I don't care if a judge has a law degree. Most lawyers I've met in the US are functionally morons anyway. This is just dipshits with a certificate trying to protect their perquisites. I'd honestly rather a barber judge me in a trial than most lawyers, and anyone on here who is trying to make the law so godawful complex it needs an "expert" to interpret it, you're part of the problem.
i don't agree with everything you said, but i do find it peculiar that lawyers are paid to make things worse (that is, get in the middle of arguments and escalate them). the more they escalate, the more they get paid. it seems like the worst kind of misaligned incentive.
Even to the Supreme court I thought the President could nominate anyone irrespective of their qualifications, no prior experience as a lawyer or a judge is mandated.
The problem here is less the lack of experience but rather that many of these judges are routinely violating the law and the Constitution. We cannot have a functional legal system if judges do not follow the law.
You are correct. In every case so far, SCOTUS Justices have been attorneys by profession, but as the internet makes it much easier to research law and legal precedents, it might be interesting to see what happens if someone with a different background joins that club.
This is probably why 2 separate judges upheld a cops decision to arrest me for using bad language while walking away from officer that had been harassing me as I was walking home from work.
The law in SC is literally that bad language on the public road is a crime. They ignored 2 pages of precedents.
>The law in SC is literally that bad language on the public road is a crime. They ignored 2 pages of precedents.
Not clear what you mean here. If the law is “literally” that bad language on the road is a crime, doesn’t that mean the 2 pages of precedents support it?
I actually think the most troubling aspect of elected judges is the amount of money they have to raise every few years just to keep their job. I suppose this isn't all that different from technical fields (PI's have to write grant proposals, entrepreneurs have to give pitches) so maybe its not that big of a deal.
This also applies to law enforcement. Many small towns have elected sheriff’s (or police captains or whatever they call them locally). How is that right? Sure, maybe they have to convince a county DA that there was a crime for actual prosecution, but the number of areas they could abuse their power before (or completely without) charges is insane.
Look at it from the viewpoint of the Andy Griffith show... the circuit judge only shows up every few months. Do you really want to sit in jail until then, or do you want to take the deal/admit your fault/rat someone else out... whether he’s got enough evidence against you or not, you’re still in jail, losing your job, getting your kids taken from you...
At heart, if the law is so complicated that only a trained professional can interpret it then it is unreasonable to ask people to follow the law. The people vote for the law so it isn't actually that obvious why their voice should then be abstracted away and filtered out from enforcing and interpreting the law.
I am certainly more comfortable formally restricting positions of power to the over-educated elite; although rather those with technical degrees over legal ones. But from that perspective it is clear to me why a polity might prefer not to have a legal degree as a requirement.
How is this different than being judged by a drunk king based on his whims? It's not at all. So what happened to rule by law? How does such a system exist? How does it have supporters? This is perplexing. Sure justice is not valued at all in American culture but do south Carolinians not care at all about justice or having a civil society? It is beyond appalling to give stupid idiots (and there's no kinder way to describe someone with no legal training acting as a judge) power over others based on whatever they feel like doing since there is no legal framework in place.
In such a system where one randomly gets punished without any evidence of a crime being committed, why should one not turn around and assault or even kill the judge? After all in a society without laws, without morality, and without even common sense like south Carolina, that shouldn't even be a problem. It's just savages vs. savages once you get to this point. Why would anyone act ethically in such a horrific situation?
When I was getting a divorce, a lawyer I consulted with gave me the background on the judge handling my case. Apparently she was appointed by the governor to appease a particular voting block and as thanks for her activism work for that group. She knew nothing about family law but was given the job regardless. That situation is apparently quite common in family court since there is a high turnover rate. Judges often have to spend months being taught by the lawyers on the cases they're overseeing.
Having your fate in the hands of these folks is absolutely terrifying.
When Governor Brown appointed Rose Bird to be Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court, she had never been a judge at any level -- not even municipal, or traffic court.
I've often wondered why they don't teach the law in grade school or high school, since it is (in theory) supposed to be known and followed by everyone. The best answer I have so far is that education is in the public sector too so it's subject to similar problems with lack of training and inflexibility.
>Over the years, their numbers have included construction workers, insurance agents, pharmacists — even an underwear distributor.
Pharmacists are hardly uneducated buffoons. And, what are we to make of 'underwear distributor'? Is there a correlation between a business person's judgment and the items they sell? I doubt it.
I can guarantee that the blueprints a construction worker uses, the policies an insurance agent sells, and the manuals a pharmacist is versed in are all much more complex than the laws governing the cases that come before these low-level courts.
> ...are all much more complex than the laws governing the cases that come before these low-level courts.
The law is hardly a set of statutes. It's comprised of thousands of judicial opinions interpreting the code and articulating specific doctrines. Court made law is especially important in criminal law. It has nothing in common with reading a construction blueprint. It's honestly horrifying that there are people with legal authority that have no training applying the law.
I think the point is rather that they are not lawyers.
I have no idea how comparatively complex the law is. But that is hardly a justification for having less training. The potential for harm is the most important factor. That is why you have highly trained engineers or architects (for example). Because mistakes can destroy lives. I think the same should apply to judgeships
This is not an example of judges making political rulings that some people dislike. It's an example of judges failing to follow clear-cut basic rules.
> Shortly after the ACLU filed its lawsuit, South Carolina’s chief justice sent a scolding memo to the state’s magistrates. “It has continually come to my attention that defendants, who are neither represented by counsel nor have waived counsel, are being sentenced to imprisonment,” [chief justice] Beatty wrote in the September 2017 memo. “This is a clear violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and numerous opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
All modern democracies are run by bureaucrats and unelected civil servants. At the very top levels, you have elected officials and their political appointees. Those people provide high level leadership and set priorities. However, almost all of the actual work of governance is done by the people below them: the career civil servents.
Democracy is a scheme to keep masses in check by giving them illusion of power. If a politician starts promising people to give them what they actually want it is called "populism" and said politician will become a pariah, painted as irresponsible, crazy, etc.
No it shouldn't. Every state has elected judge positions, and they only require being able to win an election. In my home state of PA a local magistrate was caught by the FBI trying to fix cases of people who appealed her judgments, was removed from the bench for 6 months, and still ran for reelection unopposed. The people we let get elected to judicial positions is scary.
> Over the years, their numbers have included construction workers, insurance agents, pharmacists — even an underwear distributor.
This is ironic for a conservative state because it's indistinguishable to me from Soviet communism. I can't help but think about this scene from Chernobyl (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idb_qsAAe1c) which illustrates the true tragedy of this broken system. Emma Goldman wrote in "My Disillusionment in Russia" (1923):
> Bourgeois dictatorship is replaced by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" — or by that of its "advance guard," the Communist Party. Lenin takes the seat of the Romanovs, the Imperial Cabinet is rechristened Soviet of People's Commissars, Trotsky is appointed Minister of War, and a labourer becomes the Military Governor General of Moscow. That is, in essence, the Bolshevik conception of revolution, as translated into actual practice.
Judges are "meant" to be representatives of the people, not clerics of the law who must undergo institutional evaluation and approval. That is why they are elected or appointed, as opposed to merited by some competitive process which sieves for competence. Still,
> To better understand this system, The Post and Courier and ProPublica examined thousands of state records and compiled profiles of all 319 South Carolina magistrates. A reporter also visited courtrooms and interviewed legal experts, lawyers, lawmakers and defendants. Among the findings:
> Nearly three-quarters of the state’s magistrates lack a legal degree and couldn’t represent someone in a court of law.
> A loophole in state law has allowed a quarter of South Carolina’s magistrates to remain on the bench after their terms expired, letting them escape the scrutiny of a reappointment process. One controversial magistrate continues to hold court two decades after her four-year term ended.
My two cents: given the breadth and complexity of modern law, a legal degree (or at least, a bar certification to practice law) should be mandatory for any judicial appointee.
I am currently in the final year of a law degree. When I started my degree, I already had degrees in medicine and information technology, and I'd just founded my third startup.
Despite the legal exposure I'd already obtained as a doctor and entrepreneur, it was humbling to realize just how much about the law I didn't know - not just in terms of actual laws, but also in terms of interpretation of the law as a technical discipline.
For sure, if I'd been appointed as a judge with only my (pre-law degree) experience, I'd have messed up in all sorts of basic and fundamental ways.
[+] [-] scottlocklin|6 years ago|reply
Yeah, OK, so they lead off with a guy who is actually a lawyer and did shady things.
I'll give another example: 3 (elected) judges with law degrees who got into a brawl involving pistols at a white castle: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/779339897/3-indiana-judges-su...
Here's another one: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/29/pneumatic_judge/
I don't care if a judge has a law degree. Most lawyers I've met in the US are functionally morons anyway. This is just dipshits with a certificate trying to protect their perquisites. I'd honestly rather a barber judge me in a trial than most lawyers, and anyone on here who is trying to make the law so godawful complex it needs an "expert" to interpret it, you're part of the problem.
While I'm dropping links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
[+] [-] clairity|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billfruit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StanislavPetrov|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jMyles|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelmrose|6 years ago|reply
The law in SC is literally that bad language on the public road is a crime. They ignored 2 pages of precedents.
[+] [-] SkyMarshal|6 years ago|reply
Not clear what you mean here. If the law is “literally” that bad language on the road is a crime, doesn’t that mean the 2 pages of precedents support it?
[+] [-] alkonaut|6 years ago|reply
Why not require law degrees? It’s not like “elected” must mean “can’t require qualifications”?
[+] [-] erentz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] basementcat|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrismeller|6 years ago|reply
Look at it from the viewpoint of the Andy Griffith show... the circuit judge only shows up every few months. Do you really want to sit in jail until then, or do you want to take the deal/admit your fault/rat someone else out... whether he’s got enough evidence against you or not, you’re still in jail, losing your job, getting your kids taken from you...
[+] [-] roenxi|6 years ago|reply
I am certainly more comfortable formally restricting positions of power to the over-educated elite; although rather those with technical degrees over legal ones. But from that perspective it is clear to me why a polity might prefer not to have a legal degree as a requirement.
[+] [-] sonthonax|6 years ago|reply
https://www.gov.uk/become-magistrate/apply-to-be-a-magistrat...
While there are supposedly checks on their powers, abuses though sheer incompetence happen.
[+] [-] analog31|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mnm1|6 years ago|reply
In such a system where one randomly gets punished without any evidence of a crime being committed, why should one not turn around and assault or even kill the judge? After all in a society without laws, without morality, and without even common sense like south Carolina, that shouldn't even be a problem. It's just savages vs. savages once you get to this point. Why would anyone act ethically in such a horrific situation?
[+] [-] x86_64Ubuntu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 01100011|6 years ago|reply
When I was getting a divorce, a lawyer I consulted with gave me the background on the judge handling my case. Apparently she was appointed by the governor to appease a particular voting block and as thanks for her activism work for that group. She knew nothing about family law but was given the job regardless. That situation is apparently quite common in family court since there is a high turnover rate. Judges often have to spend months being taught by the lawyers on the cases they're overseeing.
Having your fate in the hands of these folks is absolutely terrifying.
[+] [-] masonic|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justAnotherNET|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Mathnerd314|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lurquer|6 years ago|reply
Pharmacists are hardly uneducated buffoons. And, what are we to make of 'underwear distributor'? Is there a correlation between a business person's judgment and the items they sell? I doubt it.
I can guarantee that the blueprints a construction worker uses, the policies an insurance agent sells, and the manuals a pharmacist is versed in are all much more complex than the laws governing the cases that come before these low-level courts.
[+] [-] thawaway1837|6 years ago|reply
No matter their expertise I wouldn’t want the construction worker working as my pharmacist without any training.
Yet we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people with no training or experience in law.
[+] [-] danielisaac|6 years ago|reply
The law is hardly a set of statutes. It's comprised of thousands of judicial opinions interpreting the code and articulating specific doctrines. Court made law is especially important in criminal law. It has nothing in common with reading a construction blueprint. It's honestly horrifying that there are people with legal authority that have no training applying the law.
[+] [-] 7952|6 years ago|reply
I have no idea how comparatively complex the law is. But that is hardly a justification for having less training. The potential for harm is the most important factor. That is why you have highly trained engineers or architects (for example). Because mistakes can destroy lives. I think the same should apply to judgeships
[+] [-] qrbLPHiKpiux|6 years ago|reply
Nothing more than a high school education.
[+] [-] la6470|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Gusen|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] not_qe|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|6 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] VLM|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] majos|6 years ago|reply
> Shortly after the ACLU filed its lawsuit, South Carolina’s chief justice sent a scolding memo to the state’s magistrates. “It has continually come to my attention that defendants, who are neither represented by counsel nor have waived counsel, are being sentenced to imprisonment,” [chief justice] Beatty wrote in the September 2017 memo. “This is a clear violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and numerous opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
[+] [-] gizmo686|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neilparikh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mamon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ruffrey|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burnte|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonzemos|6 years ago|reply
This is ironic for a conservative state because it's indistinguishable to me from Soviet communism. I can't help but think about this scene from Chernobyl (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idb_qsAAe1c) which illustrates the true tragedy of this broken system. Emma Goldman wrote in "My Disillusionment in Russia" (1923):
> Bourgeois dictatorship is replaced by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" — or by that of its "advance guard," the Communist Party. Lenin takes the seat of the Romanovs, the Imperial Cabinet is rechristened Soviet of People's Commissars, Trotsky is appointed Minister of War, and a labourer becomes the Military Governor General of Moscow. That is, in essence, the Bolshevik conception of revolution, as translated into actual practice.
[+] [-] BurningFrog|6 years ago|reply
Maybe it's time for you to read up on Soviet communism?
This is not how they killed 20m of their own citizens.
[+] [-] threatofrain|6 years ago|reply
> To better understand this system, The Post and Courier and ProPublica examined thousands of state records and compiled profiles of all 319 South Carolina magistrates. A reporter also visited courtrooms and interviewed legal experts, lawyers, lawmakers and defendants. Among the findings:
> Nearly three-quarters of the state’s magistrates lack a legal degree and couldn’t represent someone in a court of law.
> A loophole in state law has allowed a quarter of South Carolina’s magistrates to remain on the bench after their terms expired, letting them escape the scrutiny of a reappointment process. One controversial magistrate continues to hold court two decades after her four-year term ended.
[+] [-] npsomaratna|6 years ago|reply
I am currently in the final year of a law degree. When I started my degree, I already had degrees in medicine and information technology, and I'd just founded my third startup.
Despite the legal exposure I'd already obtained as a doctor and entrepreneur, it was humbling to realize just how much about the law I didn't know - not just in terms of actual laws, but also in terms of interpretation of the law as a technical discipline.
For sure, if I'd been appointed as a judge with only my (pre-law degree) experience, I'd have messed up in all sorts of basic and fundamental ways.
[+] [-] faitswulff|6 years ago|reply
Isn't that what "representatives" are for?
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]