3 ms·

This same judge said something along the lines of "there are no limits on my ability to issue orders until an appeals court overturns them." He was keenly awar

This same judge said something along the lines of "there are no limits on my ability to issue orders until an appeals court overturns them." He was keenly aware that the issue wasn't significant enough to appeal and that his power was essentially unchecked. Lawyers are very aware of this dynamic.

daenz 5y ago
This is why it is so important to have wise judges that are held to a very high moral standard.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  ... and, in jurisdictions that allow it, for the public to bother to research judges and vote them in our out of office.
  - dv_dt 5y ago
    In an area where I can vote for judges, I do google searches on all the candidates and rarely get good information. If you’re lucky you can get some very rudimentary assessment of if they have any legal background at all. But to really research a judge candidate I think would take access to a legal case database and a fairly sophisticated understanding of law, and far too much time.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      And don't forget the part where you have to get the majority of your neighbors to do the same.
    - fires10 5y ago
      I am not a fan of voting for judges. Judges should be determined by technical merits and skills more like hiring a developer. This I think would be better handled by having a diverse group of judges routinely review all decisions by a judge and issuing corrective actions against the judge. This review should be done periodically and not require an appeal.
      - Spooky23 5y ago
        I disagree. Attorneys are a fairly tight group in general that rely on peer opinion to get jobs. Nobody is going speak about about Judge A because the political machinery and peer pressure are very powerful. When Judge B rats out Judge A, all of the sudden those appellate court opportunities or various other lucrative appointments suddenly are out of reach. Judicial elections are a good way to get bad judges out and mediocre or better judges get to mostly do their thing. The places where the broader political environment is corrupt are no more corrupt than if judges were appointed. There’s the benefit with an election that the local party leaders can just opt to not support a bad judge versus making a decision to oppose him. If any change were to be made, I think making the clerks protected civil service employees would probably blunt the judges power, particularly if cousin Rufus get appointed to be county judge because he’s drinking too much at the law firm.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      There's a definite information gap here waiting for someone to step in and fill it. Practically speaking these days, it's currently filled by special interest groups like the state bar and various voting leagues; they will do the heavy lifting of evaluating the candidates and issue recommendations.
- jdasdf 5y ago
  No, this is why it's important to have checks and balances against unrestrained judicial power. These checks and balances must include legal as well as practical costs and difficulties in having those orders implemented. The system should assume malice on all parties, and work accordingly.
  - daenz 5y ago
    The checks and balances here is the appeals process, which fails when the cost of appealing isn't worth it. It will always be the case where a judge can calibrate a decision to be under the cost of appealing. Which is why it is important to have judges be moral and wise...who don't let their egos get in the way and restrain themselves, instead of forcing you to pay any cost to check them.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      There could be a system that punished judges for overturned rulings and rewarded people who put in the effort to overturn them.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  But "who judges the judges?", to paraphrase the ancient wise question.

daenz 5y ago

This is why it is so important to have wise judges that are held to a very high moral standard.

shadowgovt 5y ago
... and, in jurisdictions that allow it, for the public to bother to research judges and vote them in our out of office.
- dv_dt 5y ago
  In an area where I can vote for judges, I do google searches on all the candidates and rarely get good information. If you’re lucky you can get some very rudimentary assessment of if they have any legal background at all. But to really research a judge candidate I think would take access to a legal case database and a fairly sophisticated understanding of law, and far too much time.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    And don't forget the part where you have to get the majority of your neighbors to do the same.
  - fires10 5y ago
    I am not a fan of voting for judges. Judges should be determined by technical merits and skills more like hiring a developer. This I think would be better handled by having a diverse group of judges routinely review all decisions by a judge and issuing corrective actions against the judge. This review should be done periodically and not require an appeal.
    - Spooky23 5y ago
      I disagree. Attorneys are a fairly tight group in general that rely on peer opinion to get jobs. Nobody is going speak about about Judge A because the political machinery and peer pressure are very powerful. When Judge B rats out Judge A, all of the sudden those appellate court opportunities or various other lucrative appointments suddenly are out of reach. Judicial elections are a good way to get bad judges out and mediocre or better judges get to mostly do their thing. The places where the broader political environment is corrupt are no more corrupt than if judges were appointed. There’s the benefit with an election that the local party leaders can just opt to not support a bad judge versus making a decision to oppose him. If any change were to be made, I think making the clerks protected civil service employees would probably blunt the judges power, particularly if cousin Rufus get appointed to be county judge because he’s drinking too much at the law firm.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    There's a definite information gap here waiting for someone to step in and fill it. Practically speaking these days, it's currently filled by special interest groups like the state bar and various voting leagues; they will do the heavy lifting of evaluating the candidates and issue recommendations.
jdasdf 5y ago
No, this is why it's important to have checks and balances against unrestrained judicial power. These checks and balances must include legal as well as practical costs and difficulties in having those orders implemented. The system should assume malice on all parties, and work accordingly.
- daenz 5y ago
  The checks and balances here is the appeals process, which fails when the cost of appealing isn't worth it. It will always be the case where a judge can calibrate a decision to be under the cost of appealing. Which is why it is important to have judges be moral and wise...who don't let their egos get in the way and restrain themselves, instead of forcing you to pay any cost to check them.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    There could be a system that punished judges for overturned rulings and rewarded people who put in the effort to overturn them.
BurningFrog 5y ago
But "who judges the judges?", to paraphrase the ancient wise question.