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

131–140 of 219 posts

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

#131

Post by godelski »

chrisseaton wrote: post #120
godelski wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they're open to too much interpretation... send them back to the legislature to clarify. Good idea. Now what do we do in the mean time with people that are being tried? Wait? How? Are they free or in jail? What's the default position? Or do we just do our best (i.e. interpretation)? > Well this seems like an indication to me that the system is not great. Well... yeah... I don't think anyone has claimed it as suc…

> HUMANS ARE NOT PERFECT ROBOTS. > And I'm not sure why this is a controversial opinion. I think by asking them to stand for election you make them less perfect and amplify their flaws, because they have to appeal to some sector. Do they appeal to left-wing extremes, or right-wing extremes? They can't easily target both. They can't just do what they think is right. They have to pander to some niche. Plainly applying…

Great, something to actually discuss. I'll refer to a comment in another thread.

> The argument for election is so to reduce nepotism and cronyism.

So we come back to the question: "Which is better? Elected judges or appointed judges?"

> They can't just do what they think is right. They have to pander to some niche.

The question is about who's bias you are using to appoint the judge. Are you using the bias of current lawmakers/elites? Or are you using the bias of the public? You're right in that they have to pander to some niche. So which do you want?

I also mentioned in another thread that the point of democracy is to distribute power. Letting officials is a consolidation of power. Letting the public do it is distribution. There's advantages to both.

And honestly, looking at voter information guides, judges are mostly talking about their qualifications and how they are unbiased. In my last guide there were two judges. One said that he served the community well and cited some cases. The other said we need more transparency and that as a judge he would make rulings public to increase transparency of the law. Neither were really pandering to parties. Judges aren't allowed to be affiliated with parties. Neither of those judges were saying things like: "We're going to get those black people," (like Jim Crow era) "I'm a liberal and hold left-wing values," or even things like "I'm concerned with immigration law." The latter because it would be considered political. There are guidelines. These guidelines are to restrict their ability to make party appeals. At least pandering to the public is more transparent.

But when it comes down to it, it really is a question of who they are pandering to, not if they pander. There has to be some mechanism to appoint judges, and they will just pander to whoever is in charge of that.

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

#132

Post by defen »

nitwit005 wrote: post #97
defen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in your opinion, if I petition a court for permission to kill my neighbor "because he's really annoying", and for some reason the judge says yes, he won't be held liable? Because I disagree. Judges do not have the ability to blanket "bless" actions so long as someone petitions for it. You have to look at the specifics of the case.

As long as it survives appeal, judges can basically rule whatever they want. Plenty of crazy rulings have gotten through the courts. Remember that time they ruled it was okay to toss all the Japanese people in internment camps?

Judges could also order that "fugitive" slaves could be returned to their "owners", or that people convicted of treason could be vivisected, if you go far enough back in time. I'm not sure what point is being argued here. If you want to make judges personally liable for following the law and/or for making mistakes, why would anyone become a judge?

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

#133

Post by ckcheng »

jessaustin wrote: post #73
mjw1007 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what's used in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commissi...

That seems like a nation-level body? It seems unlikely we'd ever have something like that hiring judges for city-level posts in USA. Also JAC seems to recommend candidates after which action another (seemingly politically-appointed) entity decides whether they'll go on the ballot? I might be misreading? I certainly hope we can improve our "judicial" system in USA, to make it more just, less tyrannical, less capriciou…

Think Canada uses something similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_appointments_in_Canad...

Lower level appointments go thru a provincial JAAC, while superior and above go thru a federal JAAC. After JAAC's shortlisting, the respective provincial or federal government or minister of justice decides.

I suppose there's always a way to stack the committee to get a biased shortlist to choose from, but the committees aren't all appointed by the government. Some are appointed by judges, law society, etc. In practice, it seems to work way better than just having a city council choose.

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

#134

Post by analyte123 »

candiodari wrote: post #111
ipython wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget the 2008 kids for cash scandal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal . At least those judges were eventually tried and are serving time.

The whole thing there can be reduced to the observation: why does society let foster care and youth protective services exist? You might say "well to protect kids". Except, there's a massive body of research proving that they make things worse, certainly on average: https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583 Massive negative effects, from reading scores, to later earnings, to subjective happiness (yes, really, kids rep…

Child protection is like a loaded gun sitting on a table waiting for someone to pick it up. Anyone who doesn't like you or the way you raise your kids can phone in a trumped-up complaint and send investigators in your home to see if your child needs to be taken away and put into a lowest-bidder archipelago of foster homes and group facilities. Disgusting all around to me.

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

#135

Post by SkyBelow »

elbigbad wrote: post #76
SkyBelow wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually jail time would be needed as an alternative if other option are purposefully ignored or other court orders not followed, but there are quite a lot of steps before you get into over a year sentence, and even then by that point it would be for contempt of court and no longer about the individual tickets.

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.

Then you effectively are creating a maximum punishment that could easily be ignored by some of the population.

Take speeding tickets. What if a person just decides not to pay and keep speeding? Not that they can't, but they don't. Eventually you lose your licenses. You continue to speed, getting more tickets, and now also getting tickets for driving without a license. You continue to refuse to pay the fines and continue to drive without a license. You aren't driving any differently than when you received your first ticket, so there is no increase in negligence. What option do you think the courts should have to someone who acts like this? Currently there is jail time for contempt of court, but we are taking that away.

You can try to forcefully take the money, and if they are earning a paycheck hopefully the business agrees. But what if they don't, or what if the person does not earn income in a way that the state can easily seize it?

You could seize their property, take their car, etc. But at that point you are still threatening prison if they physically try to stop the police. Yes, the crime is now escalated to assaulting an officer, not just speeding, but it is all because of that speeding ticket. And if they resist with enough force, they may face lethal force in return. All for a speeding ticket.

That's how our legal system is structured. Any punishment is accompanied by a risk of a harsher punishment if it isn't followed. If you ever have a punishment that is not, then you effectively have a law that can be ignored (which we see sometimes with businesses who break laws and pay fines lower than the profit they earned from breaking the law).

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

#136

Post by SkyBelow »

kube-system wrote: post #81
ksdale wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What if they physically resist such an action? Or continue to drive without a license? Eventually you'll end up enforcing the penalty for speeding with either force and likely to include a jail sentence if they resist to the point that force is needed.

That the crime on record changes names does not detract from the originating crime being a minor traffic violation.

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

#137

Post by erichurkman »

godelski wrote: post #90
chrisseaton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

> They just aren't allowed to have party affiliations

Unfortunately wrong. https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_election_of_judges

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

#138

Post by achillesheels »

candiodari wrote: post #111
ipython wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget the 2008 kids for cash scandal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal . At least those judges were eventually tried and are serving time.

The whole thing there can be reduced to the observation: why does society let foster care and youth protective services exist? You might say "well to protect kids". Except, there's a massive body of research proving that they make things worse, certainly on average: https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583 Massive negative effects, from reading scores, to later earnings, to subjective happiness (yes, really, kids rep…

They exist as good intentions which are then controlled by busy-bodies who destine lives to feed from state-administered family planning (I'd consider this in the same category as public welfare).

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

#139

Post by mcv »

twic wrote: post #66
mjw1007 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what's used in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commissi...

It had never occurred to me that any developed country would do anything other than this. Are there any that do? A bit of a survey from the Venice Commission, some sort of gang of euro-judicial boffins: https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CDL-AD2007_02...

As far as I know, for the lowest level of Dutch judges, it's a matter of having the right education, some non-court experience, an impeccable legal record and approval from a committee. Judges for the Dutch supreme courts (most countries have several) are appointed by a process involving the supreme court itself, as well as parliament and the government. There can occasionally be some politics involved, but not nearly on the scale as in the US.

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

#140

Post by kortilla »

candiodari wrote: post #111
ipython wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget the 2008 kids for cash scandal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal . At least those judges were eventually tried and are serving time.

The whole thing there can be reduced to the observation: why does society let foster care and youth protective services exist? You might say "well to protect kids". Except, there's a massive body of research proving that they make things worse, certainly on average: https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583 Massive negative effects, from reading scores, to later earnings, to subjective happiness (yes, really, kids rep…

In this particular example of the mother being in prison, where would the children live without these services?
Post reply on HN