This is why judges should not get lifetime appointments

[Charade]

If the choice is between one educated judge and the general public which has no idea of law or even simple logic, I trust the judge to do the right thing more of the time.

Then why have a hierarchy of courts? Get rid of the appeals court if you trust judges so much.

 

[Bravosntha2g]

Bad is bad. What do you expect from judges? We should INSIST that judges make GOOD decisions. But good doesn't necessarily mean popular.

Since many seem to think this was a bad decision, why not hold the judge accountable?

Because our founding fathers set up the system so judges are above the mob mentality of the public. We shouldn't change our great constitutional decision because of a stupid decision by someone in Vermont. I'm not willing to do that, and anyone who is is very irresponsible.

 

[Charade]

Because our founding fathers set up the system so judges are above the mob mentality of the public. We shouldn't change our great constitutional decision because of a stupid decision by someone in Vermont. I'm not willing to do that, and anyone who is is very irresponsible.

Congress does (granted by the constitution) have the authority to remove appointed judges for reasons specified in the constitution.

The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Bribery, perjury, and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan *******

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html


Do you disagree with that?

If a judge consistently makes bad decisions (by not upholding his constitutional duties) should be removed.

 

[Bravosntha2g]

Right, there is an ability to impeach. There is however nothing saying the appointments shouldn't be lifetime appointments.

Changing them to terms would be nothing short of a smack in the face of our founding fathers worse than last year's eminent domain decision.

 

[lw49033]

Since this was not a federal case, Congress can't do a blessed thing about it. Whether the MA legislature can or not, I don't know.

 

[bicker]

And whether they're inclined to is yet another issue. I almost feel that this is a bigger issue for some non-MA DISers than for the majority of MA residents.

 

[TCPluto]

Because our founding fathers set up the system so judges are above the mob mentality of the public. We shouldn't change our great constitutional decision because of a stupid decision by someone in Vermont. I'm not willing to do that, and anyone who is is very irresponsible.

There is no constitutional provision for lifetime appointments to the federal bench.

Most state courts have elected , non-partisan judges. Even at that, unseating an incumbent judge is virtually impossible.

Many judges get on the bench and then legislate, which is wrong. Many use poor personal judgement instead of following the law, hence the system of appeals.

Examples abound of misuse of the bench by sitting judges.

 

[Alicnwondrln]

i agree that judges need a cer tain amount of freedom but with something like this
im sorry this judge should be remoeved cuz this man will reoffend and when he doesn maybe the judge should serve the prison term with him
if we dont hold judges accoutnable in any way at all, stuff like this cant keep happening

 

[bicker]

We hold judges accountable through the impeachment process. That's part of a delicate system of checks and balances that prevent the aforementioned mob rule.

Beyond that, we citizens have our own role: Electing the legislators who set the sentencing guidelines. If we want criminals to pay a specific, minimum sentence for a specific crime, why isn't the law WRITTEN that way?

 

[Alicnwondrln]

i dont know
jessicas law should be law here but is NOT even pending
i have called my local resp and have no heard back

 

[bicker]

There you go... And that's really my point: The press loves to take pot-shots at individuals because it sells newspapers/gets ratings, but it is nothing more than deception perpetrated by an institution in our society which is supposed to give us the truth. The problem is that putting the blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of the citizens of the Commonwealth, i.e., the newspapers' readers and news programs' viewers, for not doing their civic duty (as, incidently, you are doing), isn't sexy.

 

[lw49033]

i dont know
jessicas law should be law here but is NOT even pending
i have called my local resp and have no heard back

Any law named after a person is a bad law!

 

[TCPluto]

Any law named after a person is a bad law!

Very curious. Why do you think that?

 

[LindsayDunn228]

There are different kinds of feminism--one kind of feminism celebrates and appreciates women, while another kind is so eager to vilify men that they actually belittle women by reducing their identity to that of victims. I am all for the first kind and against the second.

I have to say, very nicely put!!!!

 

[lw49033]

Very curious. Why do you think that?

There is an old saying that "hard cases make bad law", and in our sound-bite culture that truism is magnified...the press finds lurid cases to whip up the public, and politicians rush to create new laws with very little deliberation, to prove how much they care. It's always some new feel-good solution that doesn't address the underlying problem, much less solve it, and creates a dozen other problems in the process. See for example:

IOWA’S RESIDENCY RULES DRIVE SEX OFFENDERS UNDERGROUND

 

[bicker]

Well-said. While it is possible, by chance, that a Named law could be a good law, more often than not that's nothing more than a coincidence. Allowing the passion-of-the-moment to determine anything is always a bad idea.

 

[TCPluto]

There is an old saying that "hard cases make bad law", and in our sound-bite culture that truism is magnified...the press finds lurid cases to whip up the public, and politicians rush to create new laws with very little deliberation, to prove how much they care. It's always some new feel-good solution that doesn't address the underlying problem, much less solve it, and creates a dozen other problems in the process. See for example:

IOWA’S RESIDENCY RULES DRIVE SEX OFFENDERS UNDERGROUND

I disagree.

That we are causing a hardship on these sexual preadators doesn't bother me. However, not doing all we can to protect our children does bother me.

Keeping track of them and keeping them away from schools and daycare facilities is prudent, in my opinion.

 

[lw49033]

I disagree.

That we are causing a hardship on these sexual preadators doesn't bother me. However, not doing all we can to protect our children does bother me.

Keeping track of them and keeping them away from schools and daycare facilities is prudent, in my opinion.

There is no proven link between residency laws and propensity to reoffend. It is not protecting children; it is strictly punitive in nature. Moreover, I doubt you have a clear idea who some of "these sexual predators" are. Here's one predator:

Teen Mother Ruled A Sex Offender

Your post is a perfect example of why we need INFORMED judges, not PROPAGANDIZED citizens, making decisions. In this case, unfortunately, the judges made a mistake by bending to the will of the contemptible legislature. BTW, any politician I hear talking about how much he's going to do for children doesn't get my vote either. I figure they must be trying to put something over on us when they do that.

 

[TCPluto]

I doubt you have a clear idea who some of "these sexual predators" are.

You couldn't be more wrong in your assumption.

 

[bicker]

That may be true, but you have to admit that you didn't have the woman that lw49033 pointed out in mind when you were thinking of "these sexual predators". I suspect that was the point s/he was making.