A discussion about Judges; And their powers...

Special emphasis on a judge's ability to declare contempt of court.

I have been doing my best to decipher what the hierarchy of judges are for the United States. This is the most convoluted, confusing, and complete mess of the Judicial branch that I have ever seen. Magistrate judges, district judges, county judges, state judges, us judges, so on and so forth.

There are so may judges, of different types, of different responsibilities, that it's an absolute cluster of a mess.


Why are there so many judges that can rule, overrule, dictate, counter dictate, kiss a US judge bum, disagree with A US judge but still be overruled?

Why is it a crime for a person to openly disagree with a court's authority openly when ordered by a judge not to?

Why is it a crime for a person to tell a judge to screw themselves?

A judge is not god.

A court is not above what's right and wrong.


Where and how do we draw the line of right and wrong?

a reply to: EternalSolace

Court Judges have absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong.

Imagine a bunch of guys get together, and form a new club, in some isolated wild-west town. They build a clubhouse, and start to associate and have meetings there. Somehow, they develop a method of problem-solving, and end-up convincing the local mayor, sheriff, and influentials that their problem-solving method is very good and fair.

So now: locals with all manner of social problems, are brought to this clubhouse to have the club decide on what is right.
After a number of years: they become viewed as authorities on right and wrong.
They keep accounts of the quarrels they treat, and document it all methodically.

Eventually: they rule the roost, and the sheriff begins to enforce their decisions, as the way all citizens should behave.

Now that's not how 'The Law' started, it is merely a story.

When you step into a court of law: you are in their domain, and everyone seems to be just fine with this, inexplicably.
They make the rules, and then we must obey.
It's their rules, and not right and wrong that is upheld.

If you meet a judge in the grocery-store parking lot: you may indeed be able to tell him to screw themselves.
But NOT in their clubhouse.

How could there be true justice, when the whole system works on money, politics, power and influence?

a reply to: EternalSolace
The offence of contempt of court ought to be about preventing a court's decision from taking effect, by disruption of proceedings or by disobedience when the judgement has been made. A court has to be able to do something about that, or it can't function. If they are using it to restrain external criticism, that approaches abuse of process.

a reply to: EternalSolace

DOJ Judges are not really part of "the Judiciary" however they work with the Judiciary so it is confusing.

The Judiciary is supposed to have the same power as the President and the same power as Congress.

The DOJ works for the President and is under the President's authority. The Attorney General is in charge of the DOJ and also directly under the President.

DOJ Judges are not really part of "the Judiciary" however they work with the Judiciary so it is confusing.

The Department of Justice has no judges

The Judiciary is supposed to have the same power as the President and the same power as Congress.

The Judicial Branch (meaning the Supreme Court only) has the same power as the other 2 branches . The Legislative and Executive.

The DOJ works for the President and is under the President's authority. The Attorney General is in charge of the DOJ and also directly under the President.

The only one you got close to correct

a reply to: EternalSolace

Electing judges is the biggest mistake in the World. I'd rather have a few bad judges and have judicial independence from politics.

originally posted by: Gothmog

DOJ Judges are not really part of "the Judiciary" however they work with the Judiciary so it is confusing.

The Department of Justice has no judges

DOJ moves to appoint temp immigration judges - The Hill (from 2014).

Justice Department Will Require Judges To Make Quota For Immigration Cases - NPR (from last year).

Executive Office for Immigration Review From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (note the third Paragraph titled "Immigration Judges").

The Judicial Branch (meaning the Supreme Court only) has the same power as the other 2 branches . The Legislative and Executive.

You are only partly correct there, as there are additional Federal courts to the Supreme Court, under the Judiciary branch.

Infographic: 3 Branches of the U.S. Government - USA.gov

However, I was also only partially correct because the Executive is represented in the Presidency and the Legislative is represented in by Congress. I was incorrect in being too colloquial.

The DOJ works for the President and is under the President's authority. The Attorney General is in charge of the DOJ and also directly under the President.

The only one you got close to correct

The first point I was correct (and you weren't), the second point was arguable for both of us, and in the third, I was correct.

This thread, the one and only who’s topic of discussion can affect each and every one of us, regardless of anything at all, the most neglected thread.

Good grief. You parked across the line, judge says you’re guilty. Accept your fine, disagree? Contempt of court.

Misidentified for a crime you didn’t commit, hold steadfast to your rights, declared in contempt of court by a judge...


This is not a light topic but a topic in which people will not challenge the over authoritarianism of today’s judges.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
This thread, the one and only who’s topic of discussion can affect each and every one of us, regardless of anything at all, the most neglected thread. ...

Nope. Don't affect me.