Judicial Immunity - The Kings of Court

[NoStateofMind]

Immunity of any form in government is an absolute tragedy. Judges who place in bondage or fleece people of their hard earned money should be subject to the same laws as ordinary people. By doing this you keep judges honest and "playing for the home team" is more of a risk. As it should be IMO, if you are willing to take someones freedom you should be subject to the same. Below is only an example but this happens every day in traffic court where judges routinely rob people of their money solely on an officer's word.

Judges = Paid by the state

Police = Paid by the state

You = Pay the state

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld absolute Immunity for judges performing judicial acts, even when those acts violate clearly established judicial procedures. In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978), the Court held that an Indiana state judge, who ordered the sterilization of a female minor without observing due process, could not be sued for damages under the federal Civil Rights statute (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983).

link

 

[Juror No. 8]

Welcome to the American "just us" system.

Now bow down before your black-robed superior and hand over your money, slave.

 

[cubby1223]

Did you have to go to traffic court today?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Did you have to go to traffic court today?

:whiste:

 

[Brovane]

What did you think was going to happen when you have judges upholding immunity for other judges.

 

[Mursilis]

I don't think you'd be happy with the results if you got what you wish. If judges are afraid of issuing criminal sentences because they could be sued if they're wrong, you're going to have very few judges issuing sentences.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I don't think you'd be happy with the results if you got what you wish. If judges are afraid of issuing criminal sentences because they could be sued if they're wrong, you're going to have very few judges issuing sentences.

There would be very few wrongful sentences you mean.

 

[Mursilis]

There would be very few wrongful sentences you mean.

There would be very few sentences at all, I suspect.

 

[Juror No. 8]

I don't think you'd be happy with the results if you got what you wish. If judges are afraid of issuing criminal sentences because they could be sued if they're wrong, you're going to have very few judges issuing sentences.

And we're supposed to be unhappy about this why, exactly?

 

[Thump553]

If you don't want a justice system at all, eliminate judicial immunity. It's as simple as that. Every single person who was a judge would be constantly harassed by nuisance suits from the losing side of almost every case.

States (and the feds) have procedures for judicial review for misconduct, and believe it or not, most of those systems work pretty well. On top of that the judicial code of ethics is pretty strict.

 

[Juror No. 8]

If you don't want a justice system at all, eliminate judicial immunity.

You mean, a corrupt, government-run "just us" system.

Justice can be delivered privately just as easily as it is delivered publicly.

 

[Thump553]

You mean, a corrupt, government-run "just us" system.

Justice can be delivered privately just as easily as it is delivered publicly.

Give a real life example of a full justice system that is private enterprise. And please don't cite arbitration, which is a quasi-provate system that operates as an adjunct of the civil court system.

Personally the concept of private judiciail system would scare any rational person. I can't imagine pleading a case before a judge where he knows and you know that he directly benefits from any fine imposed on you.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Give a real life example of a full justice system that is private enterprise. And please don't cite arbitration, which is a quasi-provate system that operates as an adjunct of the civil court system.

Don't be silly. The government monopoly on the legal and justice system doesn't allow it to exist.

Personally the concept of private judiciail system would scare any rational person. I can't imagine pleading a case before a judge where he knows and you know that he directly benefits from any fine imposed on you.

LOL. And who do you think pays government judges? The government does. Where does the government get the money to pay judges? From taxpayers. How do they get the money from taxpayers? They steal it through taxation.

This is why judges will generally protect and are biased towards the interests of the State, and in turn, why the State grants judges "immunity". That's where their financial bread is buttered. It's a circle jerk through which the ruling class can legally exploit the lower classes.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't think you'd be happy with the results if you got what you wish. If judges are afraid of issuing criminal sentences because they could be sued if they're wrong, you're going to have very few judges issuing sentences.

I don't see how that would come into play since a jury must convict the person first. When a person is purposely negligent in their job at the direct harm of another they should be held liable for said harm. Period. You and I are as is almost every other non-government employee (and a fuckload OF .gov employees I am sure) yet a person in a position to have one of the largest impacts on your life isn't?

Regardless, my original point stands, if you are purposely and willfully negligent, regardless of your profession, you should be liable.

 

[NoStateofMind]

There would be very few sentences at all, I suspect.

Why wouldn't that be a good thing?

 

[NoStateofMind]

I don't see how that would come into play since a jury must convict the person first. When a person is purposely negligent in their job at the direct harm of another they should be held liable for said harm. Period. You and I are as is almost every other non-government employee (and a fuckload OF .gov employees I am sure) yet a person in a position to have one of the largest impacts on your life isn't?

Regardless, my original point stands, if you are purposely and willfully negligent, regardless of your profession, you should be liable.

I couldn't have said it better myself. :thumbsup:

 

[ichy]

I don't think you'd be happy with the results if you got what you wish. If judges are afraid of issuing criminal sentences because they could be sued if they're wrong, you're going to have very few judges issuing sentences.

Bingo. We live in such a sue-happy society that every judge would be on the receiving end of hundreds of frivolous lawsuits.

 

[ichy]

Justice can be delivered privately just as easily as it is delivered publicly.

I believe that the word you're looking for is "anarchy." Check out Somalia and Afghanistan for examples of how well that works out.

 

[ichy]

Why wouldn't that be a good thing?

Because the vast majority of people in prison are pieces of shit who you do not want living next door to you.

 

[jackstar7]

I've never seen anyone who loved lawyers so much. I mean I assume you do, because this would be a french kiss to all lawyers everywhere.

 

[ichy]

I think that a couple of the posters on this thread are anarchist420's retarded cousins.

 

[Juror No. 8]

I believe that the word you're looking for is "anarchy." Check out Somalia and Afghanistan for examples of how well that works out.

LOL, no. Somalia and Afghanistan are what they are because of government, not because of anarchy.

Somalia's former government left Somalia in a state of ruin so bad, it hasn't been able to recover. It also doesn't help that Somalia's neighbors - each with their own governments - have spent the last two decades meddling in Somalia's affairs. This goes for the U.S. government as well.

The same is largely true for Afghanistan, which has spent 20 of the last 34 years being bombed, invaded, and occupied by the two biggest military powers in the world.

Sorry, try again.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Because the vast majority of people in prison are pieces of shit who you do not want living next door to you.

Yeah, but they probably feel the same way about you, so you're even

 

[lopri]

I hate to make this discussion a partisan mud-fight, but the doctrine of "qualified immunity" has been developed by ________ justices. (insert adjective of your imagination) I do think this doctrine is a really bad practice that's borne out of judicial incompetence, and its course needs to be reverted.

Does anyone remember a case nicknamed "Bong Hits 4 Jesus?"

 

[lopri]

I don't think you'd be happy with the results if you got what you wish. If judges are afraid of issuing criminal sentences because they could be sued if they're wrong, you're going to have very few judges issuing sentences.

That's why the Constitution gave federal judges lifetime tenures. As for the states.. look at who's advocating judicial elections..