South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law • Hacker News Board

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#51

Post by root_axis » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

mamon wrote: post #33

VLM wrote: post #29

Democracy is only supported until it gives the "wrong" results, then deafening outcry for bureaucrats and oligarchs and dictators. As if they give better results than democracy on average, LOL.

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.

I can't imagine someone with such a cynical outlook being happy with direct rule by the masses.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#52

Post by lisper » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:57 PM UTC

majos wrote: post #49

lisper wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's perfectly reasonable in our democracy to expect judges to be trained in law in order to effectively do their jobs. Manifestly not. If it were reasonable to expect this, then the founders would have written it into the Constitution, or the People would have changed the law in order to require it. The former didn't happen, and the latter hasn't happened. It may seem reasonable to you , but the whole point of dem…

> And in this case, requiring judges be lawyers clearly doesn't seem reasonable to the majority, or things would be different. This assumes that the current state of the law is tacitly approved by the majority of people, which isn't true. For example, polls strongly suggest that a strong majority (>60%) of Americans support marijuana legalization [1], but federal legalization is nowhere to be seen. Polls suggest that…

Yes, that's true, because the U.S. is not a direct democracy, so a vocal and motivated minority can wield a disproportionate influence over policy. But I don't see a lot of people marching in the streets to change the way judges are chosen.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#53

Post by refurb » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:57 PM UTC

chongli wrote: post #26

SamReidHughes wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is by construction a partisan process, with the outcome matching politics of the median lawyer, instead of the median voter.

Partisanship is a state of mind moreso than a formal system. Judicial appointments in Canada are non partisan. The politicians who appoint them are operating under the principle of “who would be the best judge from among these candidates” rather than who is my closest ally. Elected judges are entirely the opposite. It sounds like the entire judicial branch of the United States has become politicized. That’s really un…

Judicial appointments in Canada are non partisan.

Take a look at the backgrounds of the judges who are appointed and tell me it’s not partisan in Canada.

Usually the liberals appoint judges with close Liberal Party ties and the same with the conservatives.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#54

Post by gizmo686 » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:00 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #29

Democracy is only supported until it gives the "wrong" results, then deafening outcry for bureaucrats and oligarchs and dictators. As if they give better results than democracy on average, LOL.

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.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#55

Post by slowmovintarget » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

thawaway1837 wrote: post #17

elcaminocomplex wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judges have minimal training in the procedures of the court. Some are attorneys which gives them more familiarity with law and process, but as far as I know that’s not a requirement. The jury selection process has nothing to do with qualifications of jurors. The prosecutors are primarily trying to eliminate people they think will be sympathetic and the defense is primarily looking to eliminate people they think might…

The lack of legal training is exactly the issue at hand. Juror selection isn’t about qualifications. However, it does give both sides an opportunity to eliminate vested or deeply unqualified interests that may be biased against them. With a judge you have no such option.

Except for appeal. If a judge gets overturned enough on appeal, they can rightly be said to be unreliable. Which means, if they're elected to the position, their opponent can site how many times they got overturned as a legitimate reason to think they're bad at their job.

All of this functions well... unless the electorate is uneducated or misled, and apathetic. That's the real problem in this case. People are winning popularity contests, because the only thing middle and high school taught most of the electorate was that you should be popular.

It isn't true everywhere. Reputation and reputation systems can and do function well. But they require a functional press, and an interested public.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#56

Post by erentz » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #47

Are there many places that have elected judges? Why not require law degrees? It’s not like “elected” must mean “can’t require qualifications”?

It’s one of the stranger things about the US. Electing not just judges but also coroners and sheriffs and prosecutors.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#57

Post by neilparikh » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #29

Democracy is only supported until it gives the "wrong" results, then deafening outcry for bureaucrats and oligarchs and dictators. As if they give better results than democracy on average, LOL.

These judges are appointed, not elected, so they’re still “bureaucrats”.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#58

Post by anoncake » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

mamon wrote: post #33

VLM wrote: post #29

Democracy is only supported until it gives the "wrong" results, then deafening outcry for bureaucrats and oligarchs and dictators. As if they give better results than democracy on average, LOL.

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.

If Democracy is the illusion of rule by the people, what is actual rule of the people?

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#59

Post by anoncake » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:13 PM UTC

sieabahlpark wrote: post #34

mamon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Rightfully so, as they won't be able to actually afford or pass what they promise without destroying some part of the economy.

Voters would think harder about what they vote for if their votes were effective instead of being ignored like children.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#60

Post by lurquer » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 7:17 PM UTC

danielisaac wrote: post #19

lurquer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminal law is literally a set of statutes. Small claims court (the name varies depending on the state, but we're talking about 'Judge Judy' type courts here) is for the quick resolution of minor disputes. In most states, the formal rules of evidence don't apply. And, in nearly all the states, one can appeal de novo the court's judgment to a 'real' court. My state recently implemented a requirement that these lower…

> Criminal law is literally a set of statutes. Simply untrue in common law countries (e.g. the US). Criminal law is absolutely driven by judicial opinions and statutory interpretation. > In most states, the formal rules of evidence don't apply. This isn't about evidence. It's about interpreting many doctrines that vary wildly between states. A single statute (re: defenses, attempt, conspiracy, the requisite mens rea…

You are clearly not a lawyer. Stay within your own lane.

South Carolina magistrates handle minor criminal cases where the fine can't exceed $350 or 30 days in jail. Their jurisdiction in civil cases extends to matters involving less that $7500.

As noted, if you disagree with the judgment, you get a brand new trial before the elected circuit court judge.

There are no convoluted legal mysteries involving whether a tenant had paid rent (the majority of cases) or whether someone was speeding. All of the legal defenses and the like you mention can be raised by the litigant; they have every right to have an attorney. It's not the judge's job to defend the accused.

The point of these courts is to have a quick way to resolve minor disputes in a forum where the litigant can feel comfortable representing themselves if they wish. If you want a 'real' court, you have every right to one.