Over the past few months, I've read a few news stories about lawyers moving cases into different courts as a way to find a more favorable JUDGE. Now, I know that people try to move cases when contamination of jury candidates is a problem, but judges? I've heard a lot from both Democrats and Republicans on the law and how it should be approached. We have the whole concept upon which we base the country in that we are governed by the rule of law. I'm just wondering if it concerns anyone else that judge's would ignore laws if they personally disagreed with them. And, I'm wondering if anyone (Max???) has had experience dealing with that personally. I just worry that judges, who are either appointed or voted into office (both cases are usually a popularity contest or a reward for a political favor rather than a legitimate way to judge their abilities), have an agenda they might be attempting to carry out from the bench. In Harris County, I believe there are only 2 or 3 Democrats on the bench. Many of the judges here are extremely conservative and were swept into office by conservative activist Steven Hotze who has stated that he believes the government should be run by Biblical rather than governmental law. There have been reports of these judges tossing out cases when fellow conservatives are involved (like DUI's by local Republicans, for example) and coming down extremely hard on drug users and indigents, for example, despite lack of funding for their defense and lack of evidence. In Bexar County, the bench is dominated by Democrats. I have read of similar instances of judges there ignoring laws when it came to the impoverished. I read one story about a man convicted twice of abusing his wife but he was allowed to go free AND was given his wife's address (which is supposed to be protected) when he agreed to go to family counseling. He landed back in jail. There have also been children's cases where kids were taken from their families for really odd reasons. Both cases were seemingly judged by more liberal policies. Dwight Eisenhower was asked when he appointed Thurogood Marshall (the first black man to serve) to the Supreme Court why he, a fairly conservative Republican, would appoint a liberal African American to the land's highest court. He said that if there is no balance in our legal system, there is no balance anywhere in our government. When there is no balance, he said, there can be no justice. I have long been concerned about justice in the courts because I worry about all the people who go to prison when they should be in rehab or when they can't afford a lawyer. I also worry about all those who get out of punishment because they can afford good attornies or because the judge is sympathetic. I guess I just wonder how it is that judges are allowed, at times, to circumvent laws that are supposed to govern them. Anybody else have any thoughts?
What I've seen is more subtle, Jeff. It's more like the judge just happens to know an attorney, and that instantly gives him more credibility. There's also the idea that big firms pad these judges' campaign funds, and that they get results from their clients for that. For the record...I'm against the election of judges...just seems like too many problems associated with that. I'm not for lifetime appointments like federal judges...but some term... I don't know about having an agenda...just haven't seen it personally yet, though I don't doubt that exists. I guess you have to differentiate between having an agenda or filtering the world through the eyes of a man or woman already colored by all sorts of persuasions.
I don't know how much the law is actually ignored (seems to be easy grounds for appeals), but our legal system is built on flexibility in the laws and judges. Our laws are designed to not be super-rigid and they are designed so that judges have latitude in making exceptions or what-not. One big reason for that is that no two crimes are the same -- too many circumstances have to be considered for those things to be written into law. So if you have a conservative judge, it's definitely likely they'll be tougher on criminals or less patient with "frivolous" lawsuits than a liberal judge. I'm not sure you could design a system to solve this problem. At the local level, though, one step towards fixing this is not electing judges. I still don't understand why, at the state/local level, judges are elected and have to pander to the electorate.
To me, this, and not your saving our Rockets, is why you're our best poster. I'd have stopped with the Harris County example and left it to someone more conservative to point out the Democrat problem in San Antonio. Hey, at least I can admit it! I've grappled with this problem for awhile. I think that judgeships are very open to corruption by those who feel the need to uphold the beliefs of those who either helped elect them or appointed them, or those who feel their moral beliefs outweigh the law. However, I really do believe that the vast majority of judges are honest people that really respect the law even if they may disagree with it. Of course, that may the optmistic side of me showing, but I like to think not!
first paragraph is interesting...i don't see that on the civil side, though. seems to me that those laws are written quite concisely and the letter of the law is upheld. not so in family law, however, where equity and fairness are king.
first paragraph is interesting...i don't see that on the civil side, though. seems to me that those laws are written quite concisely and the letter of the law is upheld. not so in family law, however, where equity and fairness are king. True... In my mind, I was actually thinking of the criminal side. Murder, for example, where the judge has latitude in sentencing for 15 years to life (in the Cali dog mauling case), depending on what he feels the circumstances are. Or probation vs. jail-time, etc. While the flexibility can give the judge license to push his or her own beliefs, it's also necessary, in my opinion, or you're going to get some wacky results in cases that just don't fit the "typical scenario" with people getting a way harsher or too lenient punishment than they deserve.
Max: Would you agree that pandering to law firms or lawyers the judge knows or received campaign funding from is just as bad? I agree about elections. The thing about Harris County that is particularly wierd is the fact that many of these judges here owe their very careers to Steven Hotze, one of the most radical right wing political guys in Houston. In the late 80's when the city passed an anti-discrimination ordinance that was designed to protect homosexuals from being fired if they were "outed," Hotze organized a "straight slate" of city council members and judges as a way to combat what he saw as a lack of morality in city government. He said that he believed that the we should return the US to the rule of the Bible and away from the heathen laws we have on the books. --- edited: I realized the school bond issues I mentioned previously were not the work of Hotze but of another local anti-tax guy, Barry Klein. My mistake. --- The reason I point this out is that the man who essentially gave many of these judges their careers is rich but really extreme in his politics. It would worry me as much if anarchists were getting judges elected. I'm sure that in other parts of the state and country we can find violations relating to liberals and Democrats that would be as bad. I just know these because they are happening here and I've read about them. For me, this is scary business.
That's an interesting point, but most of those crimes are, to a certain degree, mitigated by a jury. Judges can certainly determine sentencing, but what concerns me are the grand jury proceedings and other situations prior to big trials. There was a big story recently on how many of the people sitting on grand juries are friends of the judge or were people that weren't supposed to be there according to state law. To me, this is the area that creates the most concern. It is in those pre-trial areas of the legal system that a case can be dropped, trimmed down, dismissed or ratcheted up. Max can correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that these pre-trial motions, petitions and activities set the tone for the entire trial if there is one.
Absolutely I would agree. I'm well aware of Hotze...not a fan of his work. I don't want to disparage him too badly, but in my view he's another guy who people can point at and ask, "is that what Christianity is really about??"
Thing is, I met his brother. I doubt that either are bad people or that they mean anything other than good things, but what really concerns me is the extreme nature of their political agendas. It borders on (to use an opposite comparison) far lefties promoting communism.
I don't like the lientcy too much because it tends to go against me i.e. yates gets life. . . Gary graham gets to die even thought yates was by far more open and shut Ounce of crack gets ya 10 Kilo of cocaine gets you probation The poor and disenfranchised more often than not get harsher penalties I've coined the phrase : The law is strong . . but has no stamina. If your good lawyer can stretch a case over the course of a year or so . . you have a good chance of getting off. Justice system has alot of issues. Rocket River
As someone who works for an elected judge, I thought I'd chime in. In every system there are inherent problems. Yeah, there are judges who make mistakes, and judges who have inherent biases. An elected official, whether it be a judge or a mayor or the President of the United States, can be swayed by the groups that helped elect him to office. But to be honest, most judges I have met are very interested in seeing justice served (getting the law right and seeing that equity is achieved if possible). And, appointing judges for life, like in the federal courts, makes some judges much more arbitrary and less answerable for their actions than elected judges. Finally, it's not like judges aren't answerable for their actions. There is an entire appellate system set up, at both the state and federal levels, to review errors made by trial court judges in any and all types of cases.
Great discussion, fellas. I don't have anything to add, I just wanted to point out the irony of the following statement: Wouldn't an anarchist be opposed to any type of authority figure? Carry on.
an·ar·chism n. 1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. 2.Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. 3.Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority
I thought about that right after I wrote it. I guess it is the curse of the high school English teacher. When submitting a thesis, it is best to avoid repeating oneself. I had already used communist and wanted another lefty-appropriate political concept. Sam: Good stuff. I agree that there is an appellate system, etc. but I wonder how many cases either don't get to trial or do because of the judges in position to determine Grand Jury indictments and other things like that.
Agreed, Sam....MOST of the judges I've dealt with at least seemed honest and forthright to me. I worked at the First Court of Appeals during the summer of 98 and was astonished by how seriously those men and women were about upholding the law....you might disagree with them politically, but you couldn't disagree with their approach to their jobs. Honestly, that summer restored my faith...after a year of law school, at that point, I was no longer certain I wanted to be a lawyer.
Nitpicking, but liberal Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to the US Supreme Court (in 1967).
My problem with the law is that we take the twelve people who know the least about anything to do with the case and have them determine the verdict. I think I would prefer that cases were presented directly to a panel of judges, ala court martial, and have them make a decision. The appeal process could be left in place.
Actually, the juries decide the facts of a case, not the law. Basically, when you have two sides arguing the facts differently, the jury decides who's more believable. I don't think a judicial panel would be any more accurate about the believability of one side than a jury.
