3 ms·

How are you jumping from judges not having legal training, to Jim Crow literacy tests?

• lisper 7y ago
  Jumping? 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 ago
    There 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 ago
      Not 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.