9 ms·

South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

158 points by vo2maxer 7y ago

threatofrain 7y ago
Judges are "meant" to be representatives of the people, not clerics of the law who must undergo institutional evaluation and approval. That is why they are elected or appointed, as opposed to merited by some competitive process which sieves for competence. Still, > To better understand this system, The Post and Courier and ProPublica examined thousands of state records and compiled profiles of all 319 South Carolina magistrates. A reporter also visited courtrooms and interviewed legal experts, lawyers, lawmakers and defendants. Among the findings: > Nearly three-quarters of the state’s magistrates lack a legal degree and couldn’t represent someone in a court of law. > A loophole in state law has allowed a quarter of South Carolina’s magistrates to remain on the bench after their terms expired, letting them escape the scrutiny of a reappointment process. One controversial magistrate continues to hold court two decades after her four-year term ended.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- faitswulff 7y ago
  > Judges are "meant" to be representatives of the people Isn't that what "representatives" are for?
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    Yes, and judges are either appointed by your representatives or elected directly. Does that smell like a process which coldly sieves for legal competency, or a proxy for the will and moral style of the people? That is why I say based on the look and feel of western law, judges are proxies for the people, and not some paragon of legal competency.
- npsomaratna 7y ago
  My two cents: given the breadth and complexity of modern law, a legal degree (or at least, a bar certification to practice law) should be mandatory for any judicial appointee. I am currently in the final year of a law degree. When I started my degree, I already had degrees in medicine and information technology, and I'd just founded my third startup. Despite the legal exposure I'd already obtained as a doctor and entrepreneur, it was humbling to realize just how much about the law I didn't know - not just in terms of actual laws, but also in terms of interpretation of the law as a technical discipline. For sure, if I'd been appointed as a judge with only my (pre-law degree) experience, I'd have messed up in all sorts of basic and fundamental ways.
ruffrey 7y ago
Title should be adjusted to “Some South Carolina Judges..”
- burnte 7y ago
  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.
  - chongli 7y ago
    Judges shouldn’t be elected at all, they should be appointed in a non partisan process, from a pool of experienced and respected lawyers.
    - snagglegaggle 7y ago
      The law is supposed to be relatable and human. It is already twisted enough as it is, I would hate to see it under that kind of system.
      - chongli 7y ago
        So in other words, you would hate to see the legal system in Canada? Because that’s how it is here. We don’t elect judges at any level. We seem to be getting along just fine.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      That is by construction a partisan process, with the outcome matching politics of the median lawyer, instead of the median voter.
      - chongli 7y ago
        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 unfortunate. It’s not the case in other countries.
lurquer 7y ago
>Over the years, their numbers have included construction workers, insurance agents, pharmacists — even an underwear distributor. Pharmacists are hardly uneducated buffoons. And, what are we to make of 'underwear distributor'? Is there a correlation between a business person's judgment and the items they sell? I doubt it. I can guarantee that the blueprints a construction worker uses, the policies an insurance agent sells, and the manuals a pharmacist is versed in are all much more complex than the laws governing the cases that come before these low-level courts.
- thawaway1837 7y ago
  The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. No matter their expertise I wouldn’t want the construction worker working as my pharmacist without any training. Yet we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people with no training or experience in law.
  - elcaminocomplex 7y ago
    > The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. Sounds a lot like 1/12th of a jury.
    - thawaway1837 7y ago
      Every jury trial has a legally trained (hopefully) judge to assist the jury with the legal aspects of the case. Jury trials also have jury selection processes that allow lawyers from both sides to eliminate any poorly qualified jurors.
      - elcaminocomplex 7y ago
        Judges have minimal training in the procedures of the court. Some are attorneys which gives them more familiarity with law and process, but as far as I know that’s not a requirement. The jury selection process has nothing to do with qualifications of jurors. The prosecutors are primarily trying to eliminate people they think will be sympathetic and the defense is primarily looking to eliminate people they think might biased against their client.
qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago
You should see some of the elected judges here. PA. Nothing more than a high school education.
la6470 7y ago
Let’s start to outsource it .. this is serious shortage in judicial skills. I am sure there are thousands available and educated lawyers in many other countries.
not_qe 7y ago
Europe is the only sensible place left.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't post nationalistic or regional flamebait to HN. It leads to flamewars which we don't want here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
VLM 7y ago
Democracy 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.
- mamon 7y ago
  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.
  - sieabahlpark 7y ago
    Rightfully so, as they won't be able to actually afford or pass what they promise without destroying some part of the economy.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Voters would think harder about what they vote for if their votes were effective instead of being ignored like children.
  - wpasc 7y ago
    what's your recommended alternative?
    - sojmq 7y ago
      The fact that there are no alternatives to something doesn't make it good.
      - corporate_shi11 7y ago
        Also makes it a pointless exercise to question it.
billfruit 7y ago
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.
- jMyles 7y ago
  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.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    That is only true of living justices. A number of SCOTUS justices in the past had no legal backgrounds whatsoever, with the last such judge serving until 1957.
    - jMyles 7y ago
      > A number of SCOTUS justices in the past had no legal backgrounds whatsoever, with the last such judge serving until 1957. What you are saying is strictly, clearly incorrect. In fact, not only has every person who has served as a SCOTUS justice been an attorney, but every person nominated has been an attorney. [0] Stanley Forman Reed, to whom you are referring as the person who retired in 1957, attended but did not graduate from law school - perhaps that's the source of your confusion? In any case, Reed had a long, storied career as an attorney before being nominated to the Court. Again: every person for whom a nomination has been submitted by a POTUS to the Senate has been an practicing attorney, barred in one or more US States. There has not been a single exception. And certainly no nomination even approaching "no legal background whatsoever." 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_by_United_States_Supreme_Court_Justices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_b...
- StanislavPetrov 7y ago
  The problem here is less the lack of experience but rather that many of these judges are routinely violating the law and the Constitution. We cannot have a functional legal system if judges do not follow the law.
alkonaut 7y ago
Are there many places that have elected judges? Why not require law degrees? It’s not like “elected” must mean “can’t require qualifications”?
- erentz 7y ago
  It’s one of the stranger things about the US. Electing not just judges but also coroners and sheriffs and prosecutors.
  - Balgair 7y ago
    To be fair, with coroners it's more out of necessity than anything. One of the counties next to mine has few coroners and it's something of a problem, as you can imagine. We recently had a friend die and the coroner's report is still not complete, three weeks later. We still don't know what the cause of death is, and as it's suspected to to be a suicide, it's not been a fun time waiting for the results to come out. An elected coroner could relieve the burden by preforming reports on 'mundane' deaths and leave the more complicated cases to more experienced people. Again, it's not a good solution by any means, but it's a better solution than the one they have currently.
    - beagle3 7y ago
      But why elected rather than hired? It’s supposed to be a mostly scientific job with no agenda.
      - t-writescode 7y ago
        Prestige of being an elected office might draw more candidates to an otherwise undesirable job
        Teknoman117 7y ago
        I would argue that we'd be better off not electing the prestige seeking people. We want the best person for the job, not someone viewing high offices as a prize.
Gusen 7y ago
Looks like for some, it does not seem to matter: "Impeachment" Is A Diversion & Delay: President Donald Trump raped and killed 26 boys in Buffalo, NY during Jan2019. Complete & uncut audio of it all, along with Schumer, Obama, & Pelosi's direct involvement. 308+ boys die during Jan 2019. $40+ billion in bribes. Updated PDF doc. \\.Complete audio from 10th Jan '19. Download the mp3 file, put on headphones, and turn the volume all the way up. 10JanCh3_1255 -1557.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lTt_YKFEtsV6YDNzXFVQYLkStY-kSg2/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lTt_YKFEtsV6YDNzXFVQYLkStY... \\Previously reported: This is audio of the President, Donald Trump, demanding a four billion dollar bribe from child rapists to “take a blind eye” on January 3rd, 2019. Trump becomes one on January 14, 2019. Also, this is the big reason the major networks do not report any of it. (Media moguls are in on it also) //Download the video, turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. Note: there is not much to see in the video, the audio is picked up from another [illegal surveillance] system. Trump is on a call from with Henry Porter and Gigi Hadid. See page 63. Bribe demand at 10:18am: 3JanCh3_900 -1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77... //President of the United States, Donald Trump, rapes and kills his first boy at 6:32am. Video link below: 14JanCh3_600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/154QvA5hwyHGYIVXtod1ZbsOHFUJNbqZW/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/154QvA5hwyHGYIVXtod1ZbsOHFUJ... 14JanCh2_600 -700.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/19UkqmnMwZiWy7xxWngltqwoKLTJL-IZ_/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/19UkqmnMwZiWy7xxWngltqwoKLTJ... //On January 18, 2019 at 8:31 am (page 8) Trump acknowledges the FOUR billion dollar bribe and says: "Let's get it done and get to fucking some kids." Video link below: 18JanCh3_725-.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bVTcGq5Z9oOSAiOQcKYrmuK4TwoNmY1h/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bVTcGq5Z9oOSAiOQcKYrmuK4Two... //The major reason this has not been reported by the major news networks is right here. Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News, apparently a member of the Illuminati since the 80's, along with ABC Nightly News lead anchor David Muir, stop over to the Porter studio in Buffalo on January 14, 2019 at 5:00 am. They both rape and kill about two dozen boys by 6:00 am. David Muir starts around 5:13 am, then Holt about 5:36 am. Multi-billionaire Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp & Fox Corporation, takes his turn after Holt. Video links below: 14JanCh3_500- 601.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7NKepeyG_FfdQRrM7KsnFOZOOX3o7UL/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7NKepeyG_FfdQRrM7KsnFOZOOX... 14JanCh2_530 -600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZzgN5ilI7ToroU5cfqMaL4o2u1RwidV/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZzgN5ilI7ToroU5cfqMaL4o2u1... \\Adding to the (media protection) reason this is not picked up by the media, CBS and Viacom owner Sumner Redstone and Leslie Moonves rape and kill several boys following the President. 14JanCh3_700.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/10XDw6x3ldnnQiq7oIjpdYVENyXaB4aI0/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/10XDw6x3ldnnQiq7oIjpdYVENyXa... 14JanCh2_700- 800.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NS_e6AzEZ05wnfljkGMETGU5CWYKfRDp/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NS_e6AzEZ05wnfljkGMETGU5CWY... //Full 106 page PDF [updated 29 Nov'19]: FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJc9cGk/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJ... \\This post will be censored when this account logs off, the posts are "shadow banned". They try to make it look like the post is live, but it is not. Here is an example. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxS8JESoIg7uxRkUgdptMsF6SuJedYKz/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxS8JESoIg7uxRkUgdptMsF6SuJ... \\@ Listen to Speaker of the House, Senator Nancy Pelosi, accept a threE billion dollar bribe from wealthy high profile child rapists for safe passage to get Asian boys through the border at "Monterrey" on January 17, 2019. New York Senator Chuck schumer rapes and kills a boy later that afternoon to secure his $2 billion dollar bribe. //Download the video, turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. Note: there is not much to see in the video, the audio is picked up from another [illegal surveillance] system. Nancy Pelosi call starts at 10:31am. 17JanCh3_949 -1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eodHu4o5Cm3xEWhDqipSuTj-M1CZUvmE/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eodHu4o5Cm3xEWhDqipSuTj-M1C... 17JanCh4_1017 -1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-nWEQbempkVZSz230j9wTyduZNjDmnk/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-nWEQbempkVZSz230j9wTyduZN... Excerpts of the dialogue: \\Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi returns to the Porter camera system at 1031 for a check-in. "Nancy Pelosi is here and she wants $3 billion to keep the border open at Monterrey. THREE billion dollars to keep that shit open do you believe that?" Matthew Porter commentates. Pelosi states 10:34: "I think he [Brian Schlenker] needs to be removed. I think we need to get this guy out of here". Speaker Pelosi then agrees to call back at 7pm PST. Gigi Hadid at 1034: "Thanks for calling us. I've got you down for three minutes". Pelosi don't worry about that I've got 3 billion. 1031 Matthew Porter: Nancy Pelosi is on and she wants three billion dollars to keep the border open at Monterey. THREE billion dollars to keep that shit open do you believe that? 1033 Nancy Pelosi: I don't think that will be necessary unless you insist. 1033 Donald Reeves: We insist. 1033 Nancy Pelosi: Ok then I guess we have a deal. 1033 Matthew Porter: Thank you Mrs. Pelosi. 1033 Nancy Pelosi: Please call me Speaker Pelosi. 1033 Nancy Pelosi: We want to make sure you have safe passage at Monterey. 1033 Matthew Porter: We appreciate that Speaker Pelosi. 1033 Gigi Hadid: I think we may have to scale back a little bit though. 1033 Nancy Pelosi: Gigi I think we'll be just fine. 1035 Nancy Pelosi: God damn it! I want Kamala to get a billion out of yours, not out of mine. 1035 Gigi Hadid: I think we can accommodate you, but we need to find out if Monterrey will be open on the 30th of January. 1036 Nancy Pelosi: Of course it will Gigi. 1036 Nancy Pelosi: $3 billion goes a long way Peter. 1036 Peter Thiel: Excellent answer. 1043 Gigi Hadid: I think we need to give Kamalla a billion dollars to keep her [happy]. 1043 Matthew Porter: I think we can do that but we need to get her to do something first. 1043 Gigi Hadid: She did. We got her fucking Rahm Emmanuel Monday morning [14 Jan] at 235. 1043 Matthew Porter: Perfect, then we're all set. Send her the billion. 1043? Nancy Pelosi: She'll accept the money, I guarantee it. 1043? Gigi Hadid: Nancy thank you for everything. <ch4> 1036 Donald Reeves: Don't listen to her. She will close down the border if it's not there. Make sure she gets the $3 billion. //Full 106 pg PDF [updated 29th Nov'19]: FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdflDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJc9cGk/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJ... //*This post will be censored when this account logs off. Posts are "shadow banned". They try to make it look like the post is live, but it is not. Here is an example. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxS8JESoIg7uxRkUgdptMsF6SuJedYKz/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxS8JESoIg7uxRkUgdptMsF6SuJ... \\$ \\New York Senator Charles Schumer rapes and kills one boy looking for his two billion dollar payment from 1700 -1730. Schumer at 1701: "Let's get him out of there, and get to fucking some kids!” Download the video, turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. Note: there is not much to see in the video, the audio is picked up from another [illegal surveillance] system. Just as a head’s up, there is a vacuum running intermittently in the beginning and some loud noises. \\Representative from New Orleans Steve Scalise rapes and kills three 17:25+. Video links below. Each channel has different system users of varying importance, and one may be easier to hear than another. This is explained in better detail in the PDF. 17JanCh3_1644.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1caUbmhIf8z264w1MWeOzm0VQIG_h3rtA/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1caUbmhIf8z264w1MWeOzm0VQIG_... 17JanCh4_1700-1800_redo.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Md911Z2vXJzJEmNAiJcOkHDKIl15GUmz/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Md911Z2vXJzJEmNAiJcOkHDKIl1... \\Back on January 13th, a deal to bring over the boys from North Korea & China, 300 for $375 million through “Monterey”, is discussed with Barack Obama, Charles Schumer, Henry Porter, and Donald Reeves. Jack Dorsey is there and also discusses possibilities for 500 boys over 300. See pages 37 & 38. You will hear the deal go down later that afternoon between 1:30pm and 3:00pm. Here are the links for the first discussion, which begins around 8:40 with an anxious Barack Obama., the rest are in the PDF: 13JanCh2_700-900.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iUr44-U3dpt0cBlhlOgM071HAtei-g6G/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iUr44-U3dpt0cBlhlOgM071HAte... 13JanCh3_800-845.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m3bBVPra2BEgzmM2QNJsR-JA7rw__oOW/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m3bBVPra2BEgzmM2QNJsR-JA7rw... 13JanCh3_845-954.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XFCDABfGb10oAwCLt7gc4XbsOMxgpKPT/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XFCDABfGb10oAwCLt7gc4XbsOMx... \\events were excerpts from this 106 page PDF link below . It keeps getting censored, but with enough public awareness, they will eventually have to face justice. Please help get this around [updated 29rdNov]: FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJc9cGk/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJ...
01100011 7y ago
This is common in CA too, apparently. When I was getting a divorce, a lawyer I consulted with gave me the background on the judge handling my case. Apparently she was appointed by the governor to appease a particular voting block and as thanks for her activism work for that group. She knew nothing about family law but was given the job regardless. That situation is apparently quite common in family court since there is a high turnover rate. Judges often have to spend months being taught by the lawyers on the cases they're overseeing. Having your fate in the hands of these folks is absolutely terrifying.
- justAnotherNET 7y ago
  That honestly explains a lot about our judicial system.
- masonic 7y ago
  When Governor Brown appointed Rose Bird to be Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court, she had never been a judge at any level -- not even municipal, or traffic court.
jasonzemos 7y ago
> Over the years, their numbers have included construction workers, insurance agents, pharmacists — even an underwear distributor. This is ironic for a conservative state because it's indistinguishable to me from Soviet communism. I can't help but think about this scene from Chernobyl (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idb_qsAAe1c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idb_qsAAe1c) which illustrates the true tragedy of this broken system. Emma Goldman wrote in "My Disillusionment in Russia" (1923): > Bourgeois dictatorship is replaced by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" — or by that of its "advance guard," the Communist Party. Lenin takes the seat of the Romanovs, the Imperial Cabinet is rechristened Soviet of People's Commissars, Trotsky is appointed Minister of War, and a labourer becomes the Military Governor General of Moscow. That is, in essence, the Bolshevik conception of revolution, as translated into actual practice.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  > it's indistinguishable to me from Soviet communism Maybe it's time for you to read up on Soviet communism? This is not how they killed 20m of their own citizens.
michaelmrose 7y ago
This is probably why 2 separate judges upheld a cops decision to arrest me for using bad language while walking away from officer that had been harassing me as I was walking home from work. The law in SC is literally that bad language on the public road is a crime. They ignored 2 pages of precedents.
- SkyMarshal 7y ago
  >The law in SC is literally that bad language on the public road is a crime. They ignored 2 pages of precedents. Not clear what you mean here. If the law is “literally” that bad language on the road is a crime, doesn’t that mean the 2 pages of precedents support it?
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    After being stopped for no reason several times and held while they take their time "running my license" AFTER they were done with the latest nonsense I said "am I free to go" , they said "yes" , I walked off. When about 15 feet away and walking away at a normal pace I said clearly and calmly "fuck off then" they arrested me for saying the word fuck. Swearing on the public street is disorderly conduct in the state of South Carolina. The 2 pages of precedent is that you can't criminalize the word fuck due to the first ammendment rendering South Carolinas law invalid. Courts have repeatedly found that you can't criminalize speech save for very narrow bounds. Using a bad word while leaving isn't "fighting words" by the legal definition. A variety of cases have gone as high as the Supreme Court for example City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) > the ordinance is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words, but impermissibly provides police with unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that are simply annoying or offensive. The constitution of the United States isn't a thing in SC unless you have money sufficient to appeal matters until you get out of the state. Kind of like Texas prosecuting gay sex Another case more recently https://littlevillagemag.com/federal-appeals-court-rules-saying-fuck-you-to-the-police-is-free-speech/ https://littlevillagemag.com/federal-appeals-court-rules-say... However this has been a settled matter for decades which police keep ignoring.
scottlocklin 7y ago
>Their ranks include a Greenville lawyer appointed to the bench after siphoning thousands of dollars from accounts he managed; Yeah, OK, so they lead off with a guy who is actually a lawyer and did shady things. I'll give another example: 3 (elected) judges with law degrees who got into a brawl involving pistols at a white castle: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/779339897/3-indiana-judges-suspended-after-white-castle-brawl-that-left-2-of-them-wounded https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/779339897/3-indiana-judges-su... Here's another one: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/29/pneumatic_judge/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/29/pneumatic_judge/ I don't care if a judge has a law degree. Most lawyers I've met in the US are functionally morons anyway. This is just dipshits with a certificate trying to protect their perquisites. I'd honestly rather a barber judge me in a trial than most lawyers, and anyone on here who is trying to make the law so godawful complex it needs an "expert" to interpret it, you're part of the problem. While I'm dropping links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
- clairity 7y ago
  i don't agree with everything you said, but i do find it peculiar that lawyers are paid to make things worse (that is, get in the middle of arguments and escalate them). the more they escalate, the more they get paid. it seems like the worst kind of misaligned incentive.
Mathnerd314 7y ago
I've often wondered why they don't teach the law in grade school or high school, since it is (in theory) supposed to be known and followed by everyone. The best answer I have so far is that education is in the public sector too so it's subject to similar problems with lack of training and inflexibility.
mnm1 7y ago
How is this different than being judged by a drunk king based on his whims? It's not at all. So what happened to rule by law? How does such a system exist? How does it have supporters? This is perplexing. Sure justice is not valued at all in American culture but do south Carolinians not care at all about justice or having a civil society? It is beyond appalling to give stupid idiots (and there's no kinder way to describe someone with no legal training acting as a judge) power over others based on whatever they feel like doing since there is no legal framework in place. In such a system where one randomly gets punished without any evidence of a crime being committed, why should one not turn around and assault or even kill the judge? After all in a society without laws, without morality, and without even common sense like south Carolina, that shouldn't even be a problem. It's just savages vs. savages once you get to this point. Why would anyone act ethically in such a horrific situation?
- x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
  All of your questions can be answered by the fact that South Carolina today and historically has been an extremely authoritarian state.

158 points by vo2maxer 7y ago

Judges are "meant" to be representatives of the people, not clerics of the law who must undergo institutional evaluation and approval. That is why they are elected or appointed, as opposed to merited by some competitive process which sieves for competence. Still, > To better understand this system, The Post and Courier and ProPublica examined thousands of state records and compiled profiles of all 319 South Carolina magistrates. A reporter also visited courtrooms and interviewed legal experts, lawyers, lawmakers and defendants. Among the findings: > Nearly three-quarters of the state’s magistrates lack a legal degree and couldn’t represent someone in a court of law. > A loophole in state law has allowed a quarter of South Carolina’s magistrates to remain on the bench after their terms expired, letting them escape the scrutiny of a reappointment process. One controversial magistrate continues to hold court two decades after her four-year term ended.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
faitswulff 7y ago
> Judges are "meant" to be representatives of the people Isn't that what "representatives" are for?
- threatofrain 7y ago
  Yes, and judges are either appointed by your representatives or elected directly. Does that smell like a process which coldly sieves for legal competency, or a proxy for the will and moral style of the people? That is why I say based on the look and feel of western law, judges are proxies for the people, and not some paragon of legal competency.
npsomaratna 7y ago
My two cents: given the breadth and complexity of modern law, a legal degree (or at least, a bar certification to practice law) should be mandatory for any judicial appointee. I am currently in the final year of a law degree. When I started my degree, I already had degrees in medicine and information technology, and I'd just founded my third startup. Despite the legal exposure I'd already obtained as a doctor and entrepreneur, it was humbling to realize just how much about the law I didn't know - not just in terms of actual laws, but also in terms of interpretation of the law as a technical discipline. For sure, if I'd been appointed as a judge with only my (pre-law degree) experience, I'd have messed up in all sorts of basic and fundamental ways.

ruffrey 7y ago

Title should be adjusted to “Some South Carolina Judges..”

burnte 7y ago
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.
- chongli 7y ago
  Judges shouldn’t be elected at all, they should be appointed in a non partisan process, from a pool of experienced and respected lawyers.
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    The law is supposed to be relatable and human. It is already twisted enough as it is, I would hate to see it under that kind of system.
    - chongli 7y ago
      So in other words, you would hate to see the legal system in Canada? Because that’s how it is here. We don’t elect judges at any level. We seem to be getting along just fine.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    That is by construction a partisan process, with the outcome matching politics of the median lawyer, instead of the median voter.
    - chongli 7y ago
      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 unfortunate. It’s not the case in other countries.

lurquer 7y ago

>Over the years, their numbers have included construction workers, insurance agents, pharmacists — even an underwear distributor. Pharmacists are hardly uneducated buffoons. And, what are we to make of 'underwear distributor'? Is there a correlation between a business person's judgment and the items they sell? I doubt it. I can guarantee that the blueprints a construction worker uses, the policies an insurance agent sells, and the manuals a pharmacist is versed in are all much more complex than the laws governing the cases that come before these low-level courts.

thawaway1837 7y ago
The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. No matter their expertise I wouldn’t want the construction worker working as my pharmacist without any training. Yet we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people with no training or experience in law.
- elcaminocomplex 7y ago
  > The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. Sounds a lot like 1/12th of a jury.
  - thawaway1837 7y ago
    Every jury trial has a legally trained (hopefully) judge to assist the jury with the legal aspects of the case. Jury trials also have jury selection processes that allow lawyers from both sides to eliminate any poorly qualified jurors.
    - elcaminocomplex 7y ago
      Judges have minimal training in the procedures of the court. Some are attorneys which gives them more familiarity with law and process, but as far as I know that’s not a requirement. The jury selection process has nothing to do with qualifications of jurors. The prosecutors are primarily trying to eliminate people they think will be sympathetic and the defense is primarily looking to eliminate people they think might biased against their client.

qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago

You should see some of the elected judges here. PA. Nothing more than a high school education.

la6470 7y ago

Let’s start to outsource it .. this is serious shortage in judicial skills. I am sure there are thousands available and educated lawyers in many other countries.

not_qe 7y ago

Europe is the only sensible place left.

dang 7y ago
Please don't post nationalistic or regional flamebait to HN. It leads to flamewars which we don't want here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

VLM 7y ago

Democracy 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.

mamon 7y ago
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.
- sieabahlpark 7y ago
  Rightfully so, as they won't be able to actually afford or pass what they promise without destroying some part of the economy.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Voters would think harder about what they vote for if their votes were effective instead of being ignored like children.
- wpasc 7y ago
  what's your recommended alternative?
  - sojmq 7y ago
    The fact that there are no alternatives to something doesn't make it good.
    - corporate_shi11 7y ago
      Also makes it a pointless exercise to question it.

billfruit 7y ago

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.

jMyles 7y ago
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.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  That is only true of living justices. A number of SCOTUS justices in the past had no legal backgrounds whatsoever, with the last such judge serving until 1957.
  - jMyles 7y ago
    > A number of SCOTUS justices in the past had no legal backgrounds whatsoever, with the last such judge serving until 1957. What you are saying is strictly, clearly incorrect. In fact, not only has every person who has served as a SCOTUS justice been an attorney, but every person nominated has been an attorney. [0] Stanley Forman Reed, to whom you are referring as the person who retired in 1957, attended but did not graduate from law school - perhaps that's the source of your confusion? In any case, Reed had a long, storied career as an attorney before being nominated to the Court. Again: every person for whom a nomination has been submitted by a POTUS to the Senate has been an practicing attorney, barred in one or more US States. There has not been a single exception. And certainly no nomination even approaching "no legal background whatsoever." 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_by_United_States_Supreme_Court_Justices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_b...
StanislavPetrov 7y ago
The problem here is less the lack of experience but rather that many of these judges are routinely violating the law and the Constitution. We cannot have a functional legal system if judges do not follow the law.

alkonaut 7y ago

Are there many places that have elected judges? Why not require law degrees? It’s not like “elected” must mean “can’t require qualifications”?

erentz 7y ago
It’s one of the stranger things about the US. Electing not just judges but also coroners and sheriffs and prosecutors.
- Balgair 7y ago
  To be fair, with coroners it's more out of necessity than anything. One of the counties next to mine has few coroners and it's something of a problem, as you can imagine. We recently had a friend die and the coroner's report is still not complete, three weeks later. We still don't know what the cause of death is, and as it's suspected to to be a suicide, it's not been a fun time waiting for the results to come out. An elected coroner could relieve the burden by preforming reports on 'mundane' deaths and leave the more complicated cases to more experienced people. Again, it's not a good solution by any means, but it's a better solution than the one they have currently.
  - beagle3 7y ago
    But why elected rather than hired? It’s supposed to be a mostly scientific job with no agenda.
    - t-writescode 7y ago
      Prestige of being an elected office might draw more candidates to an otherwise undesirable job
      - Teknoman117 7y ago
        I would argue that we'd be better off not electing the prestige seeking people. We want the best person for the job, not someone viewing high offices as a prize.

Gusen 7y ago

Looks like for some, it does not seem to matter: "Impeachment" Is A Diversion & Delay: President Donald Trump raped and killed 26 boys in Buffalo, NY during Jan2019. Complete & uncut audio of it all, along with Schumer, Obama, & Pelosi's direct involvement. 308+ boys die during Jan 2019. $40+ billion in bribes. Updated PDF doc. \\.Complete audio from 10th Jan '19. Download the mp3 file, put on headphones, and turn the volume all the way up. 10JanCh3_1255 -1557.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lTt_YKFEtsV6YDNzXFVQYLkStY-kSg2/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lTt_YKFEtsV6YDNzXFVQYLkStY... \\Previously reported: This is audio of the President, Donald Trump, demanding a four billion dollar bribe from child rapists to “take a blind eye” on January 3rd, 2019. Trump becomes one on January 14, 2019. Also, this is the big reason the major networks do not report any of it. (Media moguls are in on it also) //Download the video, turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. Note: there is not much to see in the video, the audio is picked up from another [illegal surveillance] system. Trump is on a call from with Henry Porter and Gigi Hadid. See page 63. Bribe demand at 10:18am: 3JanCh3_900 -1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77... //President of the United States, Donald Trump, rapes and kills his first boy at 6:32am. Video link below: 14JanCh3_600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/154QvA5hwyHGYIVXtod1ZbsOHFUJNbqZW/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/154QvA5hwyHGYIVXtod1ZbsOHFUJ... 14JanCh2_600 -700.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/19UkqmnMwZiWy7xxWngltqwoKLTJL-IZ_/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/19UkqmnMwZiWy7xxWngltqwoKLTJ... //On January 18, 2019 at 8:31 am (page 8) Trump acknowledges the FOUR billion dollar bribe and says: "Let's get it done and get to fucking some kids." Video link below: 18JanCh3_725-.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bVTcGq5Z9oOSAiOQcKYrmuK4TwoNmY1h/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bVTcGq5Z9oOSAiOQcKYrmuK4Two... //The major reason this has not been reported by the major news networks is right here. Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News, apparently a member of the Illuminati since the 80's, along with ABC Nightly News lead anchor David Muir, stop over to the Porter studio in Buffalo on January 14, 2019 at 5:00 am. They both rape and kill about two dozen boys by 6:00 am. David Muir starts around 5:13 am, then Holt about 5:36 am. Multi-billionaire Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp & Fox Corporation, takes his turn after Holt. Video links below: 14JanCh3_500- 601.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7NKepeyG_FfdQRrM7KsnFOZOOX3o7UL/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7NKepeyG_FfdQRrM7KsnFOZOOX... 14JanCh2_530 -600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZzgN5ilI7ToroU5cfqMaL4o2u1RwidV/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZzgN5ilI7ToroU5cfqMaL4o2u1... \\Adding to the (media protection) reason this is not picked up by the media, CBS and Viacom owner Sumner Redstone and Leslie Moonves rape and kill several boys following the President. 14JanCh3_700.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/10XDw6x3ldnnQiq7oIjpdYVENyXaB4aI0/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/10XDw6x3ldnnQiq7oIjpdYVENyXa... 14JanCh2_700- 800.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NS_e6AzEZ05wnfljkGMETGU5CWYKfRDp/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NS_e6AzEZ05wnfljkGMETGU5CWY... //Full 106 page PDF [updated 29 Nov'19]: FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJc9cGk/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJ... \\This post will be censored when this account logs off, the posts are "shadow banned". They try to make it look like the post is live, but it is not. Here is an example. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxS8JESoIg7uxRkUgdptMsF6SuJedYKz/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxS8JESoIg7uxRkUgdptMsF6SuJ... \\@ Listen to Speaker of the House, Senator Nancy Pelosi, accept a threE billion dollar bribe from wealthy high profile child rapists for safe passage to get Asian boys through the border at "Monterrey" on January 17, 2019. New York Senator Chuck schumer rapes and kills a boy later that afternoon to secure his $2 billion dollar bribe. //Download the video, turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. Note: there is not much to see in the video, the audio is picked up from another [illegal surveillance] system. Nancy Pelosi call starts at 10:31am. 17JanCh3_949 -1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eodHu4o5Cm3xEWhDqipSuTj-M1CZUvmE/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eodHu4o5Cm3xEWhDqipSuTj-M1C... 17JanCh4_1017 -1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-nWEQbempkVZSz230j9wTyduZNjDmnk/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-nWEQbempkVZSz230j9wTyduZN... Excerpts of the dialogue: \\Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi returns to the Porter camera system at 1031 for a check-in. "Nancy Pelosi is here and she wants $3 billion to keep the border open at Monterrey. THREE billion dollars to keep that shit open do you believe that?" Matthew Porter commentates. Pelosi states 10:34: "I think he [Brian Schlenker] needs to be removed. I think we need to get this guy out of here". Speaker Pelosi then agrees to call back at 7pm PST. Gigi Hadid at 1034: "Thanks for calling us. I've got you down for three minutes". Pelosi don't worry about that I've got 3 billion. 1031 Matthew Porter: Nancy Pelosi is on and she wants three billion dollars to keep the border open at Monterey. THREE billion dollars to keep that shit open do you believe that? 1033 Nancy Pelosi: I don't think that will be necessary unless you insist. 1033 Donald Reeves: We insist. 1033 Nancy Pelosi: Ok then I guess we have a deal. 1033 Matthew Porter: Thank you Mrs. Pelosi. 1033 Nancy Pelosi: Please call me Speaker Pelosi. 1033 Nancy Pelosi: We want to make sure you have safe passage at Monterey. 1033 Matthew Porter: We appreciate that Speaker Pelosi. 1033 Gigi Hadid: I think we may have to scale back a little bit though. 1033 Nancy Pelosi: Gigi I think we'll be just fine. 1035 Nancy Pelosi: God damn it! I want Kamala to get a billion out of yours, not out of mine. 1035 Gigi Hadid: I think we can accommodate you, but we need to find out if Monterrey will be open on the 30th of January. 1036 Nancy Pelosi: Of course it will Gigi. 1036 Nancy Pelosi: $3 billion goes a long way Peter. 1036 Peter Thiel: Excellent answer. 1043 Gigi Hadid: I think we need to give Kamalla a billion dollars to keep her [happy]. 1043 Matthew Porter: I think we can do that but we need to get her to do something first. 1043 Gigi Hadid: She did. We got her fucking Rahm Emmanuel Monday morning [14 Jan] at 235. 1043 Matthew Porter: Perfect, then we're all set. Send her the billion. 1043? Nancy Pelosi: She'll accept the money, I guarantee it. 1043? Gigi Hadid: Nancy thank you for everything. <ch4> 1036 Donald Reeves: Don't listen to her. She will close down the border if it's not there. Make sure she gets the $3 billion. //Full 106 pg PDF [updated 29th Nov'19]: FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdflDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJc9cGk/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJ... //*This post will be censored when this account logs off. Posts are "shadow banned". They try to make it look like the post is live, but it is not. Here is an example. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxS8JESoIg7uxRkUgdptMsF6SuJedYKz/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxS8JESoIg7uxRkUgdptMsF6SuJ... \\$ \\New York Senator Charles Schumer rapes and kills one boy looking for his two billion dollar payment from 1700 -1730. Schumer at 1701: "Let's get him out of there, and get to fucking some kids!” Download the video, turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. Note: there is not much to see in the video, the audio is picked up from another [illegal surveillance] system. Just as a head’s up, there is a vacuum running intermittently in the beginning and some loud noises. \\Representative from New Orleans Steve Scalise rapes and kills three 17:25+. Video links below. Each channel has different system users of varying importance, and one may be easier to hear than another. This is explained in better detail in the PDF. 17JanCh3_1644.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1caUbmhIf8z264w1MWeOzm0VQIG_h3rtA/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1caUbmhIf8z264w1MWeOzm0VQIG_... 17JanCh4_1700-1800_redo.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Md911Z2vXJzJEmNAiJcOkHDKIl15GUmz/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Md911Z2vXJzJEmNAiJcOkHDKIl1... \\Back on January 13th, a deal to bring over the boys from North Korea & China, 300 for $375 million through “Monterey”, is discussed with Barack Obama, Charles Schumer, Henry Porter, and Donald Reeves. Jack Dorsey is there and also discusses possibilities for 500 boys over 300. See pages 37 & 38. You will hear the deal go down later that afternoon between 1:30pm and 3:00pm. Here are the links for the first discussion, which begins around 8:40 with an anxious Barack Obama., the rest are in the PDF: 13JanCh2_700-900.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iUr44-U3dpt0cBlhlOgM071HAtei-g6G/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iUr44-U3dpt0cBlhlOgM071HAte... 13JanCh3_800-845.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m3bBVPra2BEgzmM2QNJsR-JA7rw__oOW/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m3bBVPra2BEgzmM2QNJsR-JA7rw... 13JanCh3_845-954.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XFCDABfGb10oAwCLt7gc4XbsOMxgpKPT/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XFCDABfGb10oAwCLt7gc4XbsOMx... \\events were excerpts from this 106 page PDF link below . It keeps getting censored, but with enough public awareness, they will eventually have to face justice. Please help get this around [updated 29rdNov]: FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJc9cGk/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJ...

01100011 7y ago

This is common in CA too, apparently. When I was getting a divorce, a lawyer I consulted with gave me the background on the judge handling my case. Apparently she was appointed by the governor to appease a particular voting block and as thanks for her activism work for that group. She knew nothing about family law but was given the job regardless. That situation is apparently quite common in family court since there is a high turnover rate. Judges often have to spend months being taught by the lawyers on the cases they're overseeing. Having your fate in the hands of these folks is absolutely terrifying.

justAnotherNET 7y ago
That honestly explains a lot about our judicial system.
masonic 7y ago
When Governor Brown appointed Rose Bird to be Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court, she had never been a judge at any level -- not even municipal, or traffic court.

jasonzemos 7y ago

> Over the years, their numbers have included construction workers, insurance agents, pharmacists — even an underwear distributor. This is ironic for a conservative state because it's indistinguishable to me from Soviet communism. I can't help but think about this scene from Chernobyl (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idb_qsAAe1c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idb_qsAAe1c) which illustrates the true tragedy of this broken system. Emma Goldman wrote in "My Disillusionment in Russia" (1923): > Bourgeois dictatorship is replaced by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" — or by that of its "advance guard," the Communist Party. Lenin takes the seat of the Romanovs, the Imperial Cabinet is rechristened Soviet of People's Commissars, Trotsky is appointed Minister of War, and a labourer becomes the Military Governor General of Moscow. That is, in essence, the Bolshevik conception of revolution, as translated into actual practice.

BurningFrog 7y ago
> it's indistinguishable to me from Soviet communism Maybe it's time for you to read up on Soviet communism? This is not how they killed 20m of their own citizens.

michaelmrose 7y ago

This is probably why 2 separate judges upheld a cops decision to arrest me for using bad language while walking away from officer that had been harassing me as I was walking home from work. The law in SC is literally that bad language on the public road is a crime. They ignored 2 pages of precedents.

SkyMarshal 7y ago
>The law in SC is literally that bad language on the public road is a crime. They ignored 2 pages of precedents. Not clear what you mean here. If the law is “literally” that bad language on the road is a crime, doesn’t that mean the 2 pages of precedents support it?
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  After being stopped for no reason several times and held while they take their time "running my license" AFTER they were done with the latest nonsense I said "am I free to go" , they said "yes" , I walked off. When about 15 feet away and walking away at a normal pace I said clearly and calmly "fuck off then" they arrested me for saying the word fuck. Swearing on the public street is disorderly conduct in the state of South Carolina. The 2 pages of precedent is that you can't criminalize the word fuck due to the first ammendment rendering South Carolinas law invalid. Courts have repeatedly found that you can't criminalize speech save for very narrow bounds. Using a bad word while leaving isn't "fighting words" by the legal definition. A variety of cases have gone as high as the Supreme Court for example City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) > the ordinance is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words, but impermissibly provides police with unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that are simply annoying or offensive. The constitution of the United States isn't a thing in SC unless you have money sufficient to appeal matters until you get out of the state. Kind of like Texas prosecuting gay sex Another case more recently https://littlevillagemag.com/federal-appeals-court-rules-saying-fuck-you-to-the-police-is-free-speech/ https://littlevillagemag.com/federal-appeals-court-rules-say... However this has been a settled matter for decades which police keep ignoring.

scottlocklin 7y ago

>Their ranks include a Greenville lawyer appointed to the bench after siphoning thousands of dollars from accounts he managed; Yeah, OK, so they lead off with a guy who is actually a lawyer and did shady things. I'll give another example: 3 (elected) judges with law degrees who got into a brawl involving pistols at a white castle: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/779339897/3-indiana-judges-suspended-after-white-castle-brawl-that-left-2-of-them-wounded https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/779339897/3-indiana-judges-su... Here's another one: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/29/pneumatic_judge/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/29/pneumatic_judge/ I don't care if a judge has a law degree. Most lawyers I've met in the US are functionally morons anyway. This is just dipshits with a certificate trying to protect their perquisites. I'd honestly rather a barber judge me in a trial than most lawyers, and anyone on here who is trying to make the law so godawful complex it needs an "expert" to interpret it, you're part of the problem. While I'm dropping links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

clairity 7y ago
i don't agree with everything you said, but i do find it peculiar that lawyers are paid to make things worse (that is, get in the middle of arguments and escalate them). the more they escalate, the more they get paid. it seems like the worst kind of misaligned incentive.

Mathnerd314 7y ago

I've often wondered why they don't teach the law in grade school or high school, since it is (in theory) supposed to be known and followed by everyone. The best answer I have so far is that education is in the public sector too so it's subject to similar problems with lack of training and inflexibility.

mnm1 7y ago

How is this different than being judged by a drunk king based on his whims? It's not at all. So what happened to rule by law? How does such a system exist? How does it have supporters? This is perplexing. Sure justice is not valued at all in American culture but do south Carolinians not care at all about justice or having a civil society? It is beyond appalling to give stupid idiots (and there's no kinder way to describe someone with no legal training acting as a judge) power over others based on whatever they feel like doing since there is no legal framework in place. In such a system where one randomly gets punished without any evidence of a crime being committed, why should one not turn around and assault or even kill the judge? After all in a society without laws, without morality, and without even common sense like south Carolina, that shouldn't even be a problem. It's just savages vs. savages once you get to this point. Why would anyone act ethically in such a horrific situation?

x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
All of your questions can be answered by the fact that South Carolina today and historically has been an extremely authoritarian state.