May 25, 2015, 09:12 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 9, 2013
Posts: 116
|
Sue the Judge.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/24...rearms-dealer/
Sue the judge. This is a question that I have always wondered why it has never been challenged. I assumed it was due to some type of official immunity. So regardless, my question is this; If a judge, lets say he's a Federal Judge verses a State Judge as in the story. He rules that an individual citizen without any felony convictions, no history of mental illness, or domestic violance, has no right to "keep and bear arms" that gives a realistic, rational reason, for doing so, based on: “That claim is based upon pure speculation, which is unsupported by any evidence,” the judge said. Well, since Police Officers carry firearms based on speculation as well. I don't see the judges point. Aside from that, as I see it, that JUDGE has just denied a citizen a constitutional right by using his official office. This is where my question lies. If a judge rules against a citizen in a 2nd A case, thereby denying the citizen his rights, and lets say that said ruling (years later as it goes through the legal system) is over-turned. Why couldn't that judge be sued for dening a civil right under color of law while using his official office? Is it because being a "judge" isn't a profession that requires a licence to practice? Thus much like a palm reader, their opinion holds no professional creed(Do no harm). Or is it because there is a tool to resolve such a abridgement of civil rights (i.e. appeals)? Hooyah |
May 25, 2015, 09:37 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
There are other avenues to deal with stupid judges. If you could sue them civily, the common criminal/shyster lawyer industrial complex would file a dozen suits a day and there would be no justice system at all.
Judges who lose decisions on appeal don't get assigned cases they can make lousy decisions on. There is a federal review board to censure or impeach a sitting judge, and the Attorney General and Congress, that kind of thing. No matter how, it's not a simple process. A judge could let Jeffery Dahmer work in a child-care facility and the odds are he won't get kicked out for it. |
May 25, 2015, 11:24 AM | #3 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
See also Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court, 1871, at 347--348, footnotes omitted):
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||
May 25, 2015, 11:33 AM | #4 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,616
|
Quote:
If you have evidence that a judge is ruling because of his personal interest in a case, THAT becomes an ethics question, and there are rules about that. I do not know that there is a "license" to be a judge, but there are qualifications that have to be met, and other courts and review panels to act as checks and balances. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding of the reasoning. And, more directly to your point with the linked article, NO, you cannot sue the Judge, NY is a not a "shall issue" state, and NYC is likewise. They are entirely within the law to issue only at their discretion. Quote:
Per the linked article that quote from the judge applies to the claim that the denied party is at risk of being robbed. NOT about the right to keep and bear arms. either you actually didn't get this, or you are being deliberately trollish. which is it?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
May 25, 2015, 11:40 AM | #5 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,413
|
It requires a serious abuse of authority rather than perhaps a poor decision to get a judge impeached or convicted. There was a case a few years ago in which two Pennsylvania juvenile court justices sent large numbers of youths who hadn't done anything particularly serious or egregious for long terms at some rehab facilities. I don't remember the specifics, but it finally came out that the judges either owned interests in the rehab facilities or were getting kickbacks from them. Both judges were immediately removed from the bench, and both were eventually convicted and sentenced to prison.
IIRC, it also resulted in a boatload of juvenile convictions being expunged. It can happen, but not just because a couple of people don't agree with a decision. Here's one of the reports. It was dubbed the "kids for cash" scheme. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/23/...orrupt.judges/ |
May 25, 2015, 11:40 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 9, 2013
Posts: 116
|
I never said I did.
If a police officer/police department can be sued for depriving civil rights, why not judges? I understand that a Barber requires more training to cut hair than a Cop is required to have to be a police office. So it seems that that may be a reason. In medicine, if a Doctor prescribes the wrong drug that causes harm to his patient, he can be sued, loose his licence, go to jail, or all the above depending on the situation. Federal Judges are lifetime appointments, yet I have never herd of any education requirement, continuing education requirement, or certification needed to be one. The only requirement I know of is to be appointed by consent of Senate. Seems like a low professional standard to me. |
May 25, 2015, 12:24 PM | #7 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
bandaid1, you have been commenting on legal issues, in this and other threads. And in general your comments have been inapposit because you don't understand the law.
Indeed, most people really don't understand the law because they have not studied it. And to understand the law, one needs to actually study it. Much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge. You can't expect to be able to figure out what the law is or how it works just trying to "noodle it out." Part of the difficulty reading laws and court opinions comes from a need to be familiar with the context -- where "law" comes from, what it is and how the process works. It might help to think of "law", i. e., statutes enacted by legislative bodies, constitutions and charters adopted by political entities to govern the operations of those entities, and past judicial opinions, as a tool used to decide the outcome of a dispute or disagreement. So when a court writes an opinion deciding a matter in contention, it is explaining how it applied the law to the facts and circumstances in order to decide the outcome. Another part of the difficulty is a matter of volume and practice. In law school we read a lot of cases and talk about them a lot, all under the guidance of our teachers. Dealing with the subject matter regularly and in a disciplined, rigorous way is a big help. Some on-line sources that might help --
Also, have a look at this short thread: Reading and (trying to) UNDERSTAND SCOTUS decisions. Quote:
Oh, and I think if you really look into it, a barber today is not required to have more training than a police officer meeting POST standards. Quote:
I think it's important for anyone in this modern world to have a basic understanding of law. I think it's especially important for all of us here because we have an interest in guns, shooting, and self defense -- all matters heavily regulated. If you want to start learning about these matters, you should have a look at the sites I linked to above. You might also look at Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer on this site.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Tom Servo; May 25, 2015 at 09:19 PM. Reason: Reference to deleted post |
||
May 25, 2015, 08:45 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 9, 2013
Posts: 116
|
Frank Ettin- Thank you for the reply. The section you quoted as "it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself."
Sorry for asking so many questions, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it could be read to mean that; judges would like it if no one questioned their motives or held them accountable for their own personal convictions. While I get why they would say such a thing, the same arguement goes for a person desiring to go armed for self defense. Why is it ok to question the gun owners convictions in the face of his personal consequences to himself but not a judges. Does the judge loose more? If a gun owner is not allowed to carry and is killed or robbed due to being unarmed by the courts, is the court liable? No. Why not? I think the robbed/dead gun owner has lost more. It just seems to me that the "general principal" is flawed because it's more subjective than objective in its rational to conclude its findings. In your more recent comment, it answered the vast majority of my questions and yes I have read SPRAT MCGEE (which is fantastic). SCOTUSblog (its ok), but I haven't read the others yet. So thank you for those. I think you are correct that in order to understand "law" it must, now-a-days, be studied. I don't necessary agree that it should be that way, since everyone is expected to know what the law is so they don't violate it and can assist in their own defence should they be charged with a crime. As I am finding out, it is probably best done in a formal setting. I just think that a ruling that is based on speculation by the judge, stating that the plantiffs reason for wanting to exercise a right is based on speculation is alittle bit of the pot and kettle thing. That aside, I do thank you for your explanations. Aguila Blanca- Thanks for that info. It gives me pause to hear that there is some semblance of punishment for the abuse of power in the judicial field, that is, when it's caught. I also read about some 43 judges getting in trouble in California as well as 35 Judges in Michigan not to long ago. |
May 25, 2015, 09:19 PM | #9 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Second, judicial immunity grows out of the special roles that judges and the courts serve in society. How well could we expect the judicial system to function if a judge were subject to a civil suit for damages by every disappointed litigant adversely affected by a ruling? What would be the result of judges having an incentive to make their decisions colored by a desire to avoid being sued? Third, judicial immunity is a well established reality and is unlikely to be changed any time soon. Quote:
But part of the problem is that many people get there ideas about what the law is from sound bytes and casual statements, often these days on the Internet. Many of those ideas involves half-truths. So people people latch on to catchphrases, like "searches require consent or a warrant" or "you have a right to remain silent" or "it's only hearsay" without understanding what they actually mean and that they reflect only part of the story. So often searches do require a warrant, there are various exceptions. And while you can't be forced to say anything, sometimes a refusal to speak can have adverse consequences. And hearsay has a technical meaning; and while often it can't be admitted into evidence at trial, there are many exceptions and it can have other uses as part of an investigation. It would really help if people would get into the habit of not making assumptions and doing some research.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|