21–30 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? It's an interesting point that he was a Boy Scout, an organization whose statement is "to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes", and he went on to be a terrible human being.
Worth noting is that the Boy Scout organization itself declared bankruptcy as a result of ongoing scandals and lawsuits.
> In Texas, a judge burst in on jurors deliberating the case of a woman charged with sex trafficking and declared that God told him the defendant was innocent. The offending judge received a warning and returned to the bench. The defendant was convicted after a new judge took over the case. > In Indiana, three judges attending a conference last spring got drunk and sparked a 3 a.m. brawl outside a White Castle fast-f…
> Back in May, three Indiana judges got into a fight. It was the crescendo of an incident brimming with colorful details: a gaggle of judges drinking the night before a judicial conference, a failed attempt to visit a strip club called the Red Garter, a brawl in the parking lot of an Indianapolis White Castle.
> The altercation apparently started sometime after 3 a.m., when one of the judges, Sabrina Bell, raised a middle finger at two men yelling from a passing SUV, and ended after one of those men shot two of the judges.
...
> Bell "was intoxicated enough that she lacks any memory of the incident."
...
> The court says its penalties are designed "not primarily to punish a judge, but rather to preserve the integrity of and public confidence in the judicial system" and, when necessary, to remove those who are unfit.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/779339897/3-indiana-judges-su...
> Instead, the judicial commission and Hayes reached a deal. The former Eagle Scout would serve an 11-month unpaid suspension. Do these articles not get reviewed before publication? How is being an Eagle Scout relevant to this story?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just Democracy in action here. This is what the people voted for. Unless you believe that the government's power should be limited in some way.
I don't think people literally voted for the judge to lock up a single mother of 3 girls for 500 days because of unpaid traffic tickets. They voted for a judge because they thought he would be "tough on crime", or some other slogan. I am really speculating here. The reason though is a lack of information on the voters part. I am not sure how we solve that problem though. Judges like this should be put disbarred so th…
That's just your opinion, and you're in the minority. Probably most people in that jurisdiction are happy with the overall behavior of the judge.
Democracy doesn't care about the needs of the individual, only the wants of the group. The group wants exclusive use of a particular area, thus limits parking. Public streets with reserved parking, the antithesis of a functioning society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(1978) (1927)
Unless those rulings have since been overturned, they are still precedent and therefore relevant. They don’t just expire. For example, the judges involved in the “cash for kids” scandal had their rulings reviewed using a rule established in the 18th century: > Acting under a rarely used power established in 1722 and reserved for extraordinary circumstances, known as "King's Bench jurisdiction",[58] the Pennsylvania S…
I really can't imagine those rulings happening today. Did you know? In May 2020, Maryland passed into law a repeal of the crime of sodomy, effective October 1st, 2020.
And there are plenty of similar laws still on the books even now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_Stat...
> Judge Les Hayes once sentenced a single mother to 496 days behind bars for failing to pay traffic tickets. The sentence was so stiff it exceeded the jail time Alabama allows for negligent homicide. > Johnson’s three children were cast into foster care while she was incarcerated. One daughter was molested, state records show. Another was physically abused. Speechless... Makes my blood boil
And no matter the reasoning (or lack of it), the fallout of this (where the kids are harmed/molested in foster care) is hard to attribute to the judge. If the mother had been a serious threat to the children and the judge had sentenced her based on truly unquestionable reasons, they still might have met the same fate in foster care. As part of the legal system, the judge basically has to have complete confidence in the integrity of the foster care system (and it isn't his job to ensure that integrity).
Not sure if this is relevant to this but I would like to remind you that a US judge can order to you be sterilized without your knowledge and you can do nothing about it nor can anything be done to the judge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
So weird how the government routinely grants immunity to themselves, especially the judicial branch. I don't know when the judiciary decide it was the final say in all matters on earth, but fundamentally that is broken.
Not sure if this is relevant to this but I would like to remind you that a US judge can order to you be sterilized without your knowledge and you can do nothing about it nor can anything be done to the judge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
That's a sensationalized way of describing it. Judges can't just decide to have random people sterilized. The mother petitioned the court to have her minor daughter sterilized. The judge made a large number of procedural mistakes in granting the petition, but the Supreme Court ruled that he didn't act outside of his judicial capacity. The general rule is that judges can't be held personally liable for mistakes they m…
They can if someone petitions for it.
> The mother petitioned the court to have her minor daughter sterilized
And I can petition to have you sterilized. If the judge accepts it you will not be able to hold him responsible. He does not need to listen to you nor do you need to know about it.
> The general rule is that judges can't be held personally liable for mistakes they make when acting in their official capacity as judges.
Meanwhile doctors, drivers, etc can be held personally liable for mistakes they make while working.
> Judge Les Hayes once sentenced a single mother to 496 days behind bars for failing to pay traffic tickets. The sentence was so stiff it exceeded the jail time Alabama allows for negligent homicide. > Johnson’s three children were cast into foster care while she was incarcerated. One daughter was molested, state records show. Another was physically abused. Speechless... Makes my blood boil
Seriously, even if she failed to pay 10,000 traffic tickets, how does it do any good to put her behind bars at all? They really couldn't think of a better way to deal with non-violent offense??
> Judge Les Hayes once sentenced a single mother to 496 days behind bars for failing to pay traffic tickets. The sentence was so stiff it exceeded the jail time Alabama allows for negligent homicide. > Johnson’s three children were cast into foster care while she was incarcerated. One daughter was molested, state records show. Another was physically abused. Speechless... Makes my blood boil
Not to defend the judge in that case in any way, but there is a question about whether/when it is OK or even desirable for judges to intervene "indirectly" with their power. For example (just an example, not suggesting this is how it was), suppose in the case you mention that the mother was suspected of being abusive or negligent, but that a prosecutable case couldn't be made for that, and that the traffic tickets we…
So we suddenly have proven guilty without proof, but rather just because there's some suspicion. Doesn't seem American.