3 ms·

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 elec

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.

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.