Judges: American Despots

[Art Vandelay]

I've noticed several threads dealing with unjust custody decisions, but it seems to me that there's a more important issue: why do judges have this kind of power to begin with?

In last week's Boston Legal, a judge assigned a conservator to an elderly woman without even allowing her to state her case, and refused to listen to the appeal until six weeks. So either BL was grossly misrepresenting the law, or judges are allowed to seize assets and assign powers of attorney on no more than their own determination of "incompetency". In the show, the woman convinced a lawyer to take the case, apparently pro bono, but in the real world, what can you do if someone is declared your conservator? You can't hire a lawyer, because to hire a lawyer you need money, and you aren't allowed to get to your money because you've been declared "incomptetent". So, really, you're SOL.

I also hear about "gag" order issued in court cases. How can judges violate people's free speech rights? Judges can also order a "bench trial" (no jury) for any crime, as long as the maximum sentence for that crime is not more than 12 months. They can take children away from parents, order people not to have contact with each other, issue "court orders" demanding a wide range of acts, put anyone in jail for "contempt" of court (no trial needed), set aside verdicts, and more.

Why do we allow judges to have this much power? It seems to me that only the good will of a judge keeps him from completely screwing over anyone he wants, with little recourse.

 

[Mark]

I've noticed several threads dealing with unjust custody decisions, but it seems to me that there's a more important issue: why do judges have this kind of power to begin with?

In last week's Boston Legal, a judge assigned a conservator to an elderly woman without even allowing her to state her case, and refused to listen to the appeal until six weeks. So either BL was grossly misrepresenting the law, or judges are allowed to seize assets and assign powers of attorney on no more than their own determination of "incompetency". In the show, the woman convinced a lawyer to take the case, apparently pro bono, but in the real world, what can you do if someone is declared your conservator? You can't hire a lawyer, because to hire a lawyer you need money, and you aren't allowed to get to your money because you've been declared "incomptetent". So, really, you're SOL.

I also hear about "gag" order issued in court cases. How can judges violate people's free speech rights? Judges can also order a "bench trial" (no jury) for any crime, as long as the maximum sentence for that crime is not more than 12 months. They can take children away from parents, order people not to have contact with each other, issue "court orders" demanding a wide range of acts, put anyone in jail for "contempt" of court (no trial needed), set aside verdicts, and more.

Why do we allow judges to have this much power? It seems to me that only the good will of a judge keeps him from completely screwing over anyone he wants, with little recourse.

I'm sorry...did you just say you are basing this rant on something you saw on Boston Legal?!?!?

 

[Cylinder]

Judges can also order a "bench trial" (no jury) for any crime, as long as the maximum sentence for that crime is not more than 12 months.

It's a little bit more complicated than that, but I get your general drift. The Sixth Amendment states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

IIRC, speeding tickets and such are (rightly) considered municipal violations instead of crimes. Any infraction that carries jeopardy of punitive incarceration (as opposed to pre-trial detention) requires the option of trial by jury.

 

[shemp]

I'm sorry...did you just say you are basing this rant on something you saw on Boston Legal?!?!?

Hey, it's on TV, it must be real!

 

[Art Vandelay]

I'm sorry...did you just say you are basing this rant on something you saw on Boston Legal?!?!?

1

IIRC, speeding tickets and such are (rightly) considered municipal violations instead of crimes. Any infraction that carries jeopardy of punitive incarceration (as opposed to pre-trial detention) requires the option of trial by jury.

No, the Sixth Amendment has also been held to not apply to misdeamor charges. You can be subject to punitive incarceration of up to twelve months and not be afforded the option of a jury trial. In fact, you can face incarceration of several years, if you are charged with multiple counts. Speeding is not a municipal violation; it is prohibited by state law.

 

[Cylinder]

No, the Sixth Amendment has also been held to not apply to misdemeanor charges. You can be subject to punitive incarceration of up to twelve months and not be afforded the option of a jury trial. In fact, you can face incarceration of several years, if you are charged with multiple counts. Speeding is not a municipal violation; it is prohibited by state law.

Wow. A quick search shows that right to jury trial in Arkansas starts at six months jeopardy. That does kind of suck. I wonder what the case law is surrounding this issue.

Mea culpa.

 

[Skeptic]

In last week's Boston Legal, a judge assigned a conservator to an elderly woman without even allowing her to state her case...

Why do we allow judges to have this much power?

That's nothing. The judge in question also had the power to determine the woman is guilty of a capital crime and hang her himself outside the courtroom.

He could also take out a gun and shoot her.

Heck, he could take off his robe, revealing that he is superman, and fly away.

That might have to do with the fact that the judge here is not a phenomenon--a real judge trying a real court case--but an epiphenomenon--an actor playing a fictional judge "trying" an actress playing a fictional defendant.

Epiphenomena are not even bound by the laws of physics (I can make a red dot from a laser pointer "move" across the moon faster than light since the dot is not an actual object but made of completely different photons at each moment), let alone by legal procedure.

To quote Calvin and Hobbes, Art, you've become "another casualty of (mis)applied metaphysics".

 

[Art Vandelay]

There's some important parts that you didn't quote: "So either BL was grossly misrepresenting the law..." I explicitly allowed for the possibility that the situation presented on the show differs from reality. Furthermore, it was only one issue on a long list. It's rather misleading to quote it out of context.

Wow. A quick search shows that right to jury trial in Arkansas starts at six months jeopardy. That does kind of suck. I wonder what the case law is surrounding this issue.

Mea culpa.

They don't seem to be interested in advertising it. I find it odd that with the all the accusations of "activist" judges, the reinterpreting of "crime" to mean "felony" is largely unremarked upon.

 

[The Fool]

An independant Judiciary is one of the foundations of the separation of powers, a key principle of most mature political system and something that i think is a very good Idea.

You have to allow the Judiciary to have power to counteract the power of the executive and legislative branches. Make them complaint lapdogs and they cannot do thier job when they are needed to moderate extremism that may break out in other branches.

 

[Skeptic]

There's some important parts that you didn't quote: "So either BL was grossly misrepresenting the law..." I explicitly allowed for the possibility that the situation presented on the show differs from reality. Furthermore, it was only one issue on a long list. It's rather misleading to quote it out of context.

They don't seem to be interested in advertising it. I find it odd that with the all the accusations of "activist" judges, the reinterpreting of "crime" to mean "felony" is largely unremarked upon.

Okay, I admit it, I couldn't resist a joke when I wrote my post... more seriously, though, I wouldn't take any fictional TV show to be reliable on the law. Surely what we have here is something made dramatic for the audience.

 

[ERGONER]

Why do judges have this kind of power to begin with? ...

....short answer is that the American judicial system has become corrupt, especially at the Federal level.

The jury system was established because judges (government officers) cannot be trusted.

The American judicial system was founded on the principle of justice being decided by ordinary citizens in juries.

However, jury trials are a rare event today ... with less than 10% of cases ever reaching a jury for decision. And the few jury trials actually conducted are heavily & unjustly manipulated by the government judges and lawyers involved. The system is corrupt.

Jury trials should be the norm, not the exception. That would greatly reduce the widespread illegal actions by government judges.

 

[Melendwyr]

Skeptic is misusing philosophical terms, again. He wouldn't know an epiphenomenon if it didn't hit him in the head. I suggest you ignore him.

April Trial Set for Woman Seeking to End Conservatorship

The issue is very real, although of course the example on Boston Legal was fictitious.

 

[Mephisto]

Hey, now we know, Art Vandelay is really Tom DeLay!

"The threat posed by the Judiciary branch's independence from the Legislative branch quickly became another front in Tom DeLay's deregulatory jihad. When asked by a reporter why he was so riled up at federal judges DeLay explained, "I woke up one day realizing that the judiciary had turned themselves into a regulatory branch."

The first concerted assault on the courts came when the GOP took control of the House in 1994. DeLay became a fervent supporter of litigation reforms that would ultimately strip shareholders of many of their rights to sue company executives, like Enron's Kenneth Lay.

But DeLay's big stick approach to bringing the judiciary to heel came in 1997. Citing a Supreme Court order forcing the Virginia Military Institute to admit women, DeLay alleged federal judges were exceeding their constitutional authority and it was up to the legislature to rein them in. "We can impeach judges who get drunk," DeLay said at the time, "so why not impeach those who get drunk with power?"

Why not? Well, for starters, the Constitution does not allow the impeachment of judges simply because someone disagrees with their verdicts:

"No serious student of the impeachment provisions can conclude that the Constitution of the United States contemplates impeachment of judges on account of their actual decisions from the bench -- their interpretations or their rulings." (Constitutional scholar Terry Eastland.)"

http://www.alternet.org/story/13120/

 

[Mephisto]

An independant Judiciary is one of the foundations of the separation of powers, a key principle of most mature political system and something that i think is a very good Idea.

You have to allow the Judiciary to have power to counteract the power of the executive and legislative branches. Make them complaint lapdogs and they cannot do thier job when they are needed to moderate extremism that may break out in other branches.

And of course EVERY President keeps this in mind when thinking of who to appoint to the greatest court in the land (The Supreme Court) . . . well that and overturning Roe V Wade.

 

[Mycroft]

And of course EVERY President keeps this in mind when thinking of who to appoint to the greatest court in the land (The Supreme Court) . . . well that and overturning Roe V Wade.

14 posts to go from the topic of legal conservativeship to Bush bashing.

Carry on.

 

[BPSCG]

14 posts to go from the topic of legal conservativeship to Bush bashing.

Carry on.

Can we make this a corollary to Godwin's Law? Call it Mycroft's Corollary?

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone bashing Bush approaches one.

 

[Cleon]

Can we make this a corollary to Godwin's Law? Call it Mycroft's Corollary?

As an online discussion grows longer, the probabilityof someone bashing Bush approaches one.

Yes, heaven forbid Dear Leader is criticized.

 

[Manny]

As it happens, the poor state of elderly conservatorship in parts of this country is also not the fault of the President of North Korea, so we can leave the Dear Leader out of the discussion, too.

 

[Mark]

Yes, heaven forbid Dear Leader is criticized.

Well, they're getting desperate.

 

[Cleon]

Oddly enough, the first person to mention Bush in this thread is....Mycroft.

Which says a lot about the "Bush-bashing" bogeyman.

Carry on.