officer. Even the kids flipping burgers at McDonalds required some level of job training. So how is it justifiable that a person with no training in the law at all can sit in judgement on what they do not know even the rudimentary basics of? Shouldn't someone who holds such an influential position of power be held to the same, if not higher, job qualification standards as doctors, lawyers, teachers, firemen, policemen and so forth? Mr. Shooter, even my barber had to pass a state test and become licensed before he could cut hair! Wouldn't it also stand to reason that judges who have no training in the law and go about making rulings based on nothing more than poor judgement or outside pressures instead of the law itself, are only further contributing to the problem of overloaded, overburdened courts?
|
|
|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Aug 2, 2004 21:32:06 GMT -5
Ah Shooter- as far as the judicial system goes- was there ever a time in the history of this country when it wasn't broke?? Hangin' judges, kangaroo courts...This country likes to present itself as the epitome of equality, fairness and righteousness- that rug looks so crisp and clean on the surface- but look underneath it and there's plenty of dirt. Yes I've got the utter audacity ;D to suggest a nationwide standard that ALL judges be required to hold a degree in law and pass the bar in the jurisdiction they will be presiding...and they must prove they possess a minimum of 1/2 a brain (obtaining a law degree and/or being a practicing lawyer doesn't automatically insure the presence of functioning brain cells). Post degree/bar experience is not a necessity as the first two requirements would show they possess at least a basic overall knowledge of the law. Arrogance I'm afraid is just one of those human afflictions that not much can be done about and exists in some people no matter the profession or walk of life they come from. That said, you are quite right when you said as far as the law goes- it all comes down to how 'is' is interpreted. Few laws are black and white and knowledge of the law is necessary, but only a part of it. The larger part is the need for old fashioned common sense on how to apply a given law on a case by case basis- a decision that might be the right one in one instance, but may not be the right one in another. Taking another life is a crime unless it can be proven that it was an act of self-defense- and even then the final decision is ultimately left up to the presiding judge. How many battered women sit in prisons after killing a husband/boyfriend in a proven 'kill or be killed' situation because judges passed a blanket 'by the book' sentence instead of a common sense application of the law reflecting the unique set of circumstances?? Is having a nationwide standard realistic and necessary?? Yeah. So are other things like tort reform and campaign reform. Will it happen is a totally different question. Not as long as capitalism is the primary force that drives this country. The concept of capitalism is also a somewhat noble one, unfortunately as with all things, throw man into the mix and it breeds corruption where the pursuit of power and the almighty dollar becomes the only force that matters. But in the end though- the unquenchable thirst for power and riches have become the very downfall of thousands of empires, countries and governments since the beginning of time. Over the past few years I've gotten a very strong feeling I've begun witnessing the beginning of the end to this one... LS, for the record, law school and my time as a practicing lawyer have effectively killed whatever brain cells I had coming into this profession. ;D I'm not descrying national standards. In fact, I would agree that they indeed would go a long way to straightening out a legal system that's as bent as a Georgia judge. But, as you suggest, greed, self-importance, arrogance and special interests all conspire to keep braindead judges in power, and, as the American experiment continues to evolve, the situation grows dimmer by the minute. The beginning of the end, LS? As far as politics and politicians are concerned, I think you could make the argument that we never really got started (on the right foot). "By the book" sentencing, LS? Ah yes, the federal government's contribution to the often difficult job of doling out punishment (and now many states have adopted sentencing guidelines, building on already dubious federal models). Sentencing guidelines have taken any "human element" out of sentencing today's criminals. Thus, the impoverished mother of four who steals food to feed her children is oftentimes subjected to the same punishment as the doped-up street punk who robs a bodega; the bruised and battered wife who kills her husband to end the cycle of violence receives the same sentence as the cold-blooded killer. Certainly, anyone with half a brain would agree that "you do the crime, now do the time" is too simplistic a mantra for modern life. Heck, even this conservative can divine the shades of gray lurking between the black and white.
|
|
|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Aug 2, 2004 21:42:53 GMT -5
In belated response due to a lengthy honey-do list this weekend no to all of the above. Either the lone conservative is playing devil's advocate or you missed my point completely. LS however, seems to have done a very competent job of clarifying, so no need to beleaguer the particulars. Mr. Shooter, my overall point is, before the last few years when I found out otherwise, I'd always been under the assumption that having a degree in law was required of judges. All judges. I was not able to just stroll into a school and take it upon myself to start teaching. A person cannot simply decide to walk into a police station, put on a uniform and be a police officer. Even the kids flipping burgers at McDonalds required some level of job training. So how is it justifiable that a person with no training in the law at all can sit in judgement on what they do not know even the rudimentary basics of? Shouldn't someone who holds such an influential position of power be held to the same, if not higher, job qualification standards as doctors, lawyers, teachers, firemen, policemen and so forth? Mr. Shooter, even my barber had to pass a state test and become licensed before he could cut hair! Wouldn't it also stand to reason that judges who have no training in the law and go about making rulings based on nothing more than poor judgement or outside pressures instead of the law itself, are only further contributing to the problem of overloaded, overburdened courts? Roland, I'm subjected to "honey-do" POST-IT NOTES, but I get your point. ;D Far be it from me to EVER play devil's advocate. Used to be my stock and trade when I taught....frustrated the hell out my students. Seriously, I read both you and LS loudly and clearly now. Perhaps whatever misunderstanding I was experiencing was based on my own experiences in the law (and in courthouses in both New York and Connecticut). Although I rarely appear in court (maybe 3-4 times a month), I can honestly say that I've never appeared before a non-lawyer judge. That's not to say every judge I've appeared before has been "competent" in the greater sense of the world, but I'm pretty sure they all attended law school, passed the bar exam and had at least a modicum of practical experience in the law. Given the horror stories related by both you and LS, I guess I have to count myself lucky in my courtroom experiences.
|
|
|