It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judges should be required to declare outside links, says consumer watchdog

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
but they are usually appointed and run for election after being in already, its rare that they actually run against anyone.




posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by namehere
its no ones business, judges have a right to privacy too, you dont elect judges, they dont serve anyone but the state, demanding such info would only serve to persecute them for their beliefs.


Actually judges may be elected or appointed depending on which bench they are going to serve (city, municipal, state, judges are usually elected, appellate, federal and supreme court justices are appointed). More importantly, the Judicial Branch of a democracy serves the people, don't believe me, look at a court docket, it will read the people of ______ v. ________ . And most importantly judges need to be persecuted for their poor decisions, such as releasing child molesters upon an unsuspecting public (as the news has so painfully revealed in the last couple of months). Judges should be liable when a poor decision results in great harm (a doctor would be, why should they be held to a lesser standard); not for their personal beliefs, affiliations and lifestyles.


Thank you for clarifying the position of Judges in America. However in the UK all judges are selected and appointed by the Lord Chancellor. In the British legal system, the judge is expected use his discretion solely in accordance with the law of the land, any presidents that may have been set and the evidence presented to the court.

I can not speak for the American legal system but here Judges are not conidered to be public servants, at least was not in the sense that you imply. We feel that a judge's impartiality is paramount so we do not want judges to be be afraid to make difficult decisions when its electron time is near, we have higher standards than that.

The UK public is represented in court by the jury which in fact makes the decision acquit, not the trial judge. True some guilty people slip through the net and some innocent people are convicted. The UK legal system is imperfect so all we can realistically hope for is that ‘substantial justice’ is achieved.

With all this whether the judge is a mason seems to be somewhat insignificant to me. To concern yourself with such trifles is childish in the highest degree. (Mea Culpa)



[edit on 30-4-2005 by pignut]



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join