Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 219 posts

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#81

Post by kube-system »

ksdale wrote: post #80
elbigbad wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Assuming we're talking pretty usual traffic tickets and not talking about driving in a grossly negligent way, no one should _ever_ go to jail for traffic tickets. Largely this logic should apply to any malum prohibitum crime. There are plenty of other ways to enforce these fines/tickets.

Asking non-rhetorically and in good faith, what are the plenty of other ways to enforce fines?

Towing, impound, booting of the vehicle? Revocation of license? Community service? Wage garnishment?

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#82

Post by basementcat »

chrisseaton wrote: post #51
pmoriarty wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't that judges are elected, but that it's nearly impossible for voters to make an informed decision. In the last election, I tried to find out about the local judges on my ballot and could find virtually nothing. The media has been neutered in to an infotainment machine, so there's very little investigative journalism left even on issues of national or international importance, much less on small issue…

> The problem isn't that judges are elected I'm pretty sure it is... why would you elect a judge? They're not supposed to apply any opinion just interpret the law technically. What are people voting for them based on? Their political affiliation? That's absolutely bonkers .

The reality is there is quite a bit of wiggle room in the interpretation of the law. Someone who is conservative and 'tough on crime' may want a judge who is biased toward stricter prison sentences. Someone who is more liberal may want a judge who shows more leniency and is biased toward finding other ways to rehabilitate the guilty.

Its kind of like how two competent people can implement a POSIX compliant operating system in different ways (microkernel or monolithic, emacs vs vi, systemd vs sysvinit).

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#83

Post by godelski »

pmoriarty wrote: post #18
meddlepal wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the kind of stupidity you get with elected judges.

The problem isn't that judges are elected, but that it's nearly impossible for voters to make an informed decision. In the last election, I tried to find out about the local judges on my ballot and could find virtually nothing. The media has been neutered in to an infotainment machine, so there's very little investigative journalism left even on issues of national or international importance, much less on small issue…

Also that many judges are appointed.

> In the last election, I tried to find out about the local judges on my ballot and could find virtually nothing.

In my last election I had the voting booklet. There were two judges running for a position. One had a website and the other (the incumbent) didn't.

Honestly, a lot of candidates I found didn't have websites. If you aren't going to take the time to make a simple website to state your policies I'm not sure I trust you to be transparent and make decisions on my behalf. In 2020 if you don't have a website you are demonstrating to me that you don't want to inform me, the voter, about yourself.

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#84

Post by jschwartzi »

logicchop wrote: post #63
lmkg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have the Rule of Law for a reason. If there's an issue with the system where guilty people are going free, then fix the system. Letting people take justice into their own hands is a cure worse than the problem, especially when those people are abusing the authority that was given to them to enact the justice that was created by a democratic process. A judge enacting a sentence based on inadmissible evidence is a v…

Again, wildly naive. There is no "rule of law" that is so prescriptive. We basically have a loose confederation of laws, interpreted by courts, and exacted by humans. There is flexibility in various aspects, including sentencing, and things like that are (when they are) left to the discretion of the judge precisely because there is no formula otherwise. There is nothing about this that violates anyone's oath or duty,…

What does that have to do with your original assertion, that it's totally fine for a judge to sentence a woman to 496 days in jail for unpaid traffic tickets because she's suspected of being an unfit mother? What do those two things have to do with each other? And why would we accept a justice system where it's okay for judges to convict people of unrelated crimes? What about that is just?

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#85

Post by chrisseaton »

godelski wrote: post #83
pmoriarty wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't that judges are elected, but that it's nearly impossible for voters to make an informed decision. In the last election, I tried to find out about the local judges on my ballot and could find virtually nothing. The media has been neutered in to an infotainment machine, so there's very little investigative journalism left even on issues of national or international importance, much less on small issue…

Also that many judges are appointed. > In the last election, I tried to find out about the local judges on my ballot and could find virtually nothing. In my last election I had the voting booklet. There were two judges running for a position. One had a website and the other (the incumbent) didn't. Honestly, a lot of candidates I found didn't have websites. If you aren't going to take the time to make a simple website…

I don't understand why a judge would have a website. That's so crazy to me. They're not supposed to be appealing to anyone. They're supposed to interpret the law as it's written. They're technocrats.

What would you like to see on a judge's website? Their opinions on things? They shouldn't have any personal opinions!

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#86

Post by godelski »

chrisseaton wrote: post #51
pmoriarty wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't that judges are elected, but that it's nearly impossible for voters to make an informed decision. In the last election, I tried to find out about the local judges on my ballot and could find virtually nothing. The media has been neutered in to an infotainment machine, so there's very little investigative journalism left even on issues of national or international importance, much less on small issue…

> The problem isn't that judges are elected I'm pretty sure it is... why would you elect a judge? They're not supposed to apply any opinion just interpret the law technically. What are people voting for them based on? Their political affiliation? That's absolutely bonkers .

> What are people voting for them based on?

Their qualifications, history, and biases. I mean it isn't like most judges are getting the position without having a law degree, so the majority of them are in fact qualified for the position. So how else do you fill a public position when you have multiple qualified people and a single position. The argument for election is so to reduce nepotism and cronyism.

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#87

Post by [deleted] »

basementcat wrote: post #82
chrisseaton wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem isn't that judges are elected I'm pretty sure it is... why would you elect a judge? They're not supposed to apply any opinion just interpret the law technically. What are people voting for them based on? Their political affiliation? That's absolutely bonkers .

The reality is there is quite a bit of wiggle room in the interpretation of the law. Someone who is conservative and 'tough on crime' may want a judge who is biased toward stricter prison sentences. Someone who is more liberal may want a judge who shows more leniency and is biased toward finding other ways to rehabilitate the guilty. Its kind of like how two competent people can implement a POSIX compliant operating…

[deleted]

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#88

Post by chrisseaton »

godelski wrote: post #86
chrisseaton wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem isn't that judges are elected I'm pretty sure it is... why would you elect a judge? They're not supposed to apply any opinion just interpret the law technically. What are people voting for them based on? Their political affiliation? That's absolutely bonkers .

> What are people voting for them based on? Their qualifications, history, and biases. I mean it isn't like most judges are getting the position without having a law degree, so the majority of them are in fact qualified for the position. So how else do you fill a public position when you have multiple qualified people and a single position. The argument for election is so to reduce nepotism and cronyism.

> biases

They should leave them at home if they're a freaking judge!!

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#89

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #71
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Convicted in 2011, disbarred in 2019. The guild will go to great lengths to protect their most guilty.

It takes years for a conviction to become finalized. He was temporarily suspended in April 2012, while he appealed his conviction. The Third Circuit denied his habeas petition on March 2019. He was disbarred in October 2019. http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out... .

[deleted]

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#90

Post by godelski »

chrisseaton wrote: post #85
godelski wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also that many judges are appointed. > In the last election, I tried to find out about the local judges on my ballot and could find virtually nothing. In my last election I had the voting booklet. There were two judges running for a position. One had a website and the other (the incumbent) didn't. Honestly, a lot of candidates I found didn't have websites. If you aren't going to take the time to make a simple website…

I don't understand why a judge would have a website. That's so crazy to me. They're not supposed to be appealing to anyone. They're supposed to interpret the law as it's written. They're technocrats. What would you like to see on a judge's website? Their opinions on things? They shouldn't have any personal opinions!

> They're not supposed to be appealing to anyone.

Like... voters?

> What would you like to see on a judge's website?

Qualifications, what ideals are important to them, how they handled complex cases, etc

> They shouldn't have any personal opinions!

Unfortunately they are human, so they do have personal opinions. They are allowed to have personal opinions. They just aren't allowed to have party affiliations. But if you look at the supreme court this is clearly also an absurd notion to expect them to not have leanings.

Post reply on HN