Why do we let lawyers be judges?

[bushmaster1313]

This post is NOT about the Second Amendment.

Here is a recent case not protecting the right to carry in New Jersey:

http://ia600301.us.archive.org/16/items/gov.uscourts.njd.249720/gov.uscourts.njd.249720.40.0.pdf

It contains this observation by the Judge:

Heller’s reasoning leaves room for the possibility that the Second
Amendment could apply to self-defense outside the home in limited circumstances,
but does not recognize or even suggest a broad general right to carry arms.

IMHO, what Heller does or does not suggest does not really matter.
The CONSTITUTION, as plainly written, MANDATES a Right to "Bear" arms?

Duh.

Sometimes I think we should not let lawyers be judges.

 

[tops]

Duh.

Sometimes I think we should not let lawyers be judges.

Good thinking. Larry

 

[PatAz]

We shouldn't let most lawyers be lawyers imho.

 

[Retired LTC USAR]

The only reason lawyers are judges, they are the only one who can understand the laws, since lawerys are the ones who write them!!!!

 

[oldman45]

Judges are NOT lawyers. They are retired lawyers.

 

[Carmoney]

The laws are written by legislators, most of whom are not lawyers.

In some jurisdictions, there are still some lay judges who do not have a law degree. These are mostly low-level magistrates who handle traffic tickets and small claims and whatnot. It doesn't work so well when there are complex legal issues that have to be sorted out.

Keep in mind, there are plenty of judges with law degrees who have keen analytical skills and excellent judgment. So it's probably smarter not to over-generalize based on the occasional bone-headed or politically-motivated decision that catches the attention of the news media.

 

[Erich]

Little known fact: US Supreme Court justices do not have to be lawyers.

 

[jlrhiner]

Little known fact: US Supreme Court justices do not have to be lawyers.

Great!!! I'm still in the running.............

 

[nicky4968]

Check your old testament. We had Judges before we had Kings.
I'll take Judges before Kings any day.

 

[JimHartman]

I live behind enemy lines and expected as most that this was going to be the ruling. Our only prayer is this makes it to the US supreme court. As far as lawyers go he was appointed by another lawyer. I think the guys name was Bill Clinton or something like that.

 

[oldman45]

Little known fact: US Supreme Court justices do not have to be lawyers.

True. But even the Democratic Senate would not approve someone as a Justice without a law degree.

Before one can administer the law, they have to understand what the law says. Even having law degrees, the US Supreme Court cannot agree on what the law says.

 

[P&R Fan]

Do you know what you call an attorney with an IQ of 45?

"Your Honor".

I heard that one from a friend of mine, who is an attorney. (They all have the BEST attorney jokes).
Jim

 

[chud333]

I live behind enemy lines and expected as most that this was going to be the ruling. Our only prayer is this makes it to the US supreme court. As far as lawyers go he was appointed by another lawyer. I think the guys name was Bill Clinton or something like that.

Was'nt he disbarred. The guy with the funny tasting cigars i mean???

 

[brucev]

Re: OP. The judicial system is run by lawyers and politicians for their benefit. The idea that justice has anything to do with the decisions made is mythology. The lady with the sword and scale may be blind-folded, but she peek.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

For many years I have argued that allowing lawyers to be judges produces an inherent conflict of interest.

I have also argued that allowing those who make their living from the law (lawyers) to be law makers (serve in the legislature or the congress) constitutes an inherent conflict of interest.

As a minimum, any lawyer running for public office should be required to surrender his license to practice law permanently.

Our system of the people, by the people, for the people has evolved into a system of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers. The inevitable nitpicking arguments, such as the meaning of the word "is", have resulted in judges who don't, prosecutors who won't, corrections that can't, and cops that aren't allowed to, with no one lacking a "J.D." behind his/her name having any real standing in the courthouses.

While the people can only benefit from stable, clear, and easily understood law, laws written in convoluted language serve to confound the citizenry while benefiting those having recognized standing to argue the meaning of the law. It seems clear that the wellbeing of the public is far from the intent of those writing, applying, interpreting, and arguing the law.

About 1 in 200 American residents is a lawyer, and all lawyers seem to think a million per year is "scale". Do the math! Tort reform? Not a chance. Tax reform? That would put a lot of lawyers out of business immediately. Represent yourself in a minor court case? Open up your checkbook to pay the lawyers, court costs, fines and fees.

 

[OLDFED]

Regarding Heller and "home"...my heart, mind and sould live in this thing I call a body. That's my "home". My house or abode is that place I store my body...a house, car, hotel, trailer, tent, etc. I think that argument might be made, especially since we can change out body parts when needed, much like a new roof, garage door or furnace in my house.

 

[papajohn428]

Shakespeare was right, but didn't go far enough. Of course, in his defense, back then there was no such thing as a Career Politician!

 

[ckprax]

Heller was asking a specific question about possession of a functional arm in the home, not about carry. That is why the lower court judges are thumbing their noses at Heller. Until we get a SC decision on the right to carry outside the home, this will continue.

Losing in lower courts is expected, a carry case must be heard by the SC in order to secure our rights. Last year they made it very clear that they will not grant cert to any criminal case involving the 2A. This leaves Peterson (Colorado) and Kachalshy (NY), so hopefully by June 2013 we will much less of this BS to deal with.

My biggest fear is that Obama wins a second term and one or more of the Heller 5 dies. Then we have a big problem.

 

[oldman45]

I have also argued that allowing those who make their living from the law (lawyers) to be law makers (serve in the legislature or the congress) constitutes an inherent conflict of interest.

As a minimum, any lawyer running for public office should be required to surrender his license to practice law permanently.

Our system of the people, by the people, for the people has evolved into a system of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers. The inevitable nitpicking arguments, such as the meaning of the word "is", have resulted in judges who don't, prosecutors who won't, corrections that can't, and cops that aren't allowed to, with no one lacking a "J.D." behind his/her name having any real standing in the courthouses.

While the people can only benefit from stable, clear, and easily understood law, laws written in convoluted language serve to confound the citizenry while benefiting those having recognized standing to argue the meaning of the law. It seems clear that the wellbeing of the public is far from the intent of those writing, applying, interpreting, and arguing the law.

About 1 in 200 American residents is a lawyer, and all lawyers seem to think a million per year is "scale". Do the math! Tort reform? Not a chance. Tax reform? That would put a lot of lawyers out of business immediately. Represent yourself in a minor court case? Open up your checkbook to pay the lawyers, court costs, fines and fees.

Laws are written in convoluted language for a purpose. It appears strange to non lawyers and often, even lawyers will contact the Atty Gen to get a clarification on a law. I have to work within the framework of the law. There is not a simple law. Running a traffic light can be defendable and should be. If the law said that it is not allowed, then there would be problems so allowances must be made. A lay person cannot write laws.

Many people attend law school without intentions of becoming lawyers but in the hopes of using the education in business. A lot of lawyers are news anchors or game show hosts.

Are you aware that there are likely more in Congress that are tied to the insurance business than law? Then there are several doctors in Congress. When they want a law written, where do they go? To lawyers.

Yet lawyers are best suited for being politicians. They are educated, accustomed to lying and are ambitious.

A lawyer does not give up his license willingly. It cost too much money to get that degree and too much hard work. If he wants to take time away from the practice, they get listed as non practicing and they will not have to attend the seminars yet keep their license. This is why both Clintons and both Obamas did not give up their license. They voluntarily surrendered their licenses just moments before being disbarred. Neither of them can ever practice law again anywhere in the US. It is a real slam to lose your license.

 

[AirForceShooter]

Have you noticed judges are almost NEVER former defense attorneys?

Judges have been referred to as "prosecutors in robes".


AFS