A Judge's revealing Comments

[M.Dancer]

Yes, because judges chosen by the public would be less partisan. An appointment isn't always partisan. An elected figure almost always is.

Bingo...

[Argus]

Yes, because judges chosen by the public would be less partisan. An appointment isn't always partisan. An elected figure almost always is.

And an elected judge has to bear in mind the public good. An appointed-for-life judge has no need to care.

[Smallc]

No, not the public good, the public mood. Judges should be worrying about the law, the Constitution, and Precedent, not some fickle public whim.

[cybercoma]

And an elected judge has to bear in mind the public good.

Hopefully not in the same manner as the elected Members of Parliament look after the public good.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No, not the public good, the public mood. Judges should be worrying about the law, the Constitution, and Precedent, not some fickle public whim.

The public will, is what you mean. Those two nasty little words seem to bother some folks. The public will, the will of the people, that is the true essence of any democracy.

[Smallc]

Good thing this isn't a democracy.

[M.Dancer]

The public will, is what you mean. Those two nasty little words seem to bother some folks. The public will, the will of the people, that is the true essence of any democracy.

And the public trust, in the right politician, it becomes the Triumph of the Will.

Shame though, our legal sysyem being codified and resting on precedence, not beholding to the whims of politicians and the mob.... Makes the benefits of the Triumph of the Will really hard to implement.

[William Ashley]

No, not the public good, the public mood. Judges should be worrying about the law, the Constitution, and Precedent, not some fickle public whim.

Yeah cause we always agree with legislators and the past is always perfect. (Only In English, Today says those things done yesterday are perfect)

The law of course is something but ultimately the best public good should be foremost of any judicial choice. Good judgement is pro bono pro socio

That is the foundation of the monarchy in terms of subject leige association.

In equality we as good citizens and members of society must uphold those two basic values. Every judge if legally acting in right of the monarch should also uphold those values for both reasons.

Edited December 24, 2009 by William Ashley

[Smallc]

Judges must uphold the law and the Constitution as well as the spirit of both. They also can't ignore precedence. It's the way our system was designed, and it's the way that it continues to work. If there's a problem, it's with the law, not the system.

[Alta4ever]

Judges must uphold the law and the Constitution as well as the spirit of both. They also can't ignore precedence. It's the way our system was designed, and it's the way that it continues to work. If there's a problem, it's with the law, not the system.

The problem is with the judge when they throw out the letter of intent the procedes the law and judge based on their own interpritation of what was legislated.

[Smallc]

What was intended is often open to interpretation...or there can be conflicting intentions.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

The public will, is what you mean. Those two nasty little words seem to bother some folks.

And seems to excite others just a little too easily. I don't think, Jerry, that you've ever once stopped to think about the results of excess amounts of voting. The public will is important and necessary in some areas, but not all. As smallc points out, the public will is ever-changing and fickle; without temperance in the larger scheme, that can undermine the stability of the system and bring it down. Too much voting can actually kill democracy.

[Argus]

No, not the public good, the public mood. Judges should be worrying about the law, the Constitution, and Precedent, not some fickle public whim.

Are you saying the public are idiots and don't know what is right and wrong? Does that mean you don't believe in democracy?

[Argus]

Hopefully not in the same manner as the elected Members of Parliament look after the public good.

So you believe MPs would be more responsive to the public good if they were appointed through some back door political channel rather than elected?

Edited December 24, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

Judges must uphold the law and the Constitution as well as the spirit of both. They also can't ignore precedence. It's the way our system was designed, and it's the way that it continues to work. If there's a problem, it's with the law, not the system.

Actually, judges have no need to uphold the law, and can put whatever interpretation on the Constitution they want to. They can also ignore precedence. There are no brakes and no rules which the judges on the Supreme Court cannot ignore if they so desire. They can even change their minds on their own previous rulings if they wish - and have done so.

You seem to forget that, in the case of the US Constitution, which is often held up to be a work of brilliance, the American Supreme Court had no difficulty ruling that Black men were inferior and disallowing their votes, and that of women, and had no difficulty with a whole host of other things that are now "Unconstitutional". The laws didn't change down there. The judge's simply interpreted them differently.

The Constitition doesn't say it's allowable to burn Jews in ovens. But if the SC says it's so, then it's so, and there's no one who can overrule them.

[Argus]

And seems to excite others just a little too easily. I don't think, Jerry, that you've ever once stopped to think about the results of excess amounts of voting. The public will is important and necessary in some areas, but not all. As smallc points out, the public will is ever-changing and fickle; without temperance in the larger scheme, that can undermine the stability of the system and bring it down. Too much voting can actually kill democracy.

And no doubt you have some kind of recitation of all the times in history where democracy was destroyed by uhm, too much democracy...

[Argus]

What was intended is often open to interpretation...or there can be conflicting intentions.

Right. There can be the intentions of the parliamentarians who passed the law, and the intentions of the judges.

And in Canada, the intentions of the judges trump those of the elected parliamentarians.

[Smallc]

Are you saying the public are idiots and don't know what is right and wrong?

Well....yes, sometimes I do.

Does that mean you don't believe in democracy?

Some democracy, but everything needs very firm limits.

[Smallc]

Actually, judges have no need to uphold the law, and can put whatever interpretation on the Constitution they want to. They can also ignore precedence. There are no brakes and no rules which the judges on the Supreme Court cannot ignore if they so desire.

Note the word Supreme....and they can't just decide things willy nilly. Every decision they make is explained for you, it's not their fault if you don't understand or agree. I'll trust their opinion over yours on such a matter....or almost any matter.

[Smallc]

And in Canada, the intentions of the judges trump those of the elected parliamentarians.

Without proof, as usual.

[g_bambino]

Are you saying the public are idiots and don't know what is right and wrong? Does that mean you don't believe in democracy?

Are you saying the public is a homogeneous lump without differing opinions? Does that mean you don't believe in democracy?

[ToadBrother]

And no doubt you have some kind of recitation of all the times in history where democracy was destroyed by uhm, too much democracy...

The Peloponnesian War comes to mind.

[g_bambino]

And no doubt you have some kind of recitation of all the times in history where democracy was destroyed by uhm, too much democracy...

I said too much voting can result in the end of democracy. You do understand the difference between democracy and voting, don't you?

[Smallc]

I don't want a judge doing heart surgery, and so I also don't want a maintenance worker who thinks they know better telling a judge how they should have ruled.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Smallc

[Argus]

I don't want a judge doing heart surgery, and so I also don't want a maintenance worker who thinks they know better telling a judge how they should have ruled.

What you fail to comprehend is that a judge has absolutely no special training, skills or ability in making judgements. A judge has legal training - the same as any other lawyer - but in no way, shape or form is that legal acumen likely to be one iota better (it might not even be as good) as the lawyers facing him in court. But when a judge sentences someone there's a range of possible sentences, and most of what he decides is simply from their own personal feelings and thoughts, not from any legal acumen.

One judge sentences a person to prison. The other gives them a conditional discharge. Same person, same crime, different beliefs from the judges. Both sentences are legally permissable, but only one is the right decision.