Conference back40::soapbox

    Agreed.  Judges should have to be voted in, not appointed!
    
    -Jack

   re: 264.0 <COVERT::COVERT>

       I agree with you....Chicago Hope is a lousy show!

   :-)
   Tony

    But if you vote in judges, then you have judges that are really
    concerned about politics and not justice.

    
    Just adequate turnover would be good for a start.  In the PRM we
    appoint our judges, but they have a mandatory retirement at 70.
    
    I would support the same for all the federal benches.  Or alternatively
    a fixed term, say ten years.
    
    In those areas where judges are elected, the chief advantages seems
    to be turnover, thus a younger average age.  There are disadvantages
    in that judging is mostly a listening/deliberating/writing job, but
    campaigning is more a speechifying/quickthinking skill.  So you might
    not pick the very careful people you want.
    
      bb

	>>So you might
        >>not pick the very careful people you want.

	This is precisely the problem, as I see it.  I have little to no
	faith in the electorate to put aside "image".

    I wouldn't trust the people who would vote for them either.

    re.4
    
       in the PRM we appoint our judges
    
    		WE, who's we??

    
    Well, actually, that requires some arcane PRM recent history.  Of
    course, the governor makes a selection.  We have had a body called
    "The Governor's Council", which has no parallel in the federal
    government.  But it is the state government of the PRM which both
    appoints and confirms these appointments.
    
      bb

    or disappointments.

RE              <<< Note 264.0 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>	The judges have created for themselves autocratic kingdoms with
>	absolute power over American society.
>

  Their power is not absolute. They are bound to follow the law. They are also
limited to issues raised in cases that come before them. 

>	These petty kings have surrounded themselves with courts of fools.

  Bailiffs, Clerks, and Stenographers are fools? In what way are they foolish?

  George

    > They are bound to follow the law.
    
    right...
    
    in 1983, in essex superior court, james preston was convicted of
    homicide in the first degree for having murdered thea pierce.  the
    judge in that trial immediately, without any warning or consultation,
    declared the verdict null and void, saying that the state had not
    proven its case.
    
    oddly enough, the members of the jury were unanimous in stating that
    they were satisfied of preston's guilt beyond even the shadow of a
    reasonable doubt.  the state had shown that preston had clear prior
    motive (having been stealing pierce's mail to cash insurance checks and
    having several prior convictions for such offenses as a&b, b&e, and
    possession of burglary tools, such that he risked a long term in stir
    if convicted again), means (he was a former marine in excellent shape,
    and the weapon used was bare hands), and opportunity, and had produced
    witnesses who saw preston climbing a stairway to pierce's apartment
    (alone on their building's top floor) only minutes before hearing the
    commotion of the murder.  in addition, the state showed conclusively by
    hair samples that preston had been in pierce's apartment and that when
    arrested he had borne on his face scratches less than a week old that
    matched the shattered fragments of pierce's fingernails found in her
    carpet.
    
    in the opinion of the prosecuting attorneys, the judge committed a
    willful violation of his trust, which was to see that the trial was
    fair, not to see that the verdict was as he wished it to be.

    
    George, in what way are they bound by the law ?  The constitution
    does NOT bind judges in this way.  "Good behavior" is all it holds
    them to.  They are perfectly free to ignore the law.  Higher judges
    can ignore it on appeal.  From the Supremes, there is no appeal.
    
    I don't get it.  If I say I'm bound by a contract or promise, I mean
    "or else something will happen".  But for judges, nothing ever can.
    
      bb

RE                      <<< Note 264.12 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    George, in what way are they bound by the law ?  The constitution
>    does NOT bind judges in this way.  "Good behavior" is all it holds
>    them to.  They are perfectly free to ignore the law.  Higher judges
>    can ignore it on appeal.  From the Supremes, there is no appeal.

  If judges do not follow the law, their cases can be overturned on appeal.

  If the appellant courts set a precedent with which the legislature does not
agree, they can change the law or amend the constitution to correct the
precedent.
    
>    I don't get it.  If I say I'm bound by a contract or promise, I mean
>    "or else something will happen".  But for judges, nothing ever can.
    
  Or else you go to court where you have the opportunity to make your case.

  George

    Screw judges, it's the JURY that counts.  The jury is US, except
    we're too busy bitching about how "awwwww.... I can't serve this
    week because... ahhh.... my arse hurts, ya, that's the ticket..."
    
    Beurocrats invent laws, judges enforce rules, WE say guilty or 
    not guilty.
    
    ... however, we still need a revolution.

    Cut down on the knee-jerk entry stuff and your arse won't be so sore.

    .14
    
    see .11.  in that case, the jury said the defendant was guilty and the
    judge said, in effect, no he's not.  guess which side won that little
    tiff.

    Blender, no foolin'
    
    The general flow of the coversation was judges have too much power.
    No they don't.  They can't overrule a jury and arbitrarily convict
    someone.  They certainly have the option of dismission a case.
    They follow rules, if rules are violated, the judge can dump the 
    case.
    
    as for richardson, er, go touch yerself.

    .17
    
    > They can't overrule a jury and arbitrarily convict
    > someone.
    
    but they can, and do, overrule juries and acquit defendants.
    
    > They follow rules, if rules are violated, the judge can dump the
    > case.
    
    no rules were violated in taxachusetts v. preston, yet the judge threw
    out the verdict.
    
    judges have too much power.  although chicago hole (oops, typo...  no,
    on second thought let that one stand) is a pretty awful program, last
    night's depiction of a judge who could and did require the opposing
    attorneys to face the gallery and say, "together we are toads," is all
    too real.  in real life, such a judge could have held them in contempt
    had they failed to do his unquestionably silly bidding.  that is too
    much power.

    I have seen judges drunk on the stand, I have seen them play cross word
    puzzles. I have seen juddges violate civil rights all in the name of
    justice. I believe that judges feel they are above the law. And judges
    should not be appointed, but voted in....
    
    I also believe that judges should not be imune from prossocution (sp)
    and lidagation(sp).....

  I think that in many countries a judge can acquit someone despite a jury
verdict. Courts are built with save guards to prevent the innocent from going
to jail even if it means that on occasion the guilty go free. 

  But in spite of this, our prison population has more than doubled since 1980
so I don't think that it's all the problem people claim it is. Judges over
ruling a jury to set someone free is a pretty rare occurrence. 

  So is that it? One or two anecdotal failures here and there and we start a
revolution?

  George 

    	I don't have much faith in Elected judges myself. Look at the news
    brief that Covert entered about the judge recently elected in Texas. He
    sounds like a real winner. I would support some form of shortened terms
    to increase turnover though.
    
    
    								S.R.