I think the judge shouldn't have taken the chance with a baby's life until it was determined who was telling the truth. Better safe than sorry. He did just the opposite. Read the article here:
http://www.examiner.com/a-2524818~Judge_faces_election_after_unpopular_decision.html
I really don't think the man belongs on the bench. Anyone that doesn't put a child's safety first is to stupid to be a judge.
One of the issues that was brought up in the article is whether judges should be appointed or elected. Most judges are against electing judges because they think it makes the legal process political. Instead of making decisions from the bench based on law they might make their ruling based on what it takes to get elected or reelected. I ask the question, is there in anything more political than the U.S. Supreme Court?
I completely disagree with the legal scholars and think all judge positions should be elected including the U.S. Supreme Court. I also think it is insane that once a judge is appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court the only way he or she is taken off the court is by impeachment, death, or retirement. This would be my plan:
For each judge position have minimum requirements before anyone could run for the position. Age, legal degree, X number of years of experience. Then require a psychological evaluation of each potential candidate. Next put them on the ballot and let us citizens vote.
Questions for the day: Should judges be elected? Should U.S. Supreme Court judges be appointed for life? What should happen to the judge that called the mother a liar putting her baby in harms way?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Clearly in this case, the judge should have made a different decision. But apparently he had only a couple of emails of indeterminate origin to go on, and I guess he did his best and will now pay for being wrong. I sure wouldn't want to be a judge, in family court or anywhere that a life might be depending on my decision.
Ideally, electing judges is a good thing. In the real world, I never vote for judges because I know nothing about any of them and would be voting blind. Could I research their decisions and make a judgement? Sure, if I had lots and lots of time to devote to it. Will I? I very much doubt it. So in the real world, having them appointed by knowledgeable people who are vetted for political bias might be best. Or not. Beats me.
Okay, deep breath. The story about family court and the outcome of the decision is raw. My question is this: If the judge didn't have anything but emails and "he said/she said" to go on, why didn't he order psychological evaluations for both parents, before making a decision, particularly since it appears the mother retained custody of an older boy? How do you justify a decision with admittedly insufficient justification or information.
As to restraining orders, he's right. They're worthless. I've seen it personally and there are stacks of studies and statistics that prove a restraining order isn't worth the paper it's printed on, if the restrained individual has serious psychological or emotional issues. I cannot count the number of murders that have occurred in Greenville County, where a restraining order was in effect and the (usually) boyfriend/husband either broke into the house or shot down the victim in a grocery store or mall parking lot.
As to electing judges... I"m not sure. As Pat said, how many of us take the time to research the qualifications? Then again, when you lay out the requirements for candidates, if this information has to be printed on campaign literature distributed by someone by League of Women Voters or another objective source, we'd have the information we needed in one place and could make comparisons. Whether elected or appointed, the end result is it's determined by politics. A president, governor, whomever appoints someone who upholds his values and expectations. An electorate elects someone they hope upholds their values and expectations.
I agree Supreme Court app'ts for life are not a good thing. If we're going to stick with appointing the justices, than make the tenure four years, max. With lifetime app'ts, we're pretty much stuck with individuals who were appointed for their willingness to fall in line with the appointing president's priorities and philosophies. Some may sit on the bench for twenty years. A lot of changes can occur in both presidential and public attitude in that period of time and not be reflected by judges still stuck in their original mindsets.
As to the judge who made the erroneous call... I suspect he won't be re-elected and I also suspect he has to live with the fact that his erroneous call cost the life of a baby. I wouldn't want to have to be him, looking in the mirror each morning. That may be punishment enough, as there's nothing anyone can do to bring the baby boy back.
Hi Pat
To me it doesn't matter if he had one email or a million, it doesn't matter who he thought was lying, the only thing that should matter is the safety of the invent. He should have never allowed unsupervised visitations until he found out more information.
Most states have bar associations that rate lawyers and judges. If they elect judges I'd go by that and also I would imagine that it wouldn't be that hard to get a recent history of a judges rulings.
Bill
Hi DR
I had to take a walk and a deep breath after reading the decision of the idiot judge. Pyschological evaluations would have been great in this situation and see my comment to Pat. Nothing should matter but the safety of the baby until on the information is in.
Restraining orders are not only worthless but they can actually cause more violence.
I think with Google and the internet you could find out all you needed to know with a click of the mouse. I just don't see it taking that much time.
I am with you on four year terms for Supreme Court judges and would go as long as six years but not mroe than that.
Bill
Post a Comment