Don't agree with the Judicial Decision, throw the judge in Prison!!

[Impaler[WrG]]

IMHO, the only legitimate reason why a judge might be impeached/punished/removed from office would be accepting bribes or some other such impropriety.

Its ludicrous to hold a judge responsible if an aquited individual commits a crime, it would be an undue influence on the judge to convict EVERYONE. Likewise if they judge was punished when an innocent person was sent to jail it would influence them to find everyon not guilty. Very soon its damn if you do and damned if you dont and no honest person would want to be a judge.

[Colon™]

It's not just so much that this is a blatant assault on judiciary independence. It's also, that after several centuries of getting used to the concept that the office should distinguished from the person, this law aims to punish judges personally for professional decisions. It doesn't propose professional sanctions, it proposes personal sanctions. Even if it is true that the judicial branch has become overbearing, nobody within their right mind can possibly believe this is the right way to counter it.

[Berzerker]

NYE's absurdity had a point though . British & American common law had such protections to protect against mob rule. The American experiment was one of republic, not democracy (as the founders were keen to point out) and distinctions were made to the republican forms of government the US and the UK had and the mob of Paris during the French Revolution.

So letting someone sue a judge because that judge's assinine decision ruined their life is mob rule reminiscient of the French Revolution? No, its called justice...and I thought no one was above that. But it is true that police states evolve by taking away the people's moral authority to demand justice from their officials, Jews could not sue police and judges who facilitated the confiscation of their property. Mob rule doesn't need a government to exist, but having a police state makes it alot more dangerous. My position removes the mob from the picture, this is about a judge and his victims. You guys are introducing the mob into this...

Protection of the judiciary from suit for their rulings was one of these anti-'mob' measures.

The mob aint suing the judge, his victim is suing.

Its ludicrous to hold a judge responsible if an aquited individual commits a crime, it would be an undue influence on the judge to convict EVERYONE.

It aint about acquittals, its about sentencing. There have been some outrageous cases of judges giving light sentences to molestors. If your kid was molested by a convicted sex offender who served 60 days for his last crime you'd recognise the injustice better.

this law aims to punish judges personally for professional decisions.

How about suing them for unprofessional decisions that produce a trail of victims?

[Colon™]

Professional decisions = decisions made within the context of the job.

[DaShi]

Clearly, Colorado sees that the future of the US economy will depend on the mafia, which lead to an increase murders of judges. So to protect them, Colorado is giving the mafia an alternative means to avoid penalties for their criminal acts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So letting someone sue a judge because that judge's assinine decision ruined their life is mob rule reminiscient of the French Revolution?

Basically, yeah.

There is a reason that the common law has protected judges in their professional decisions. You have to educate yourself about the history of these legal systems, Berz, and how the American political leaders wished to continue British common law in said protection.

It was deemed necessary to protect the independance of the legal system. It is also why lawyers can't be sued for what they say in court. It's long established common law.

After all, the common law system gives judges broad discretion. And in doing so protects them from the mob. And make no mistake, it is the mob making judicial policy here, even though it is through a number of individual cases that it does so.

[DaShi]

I knew it! Oh, you don't mean that mob.

[Colon™]

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Quite a bit, actually. Congress could pass a law requiring all SCOTUS judges to retire immediately. They could pass a law removing the subject from their jurisdiction, and pass another law. They could increase the number of justices. Usually, it only requires a discussion of what Congress might do as it passes a law again to chasten the courts. Even the authority to strike down a law as unconstitutional is a power Congress allows the Courts to have and is not an inherent power. However, for all partisan blustering, neither side really wants to mess with the Courts politically, cuz they know its in their best interests not to.

I think these changes would really require a constitutional amendment. Remember how effective the SCOTUS was at gutting FDR's New Deal? Even though FDR was one of the most popular Presidents ever, and had a Congress packed with supporters he was unable to make any alterations in the structure of SCOTUS.

Frankly there simply isn't any real check in the power of the courts.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So letting someone sue a judge because that judge's assinine decision ruined their life is mob rule reminiscient of the French Revolution?

It was deemed necessary to protect the independance of the legal system. It is also why lawyers can't be sued for what they say in court. It's long established common law.

After all, the common law system gives judges broad discretion. And in doing so protects them from the mob. And make no mistake, it is the mob making judicial policy here, even though it is through a number of individual cases that it does so.

Lawyers can't be sued for what they say in terms of defamation and such. Lawyers can be sued for malpractice, incompetence, neglegence in the courtroom. It was essentially impossible not long ago, as the bar was a monolith that wouldn't crack. Wake up call: that has changed. IIRC there was a successful suit of this sort brought not long ago.

The workings of the courts are no longer a mystical black box that may not be questioned. Call it the empowerment of the information age. Call it the just end of the means of the litigious society. A little sunshine on the shenanigans behind the bench can do a lot of good.

[DRoseDARs]

This measure was soundly defeated fyi:

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061107/NEWS/61107069

J.A.I.L. measure rejected in dramatic fashion
By staff and wire reports
PUBLISHED: November 7, 2006

South Dakotans on Tuesday soundly rejected a constitutional amendment that opponents said would create chaos in the state’s courthouses and the halls of local government.

With 637 of the 818 precincts reporting, Amendment E was failing with 90 percent opposing it and 10 percent supporting it.

It would let people seek criminal charges or file lawsuits against judges and other government officials they believe have violated their rights.

Supporters said it would apply only to judges. But opponents said it would include members of school boards, county commissions and city councils because those officials sometimes make decisions of a judicial nature.

Judges have immunity from lawsuits over their official acts.

The amendment’s foes say judicial immunity helps protect the fairness and independence of judges by preventing intimidation that would arise from the threat of lawsuits.

A special 13-member grand jury, selected at random from registered voters or volunteers, would handle complaints and decide whether judges and other officials could be sued or prosecuted.

Opponents said any mistakes by judges can be handled under the present system, either through traditional appeals, a disciplinary panel for judges or judicial elections.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
This measure was soundly defeated fyi:

Was it ever in doubt?

[DRoseDARs]

No, but it's nice to see such a wide margin.

[Colon™]

That 10% still disturbs me.

[Deity Dude]

Legislative Branch makes law.
Executive Branch enforces law.
Judicial Branch interprets law.

To say which is more powerful is a matter of opinion. It's like debating which is more powerful to a baseball team, a pitcher, catcher or outfielder. The point is they are all co-equal.

All three branches check each other in a perfect society. What has happened over time, sometime due to pragmatism and sometimes just out of obvious power grabs, is that the 3 branches grab power from the other branches.

The judiciary legislates by "interpreting" the law in such a ridiculous fashion that it effectively rewrites the law or creates law that was never written.

The executive branch legislates by "administrating" the law in such a fashion by creating all sorts of codes and penalties that were never intended in the original law. Plus the Executive branch proposes law, under pressure, to the legislative branch.

The executive and legislative branches interpret the law by appointing or blocking the appointments of judges based on HOW they will rule as opposed to thier QUALIFICATIONS to rule.

And so on and so on.