3 ms·
This conversation is a perfect illustration of the difference between a significant part of US culture and that of many other western nations. As a Canadian, e
by pbourke 7y ago
This conversation is a perfect illustration of the difference between a significant part of US culture and that of many other western nations.
As a Canadian, even after living in the US for over a decade, I find your comment baffling. For better or worse, the law is a complex subject both in jurisprudence and process. If judges can be significantly less knowledgeable than the attorneys that appear before them then how can the law be applied equally?
The US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law yet how can that be realized if there are no minimum standards that apply to judges?
Two things that I cannot understand about the US: the election of judges and outright politicization of the mechanics of voting.
- lisper 7y agoLook, I don't disagree with you. I agree that electing judges is stupid. Nonetheless, for better or worse, this is the result of democracy. Note that you could apply the exact same principle to argue that legislators should be lawyers. After all, if you're not trained in the law, how can you possibly write a law? Or understand the many subtle ramifications of the law that someone else wrote that you're voting on? And why stop at legislators? Why not accept, say, literacy tests? How can a citizen possibly make an informed choice at the ballot box if they can't read a newspaper? The point I'm trying to make is not that electing judges is good, only that it is, at least in the U.S., a direct consequence of democracy. You may decide that democracy is more trouble than it's worth, and cite this stupidity as evidence. But what you cannot do is say that electing judges is stupid and also that you believe in democracy, because in the U.S. the one has followed directly from the other.
- x86_64Ubuntu 7y agoHow are you jumping from judges not having legal training, to Jim Crow literacy tests?
- lisper 7y agoJumping? I'm not jumping, I'm applying the principle that people who have influence over the application of the law should have some training. If judges need special training, why not legislators? And if both judges and legislators need special training, why not citizens? Note that we already do apply this principle to naturalized citizens! It is only people who acquired their citizenship by birth who never need to show any competence at anything in order to vote. And note well: I am not advocating literacy tests. I am only pointing out the logical consequences of adopting the principle that judges should have special training.
- x86_64Ubuntu 7y agoThere is nothing "logical" about your extending the idea that judges should not have to have legal training before sentencing people to jail. Not to mention, legislators are kept in check by another branch of government which can strike down laws created by legislature. The indigent and commoners hauled before these magistrates are granted no such meaningful review.
- lisper 7y agoNot so. Judges can be impeached by the legislature and recalled by the voters. And there are appeals. BTW, one of the reasons things are the way they are is that the "indigent and commoners" don't necessarily believe they'll get a fairer shake from someone who has a JD from Harvard than someone who doesn't.
- x86_64Ubuntu 7y agoThis is South Carolina, which has never really been a fan of the equal protection that's supposed to be provided by the US Constitution.