• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why has Jail4Judges not been passed yet?

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!
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
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!

Intimidation by the administrative is a real issue and danger that requires a check and balance solution.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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!

If the entire court system is corrupt, then it doesn't matter if judges have immunity. They'd just win their lawsuits anyway.

I agree to some extent, judges who do stuff like telling the police to rough someone up, or ordering an illegal involuntary sterilization, should be subject to prosecution and suit, but a judge who issues a warrant on insufficient evidence or what have you should not be subject to liability, otherwise there could be a perpetual loop of claims.

Also, I'd note that it is already punishable for a judge to actually be corrupt in the strict sense, of taking bribes.
 

Van Basten

Black Is Smart
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
4,661
Reaction score
3,252
Location
The New New Frontier
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Gee, what's not to trust when it's titled "Jail4Judges". Sound totally unbiased and reasonable to me.

That and the whole idea is mostly nonsense. I mean it's not crazy if we're talking in terms of very, very extreme circumstances, but in general, judicial immunity is quite critical and should be secured.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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!
Because the vast majority of the population still sees the judicial system as the "good guys", pure and honest in deed and thought, and as such they see no need for something like this.

I'll comment on other aspects later.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
That and the whole idea is mostly nonsense. I mean it's not crazy if we're talking in terms of very, very extreme circumstances, but in general, judicial immunity is quite critical and should be secured.

It is necessary to some degree, and it shouldn't be eliminated completely, but it needs to be scaled back. There could be a happy medium.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It is necessary to some degree, and it shouldn't be eliminated completely, but it needs to be scaled back. There could be a happy medium.

Proposal:

A judge may not be held criminally or civilly liable for any act in his official capacity which is in principle within his authority to do, even if wrongly done. A judge is not immune to liability for an act done with no legal authority.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Proposal:

A judge may not be held criminally or civilly liable for any act in his official capacity which is in principle within his authority to do, even if wrongly done. A judge is not immune to liability for an act done with no legal authority.
On paper, that's very close to what we have now... and it's almost impossible to prove, and when even it's obvious to everyone almost no one is willing to enforce it.
 

SDET

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
1,609
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Intimidation by the administrative is a real issue and danger that requires a check and balance solution.

Exactly, just ask Justina Pelletier, Isaiah Rider and their families.
 

Grand Mal

bas air son Eachin
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
40,506
Reaction score
21,983
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
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!

For one thing, the taxpayer will inevitably end up paying for the malpractice insurance.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
15,833
Reaction score
8,967
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A horrible idea. It would essentially abrogate the separation of powers and leave the judiciary subject to the whim of the executive branches.

What alleged problem are we trying to fix with this bit of idiocy?
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist

Grand Mal

bas air son Eachin
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
40,506
Reaction score
21,983
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Then the taxpayer should be more vigilant in what is being done in their name.

Well, lawyers and insurance companies will be all over this idea.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
So dwe want to sue SC justices because we don't like the fact that the threw out a lawsuit against this DA? That seems to create more problems then it solves.
I don't advocate taking away protections wholesale, which I stated in a previous post. And while this example is particularly egregious, it is not rare, and it does demonstrate that the problem is more than "alleged". It is an issue that needs to be addressed.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
15,833
Reaction score
8,967
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't advocate taking away protections wholesale, which I stated in a previous post. And while this example is particularly egregious, it is not rare, and it does demonstrate that the problem is more than "alleged". It is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Judges can be impeached. That's the remedy for dealing with Article III judges who abuse their authority. Suing a judge because you don't like their decision is a recipe for disaster. Do we really want judges ruling based on what decision will anger the least amount of people? That's not rule of law. That's mob rule.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
51,924
Reaction score
36,840
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
When you say "Jail4Judges", what are we talking about? "Take away judicial immunity" doesn't convey very much to me.

Are we talking about making it a criminal offense for judges to issue erroneous decisions? To make decisions that an appellate court calls an "abuse of discretion"?

That would seem completely absurd to me, so I hope that's not the idea.



Or are we talking about suing judges for making a decision that an appellate court deems wrong? Or simply for making a decision we don't like?

Seems like a needless addition of more litigation to the system. We're litigious enough. If people could sue judges for ruling in ways they don't like, it'd be ten times the nightmare for everyone involved
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Judges can be impeached. That's the remedy for dealing with Article III judges who abuse their authority. Suing a judge because you don't like their decision is a recipe for disaster. Do we really want judges ruling based on what decision will anger the least amount of people? That's not rule of law. That's mob rule.
I think it's cute how you confuse paper law with reality. ;)

Seriously, though, that's not what I'm advocating, and trying to portray it in an extreme scenario like that doesn't further the conversation. Most of the reform needs to be in regards to prosecutors (and police /detectives), not so much judges. They're the ones who are more often shifty in their behavior.
 

Baralis

DP Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,400
Reaction score
1,551
Location
MO
Political Leaning
Independent
Proposal:

A judge may not be held criminally or civilly liable for any act in his official capacity which is in principle within his authority to do, even if wrongly done. A judge is not immune to liability for an act done with no legal authority.



I feel this is to broad and allows for immoral, corrupt, improper actions as long they have the authority to perform those actions.


I will give you an example of that I mean. This is based on actual past actions committed against a relative of mine.


A person is a known trouble maker in the community and an all out pest to law enforcement. Law enforcement has had to deal with this person on many many occasions for minor things and are sick of having to deal with said person however since all crimes the person commits have been very minor and carry no significant punishment the person remains free to cause trouble.

Police arrest person again on a very minor charge that generally carried a bond of less than $1,000 however the judge is sick of seeing this person before him so raises his bond on a minor charge to $50,000 in hopes they cannot afford bail. The person does manage to bond out and is again arrested some weeks later on another minor charge. This crime generally carried a bond amount of $1200 but again the judge sets bail at an inflated amount of $25,000. This time the person cannot afford the bond amount and remains in jail. In this case state law makes a trial mandatory within 12 months. After 12 months have passed he is set free without ever being prosecuted due to lack of enough evidence to prosecute.

So while never convicted of a crime nor having the evidence to do so the judge managed to lock a person away for just shy of one year. Now some people may believe this person got what was coming to them and that is a different argument, what I take issue with is persons of authority bending the intent of the law in ways they were never intended to be without ever "breaking" a law and we the people not having a good clear way to combat it.
 

WorldWatcher

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
3,452
Reaction score
1,854
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
>


Just curious, would this also apply to Juries?


In the future would the Goldman's have been able to sue the jury members in the OJ trial for a bad decision?



>>>>>
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I feel this is to broad and allows for immoral, corrupt, improper actions as long they have the authority to perform those actions.


I will give you an example of that I mean. This is based on actual past actions committed against a relative of mine.


A person is a known trouble maker in the community and an all out pest to law enforcement. Law enforcement has had to deal with this person on many many occasions for minor things and are sick of having to deal with said person however since all crimes the person commits have been very minor and carry no significant punishment the person remains free to cause trouble.

Police arrest person again on a very minor charge that generally carried a bond of less than $1,000 however the judge is sick of seeing this person before him so raises his bond on a minor charge to $50,000 in hopes they cannot afford bail. The person does manage to bond out and is again arrested some weeks later on another minor charge. This crime generally carried a bond amount of $1200 but again the judge sets bail at an inflated amount of $25,000. This time the person cannot afford the bond amount and remains in jail. In this case state law makes a trial mandatory within 12 months. After 12 months have passed he is set free without ever being prosecuted due to lack of enough evidence to prosecute.

So while never convicted of a crime nor having the evidence to do so the judge managed to lock a person away for just shy of one year. Now some people may believe this person got what was coming to them and that is a different argument, what I take issue with is persons of authority bending the intent of the law in ways they were never intended to be without ever "breaking" a law and we the people not having a good clear way to combat it.

Ensuring that the defendant's right to a speedy trial is protected, is the responsibility of the defense attorney. If a trial is not occurring in a speedy manner, the defense attorney can file motions demanding one, and can even file interlocutory appeals if necessary. Making judges liable doesn't help.

What you seem to be overlooking is that, in order for that judge to be held liable in the first place, a higher court would already have had to have determined your relative's incarceration to have been wrongful. So holding the judge liable doesn't actually help your relative, it just creates a climate of fear for the judge.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,802
Reaction score
22,238
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Judges are already subject to review of their conduct.

Citizens are free to file complaints; judges can be fined, censured, and even removed from office for judicial misconduct.

If they have engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors they are subject to criminal charges, as well as civil suit after being removed from the bench.

It is no different from our office of President. He is immune from prosecution while in office, but can be impeached and then tried for criminal activities.
 
Top Bottom