middleagedgamer
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,363
- Reaction score
- 72
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Let's face it, people: Judicial immunity is bull. There is not a single solitary justification for judicial immunity that has been given by the courts that actually makes sense if you think about it for more than a second.
"Subjecting judges to suit by private citizens would amount not to principled and fearless decision making, but to intimidation."
First of all, what kind of intimidation? The only type of intimidation I admit will happen is the same type of intimidation that keeps private citizens from committing crimes. That type of intimidation is generally considered to be good intimidation.
Second, assuming for the sake of argument that you could articulate a type of intimidation that's bad, where's your evidence? If intimidation in the use of judgment impairs judgment, then how come police officers, prison guards, schoolteachers, and various other government officers who perform adjudicative/disciplinary functions, are able to get by on just qualified immunity?
"It is in the public's best interest that judges be free to exercise their judgment without fear of consequences."
NOBODY should be free to do ANYTHING without fear of consequences! Laws that are not enforced are not laws at all.
"Appeal already provides an adequate remedy for erroneous judgments, so subjecting judges to suit would merely compound the litigation."
How exactly do you define "adequate remedy?" Namely ... what's stopping the appellate court justices from being just as corrupt and/or biased than the trial judges? The Supreme Court? Don't make me laugh! They don't agree to hear cases that are clearly corrupt on their face, and even if they did, you're just delaying the inevitable; what's stopping the Supreme Court from being corrupt or biased themselves?
"If judges were subject to suit, 50% of their time would be spent defending against cases, because every loser would sue for corruption."
Where's your evidence? Except in professional wrestling (which is scripted), I've seen very few "sore losers" actually lash out at the tribunal/referee for their losses unless they have some actual EVIDENCE that the tribunal or referee had something tainting his judgment (like an NBA referee betting on games he's refereeing). It's extremely rare for a flunked student to try and sue his school for flunking him for no reason (it happens once in a while, like in the case of Amir v. St. Louis University, 184 F. 3d 1017 (8th Cir. 1999)), but it's very, very rare. And even in Amir, the kid still had some actual EVIDENCE to believe that he was being unfairly retaliated against! It's extremely rare, outside of scripted pro wrestling, for a losing sports team to say that the referee was crooked.They usually just accept the loss ... especially if they know full well that the other team scored more goals than them. So, where in the bowels of your ass are you pulling this belief that judges will be bombarded with suits because nobody can possibly accept that they just plain lost? Sure, there will be some people like that, but what kind of lack of faith do you have in humanity that you'll believe everyone is like that?
So, nobody can justify judicial immunity. It's completely unjustifiable. The only reason it's stayed on the books to this day is because the people making and keeping that doctrine in place don't have to justify themselves. They make the justifications. If Congress wanted to take away judicial immunity, they probably could, but they won't ... because they benefit from it.
So, why hasn't Jail4Judges - a voter initiative that directly bypasses the legislative process - only gotten a few thousand votes per term? Are there really a lot of people out there who truly believe the bull**** that these judges are feeding them to protect their own corruption? Are there really so many people that just eat this up with a spoon?
Tell me! I'd like to know!
"Subjecting judges to suit by private citizens would amount not to principled and fearless decision making, but to intimidation."
First of all, what kind of intimidation? The only type of intimidation I admit will happen is the same type of intimidation that keeps private citizens from committing crimes. That type of intimidation is generally considered to be good intimidation.
Second, assuming for the sake of argument that you could articulate a type of intimidation that's bad, where's your evidence? If intimidation in the use of judgment impairs judgment, then how come police officers, prison guards, schoolteachers, and various other government officers who perform adjudicative/disciplinary functions, are able to get by on just qualified immunity?
"It is in the public's best interest that judges be free to exercise their judgment without fear of consequences."
NOBODY should be free to do ANYTHING without fear of consequences! Laws that are not enforced are not laws at all.
"Appeal already provides an adequate remedy for erroneous judgments, so subjecting judges to suit would merely compound the litigation."
How exactly do you define "adequate remedy?" Namely ... what's stopping the appellate court justices from being just as corrupt and/or biased than the trial judges? The Supreme Court? Don't make me laugh! They don't agree to hear cases that are clearly corrupt on their face, and even if they did, you're just delaying the inevitable; what's stopping the Supreme Court from being corrupt or biased themselves?
"If judges were subject to suit, 50% of their time would be spent defending against cases, because every loser would sue for corruption."
Where's your evidence? Except in professional wrestling (which is scripted), I've seen very few "sore losers" actually lash out at the tribunal/referee for their losses unless they have some actual EVIDENCE that the tribunal or referee had something tainting his judgment (like an NBA referee betting on games he's refereeing). It's extremely rare for a flunked student to try and sue his school for flunking him for no reason (it happens once in a while, like in the case of Amir v. St. Louis University, 184 F. 3d 1017 (8th Cir. 1999)), but it's very, very rare. And even in Amir, the kid still had some actual EVIDENCE to believe that he was being unfairly retaliated against! It's extremely rare, outside of scripted pro wrestling, for a losing sports team to say that the referee was crooked.They usually just accept the loss ... especially if they know full well that the other team scored more goals than them. So, where in the bowels of your ass are you pulling this belief that judges will be bombarded with suits because nobody can possibly accept that they just plain lost? Sure, there will be some people like that, but what kind of lack of faith do you have in humanity that you'll believe everyone is like that?
So, nobody can justify judicial immunity. It's completely unjustifiable. The only reason it's stayed on the books to this day is because the people making and keeping that doctrine in place don't have to justify themselves. They make the justifications. If Congress wanted to take away judicial immunity, they probably could, but they won't ... because they benefit from it.
So, why hasn't Jail4Judges - a voter initiative that directly bypasses the legislative process - only gotten a few thousand votes per term? Are there really a lot of people out there who truly believe the bull**** that these judges are feeding them to protect their own corruption? Are there really so many people that just eat this up with a spoon?
Tell me! I'd like to know!