South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
1–10 of 121 posts
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#2Judges 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.
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#3Judges 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…
> Judges are "meant" to be representatives of the people
Isn't that what "representatives" are for?
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#4Title should be adjusted to “Some South Carolina Judges..”
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#5Judges 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…
> Judges are "meant" to be representatives of the people Isn't that what "representatives" are for?
Yes, and judges are either appointed by your representatives or elected directly. Does that smell like a process which coldly sieves for legal competency, or a proxy for the will and moral style of the people?
That is why I say based on the look and feel of western law, judges are proxies for the people, and not some paragon of legal competency.
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#6>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.
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#7>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…
The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training.
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.
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#8>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…
The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. 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.
> The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training.
Sounds a lot like 1/12th of a jury.
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#9Judges 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…
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.
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#10>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…
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