Even to the Supreme court I thought the President could nominate anyone irrespective of their qualifications, no prior experience as a lawyer or a judge is mandated.
South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
31–40 of 121 posts
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#32Earlier 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…
That's a result of how the federal/state constitutions here work. Judges don't matter as much if Parliament is sovereign.
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#33Democracy 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.
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#34Democracy 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.
Rightfully so, as they won't be able to actually afford or pass what they promise without destroying some part of the economy.
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it shouldn't. Every state has elected judge positions, and they only require being able to win an election. In my home state of PA a local magistrate was caught by the FBI trying to fix cases of people who appealed her judgments, was removed from the bench for 6 months, and still ran for reelection unopposed. The people we let get elected to judicial positions is scary.
Judges shouldn’t be elected at all, they should be appointed in a non partisan process, from a pool of experienced and respected lawyers.
New York does this in NYC for traffic court... they use administrative law judges who are civil service employees to adjudicate traffic violations.
Most places outside of NYC prefer to have elected judges “town/village justices” for revenue purposes. Basically, they plea down as many state violations as possible to local ordinances, as more of the fines go to the towns instead of the state.
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#36Democracy 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.
what's your recommended alternative?
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people with no training or experience in law Yes, that's what democracy is, for better or worse: the power of the state is ultimately vested in the people, regardless of training, background, gender, skin color, etc. etc. Restricting power to those who are trained in law, or any other narrowly defined group, is called oligarchy. It generally has good…
> Yes, that's what democracy is No, it's not. It's perfectly reasonable in our democracy to expect judges to be trained in law in order to effectively do their jobs. Might as well let any random of the street be a doctor without training if that wasn't the case. Non-legally trained people still participate through the jury system, and more importantly in the House where laws are created in the first place.
> 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 democracy is that the law is not based on what seems reasonable to one person, only on what seems reasonable to the majority. And in this case, requiring judges be lawyers clearly doesn't seem reasonable to the majority, or things would be different.
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#38Democracy 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.
This is not an example of judges making political rulings that some people dislike. It's an example of judges failing to follow clear-cut basic rules.
> Shortly after the ACLU filed its lawsuit, South Carolina’s chief justice sent a scolding memo to the state’s magistrates. “It has continually come to my attention that defendants, who are neither represented by counsel nor have waived counsel, are being sentenced to imprisonment,” [chief justice] Beatty wrote in the September 2017 memo. “This is a clear violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and numerous opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#39Even to the Supreme court I thought the President could nominate anyone irrespective of their qualifications, no prior experience as a lawyer or a judge is mandated.
You are correct. In every case so far, SCOTUS Justices have been attorneys by profession, but as the internet makes it much easier to research law and legal precedents, it might be interesting to see what happens if someone with a different background joins that club.
Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law
#40Earlier 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.
what's your recommended alternative?
The fact that there are no alternatives to something doesn't make it good.