"Yer honor" vs. "Judge" vs. "Sir" vs. "Ma'am" (was Angelina v. Ed
Bjork
>about an event that occurred during oral arguments before the Supreme
>Court a little while ago (before Rehnquist made Chief) in which a lawyer
>addressed Rehnquist as "Your Honor" and was reamed out on the spot by
>Rehnquist for having committed the atrocious breach of etiquette of
>referring to a most high and holy Justice of the United States by a term
>which implied that he was a mere and lowly judge.
As I read it, Rehnquist snarls when lawyers refer to him, in argument, as
"Justice Rehnquist" as opposed to "Chief Justice Rehnquist."
Moving this thread further adrift, I am interested in what lawyers call
judges in court (I know what they call them outside of court), and how
judges respond. One can always get away with "yer honor" and "judge," or
nothing at all. "Sir" is inoffensive to the appropriate gender. I know two
women judges who consider "ma'am" to be highly offensive; one explained
that it's a sexist method of avoiding calling the judge "you honor." Any
other experiences? What about "ma'am?"
R. Kessler
Ted Frank
>As I read it, Rehnquist snarls when lawyers refer to him, in argument, as
>"Justice Rehnquist" as opposed to "Chief Justice Rehnquist."
>
>Moving this thread further adrift, I am interested in what lawyers call
>judges in court (I know what they call them outside of court), and how
>judges respond.
I've seen seventh circuit judges snarl when called "justice" rather than
"judge" (the mistake made probably because Illinois appellate judges *are*
"justices"). It's a mistake I recommend avoiding if you're ever arguing
in Chicago.
>One can always get away with "yer honor" and "judge," or
>nothing at all. "Sir" is inoffensive to the appropriate gender. I know two
>women judges who consider "ma'am" to be highly offensive; one explained
>that it's a sexist method of avoiding calling the judge "you honor." Any
>other experiences? What about "ma'am?"
The only woman on the seventh is Ilana Diamond Rovner, and she's so good-
natured, I can't imagine her getting highly offended at anything, even
when a fellow judge used the awkward and archaic locution of "brother"
and ended up having to refer to her as "sister". (She responded by giving
a "My! How hoity-toity!" look that had to be seen to be adequately
described.)
--
ted frank "A critical assumption underlying [the] system [of trial by jury]
is that juries will follow the instructions given them by the
trial judge. Were this not so, it would be pointless for a
trial court to instruct a jury..." Parker v. Rudolph, 442 US 62.
Stevens R. Miller
>"Sir" is inoffensive to the appropriate gender. I know two
>women judges who consider "ma'am" to be highly offensive; one explained
>that it's a sexist method of avoiding calling the judge "you honor." Any
>other experiences? What about "ma'am?"
I've gotten away with "ma'am," every time I've used it, but I've heard
others say that they are sometimes told, "you may address me as 'your
honor.'" Seems civil enough and I'd be undistressed if it happened to
me.
I use "judge" when I'm trying to be a bit more folksy. Ex, "come on,
judge, it's getting late," or when I'm trying to get one's attention,
"pardon me judge, where's the men's room?" I limit "ma'am" or "sir"
to use in either "yes" or "no" answers. However, as a safety net, I
have never had any trouble with "your honor." Of course, I've never
addressed a judge beyond the trial court level. Indeed, I've gone
well below it, to traffic judges, parking board appeals panels, referees,
administrative law judges, and always I call them "your honor" with no
problems. Once in a while a courtroom will be "presided" over by a
clerk with limited ministerial powers. Those I refer to as "Mr. Clerk"
or "Ms. Clerk." (Likewise court reporters, "Mr. Reporter," and so on.)
--
Stevens R. Miller
Attorney at Law
(212)227-1594
http://www.interport.net/~lex/
Ben Pohl
a Supreme Court of a state, everyone is Justice, or Chief Justice. All
the rest are judge, or Your Honor. Ma'am (sp?) is no good. The judge is
a gender neutral position ("the Court") and he/she respects lawyers who
give them respect.
Mark Eckenwiler
> In
>a Supreme Court of a state, everyone is Justice, or Chief Justice.
Oddly enough, this is true even in New York, where the Supreme Court
is the trial-level court of general jurisdiction. The jurists who sit
on the Court of Appeals -- New York's highest court -- are Judges
(except, of course, for the Chief Judge).
--
The first thing we do, let's kill all the
idiots who quote Shakespeare out of context.
Mark Eckenwiler e...@panix.com
daniel r. reitman, attorney to be
>In the Supreme Court, everyone is Justice, except Mr. Chief Justice. In
>a Supreme Court of a state, everyone is Justice, or Chief Justice.
There are variations; the most notable is New York, probably because of the
inverted nomenclature.
>All the rest are judge, or Your Honor.
A few intermediate courts also use Justice as the official title.
>Ma'am (sp?) is no good. The judge is a gender neutral position ("the Court")
>and he/she respects lawyers who give them respect.
Daniel Reitman
"On February 15, 1989, Dr. Corder wrote a letter to the Director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency reporting various warnings he had received from
extraterrestrials concerning an assassination attempt on President Bush,
earthquakes in Kansas City, and intruders in the Pentagon."
Corder v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts, 883 P.2d 1152, 1158 (Kan. 1994).
PHM1969
law", and there are probably some pluses to not deliberately pissing off
judges. the problem in the profession is at the other extreme however.
lawyers will often do anything to avoid a judge's displeasure. the
judge who is as finicky as Rehnquist probably has other nasty habits.
Chester Bridal
to judges as follows:
Provincial Ct----- Your Honour
Supreme Ct > My Lord/Lady
Ct of Appeal > or
Supreme Ct of Canada > Your Lordship/Ladyship
We also have to wear a wing-collar,tabs,sleeved vest and gown- at least we
don't have to wear the English wig.
J F Chester Bridal
Stephen G. Jenuth
In Canada, or at least in Alberta, we call inferior court judges,
"Your Honour", "Sir", or "Ma'am" (always capitalized). However, for
superior courts we call the presiding judges, "My Lord", "My Lady"
(although some female judges object and want to be called "My
Lord"????), "Your Lordship", or "Your Ladyship". After a while, we
tire of this, and say "Sir" or "Ma'am" depending on the sence of
humour.
When appealing a decision of another court, we generally refer to the
judge being appealed from as "the 'learned' trial judge" although
using quotation marks around the word learned.
When we about to commit a serious contempt of court, we usually preface
our remarks with "With the greatest respect, M' Lord".
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
<jen...@cuug.ab.ca>
Stevens R. Miller
>In Canada, or at least in Alberta, we call inferior court judges,
>"Your Honour", "Sir", or "Ma'am" (always capitalized). However, for
>superior courts we call the presiding judges, "My Lord", "My Lady"...
Thanks for reminding us that other countries have courts and judges
too. When I was in Winnipeg last year, I dropped in on a Canadian
court room (the Queen's Bench, I believe). The lawyers did indeed
call the man behind the big table in the middle, "my lord." Also,
whether part of the proceedings or not, the other lawyers who were
watching (the case involved a question about who had control over
certain government moneys affecting the judiciary, so it had some
personal appeal to these lawyers) would bow in the judge's direction
whenever entering or leaving the court room (and what a court room,
BTW; like a cathedral, it was). I asked one about this and he
explained it is a gesture of respect to the judge (not to the court,
or the court room, or the flag, mind you; the gesture is to the
person). He said to me, "I guess you don't do that in the states."
To which I replied, "well, I could suggest it, but in New York city
I suspect it would only catch on if done facing the other way."
daniel r. reitman, attorney to be
jen...@cuug.ab.ca (Stephen G. Jenuth) writes:
> . . . .
>When appealing a decision of another court, we generally refer to the
>judge being appealed from as "the 'learned' trial judge" although
>using quotation marks around the word learned.
>When we about to commit a serious contempt of court, we usually preface
>our remarks with "With the greatest respect, M' Lord".
This, in turn, reminds me of a humorous list of definitions I once saw in the
U. West Indies Student L. Rev. (Sorry, can't remember the cite.)
"As your Lorship well remembers" is defined as a signal that counsel is about
to refer to a forgotten and perhaps nonexistent case. "With respect" is a
signal that counsel is about to be disrespectful.
Lee Rudolph
>This, in turn, reminds me of a humorous list of definitions I once saw in the
>U. West Indies Student L. Rev. (Sorry, can't remember the cite.)
>
>"As your Lorship well remembers" is defined as a signal that counsel is about
>to refer to a forgotten and perhaps nonexistent case. "With respect" is a
>signal that counsel is about to be disrespectful.
Y'know, I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of stealing anyone else's
material, but I could swear I've seen those in the works of Henry
Cecil (which, by the way, I highly recommend).
Lee Rudolph
daniel r. reitman, attorney to be
>. . . . Also, whether part of the proceedings or not, the other lawyers who
>were watching . . . would bow in the judge's direction whenever entering or
>leaving the court room (and what a court room, BTW; like a cathedral, it was).
>I asked one about this and he explained it is a gesture of respect to the
>judge (not to the court, or the court room, or the flag, mind you; the gesture
>is to the person). He said to me, "I guess you don't do that in the states."
>To which I replied, "well, I could suggest it, but in New York city
>I suspect it would only catch on if done facing the other way."
In which case the DA's and PD's offices would probably have to start stocking
toothbrushes :-)
daniel r. reitman, attorney to be
drei...@oregon.uoregon.edu (daniel r. reitman, attorney to be) writes:
>This, in turn, reminds me of a humorous list of definitions I once saw in the
>U. West Indies Student L. Rev. (Sorry, can't remember the cite.)
>"As your Lorship well remembers" is defined as a signal that counsel is about
>to refer to a forgotten and perhaps nonexistent case. "With respect" is a
>signal that counsel is about to be disrespectful.
It has come to my attention that these definitions may be by Henry Cecil. If
so, I apologize for the omitted credit.
Daniel Reitman.
Sean Smith
Court/Queen's Bench (it varies from province to provice) justices "My Lord"
or "My Lady", depending on gender. I believe any judge on the bench
below these are referred to as "Your Honour". I don't have a great
deal of courtroom exposure as an articled clerk, so a full-fledged
Canadian practitioner may wish to comment.
Just out of curiosity, I heard that in the US some judges are
elected in some areas. How far up the "chain of command" are these
judges, and how does this work?
Sean Smith
--
Sean Smith aa...@cfn.cs.dal.ca
"In the blessed name of Elvis..." - Bruce Springsteen
daniel r. reitman, attorney to be
> Just out of curiosity, I heard that in the US some judges are
>elected in some areas. How far up the "chain of command" are these
>judges, and how does this work?
Depends on the state. In Oregon. for example, all state judges are elected,
including the Justices of the state Supreme Court. In practice, most judges
retire in the middle of a term, have their successor appointed by the governor,
and usually run unopposed for reelection. Even when opposed, the probability
of defeat is minimal. Last year, we had a rare race for an open seat on the
Court of Appeals, and a separate challenge to the Chief Justice.
All federal judges, of course, are appointed.
Daniel Reitman
"The third clause of Art. I, @ 3 cannot seriously be read to mean that the
Senate shall 'attempt' or 'experiment with' impeachments."
Nixon v. United States, 113 S. Ct. 732, 744 (1993) (White, J., concurring in
the judgment).
Rich Wales
In Oregon . . . Even when opposed, the probability of
defeat is minimal. Last year, we had a rare race for
an open seat on the Court of Appeals, and a separate
challenge to the Chief Justice.
In California (1986, I believe), about half of the justices of the state
supreme court were defeated in a periodic reconfirmation election.
The justices in question (including Rose Bird, the chief justice) were
widely condemned by their opponents for being "soft on crime" -- in part
because they had overturned numerous death sentences on what were char-
acterized as irrelevant legal technicalities.
--
Rich Wales <ri...@mks.com>
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Larry Kolodney
> Just out of curiosity, I heard that in the US some judges are
>elected in some areas. How far up the "chain of command" are these
>judges, and how does this work?
> Sean Smith
All federal judges are appointed by the President with the consent of
(a majority of) the senate.
The selection of state judges varies from state to state. In
Massachusetts, for example, all state judges are appointed, but they
must be approved by an obscure body called "THe Governor's Council"
which is an elected body whose sole purpose (just about) is to approve
judges. Since nobody pays much attention to Governor's Council
elections, the result is a group of people who are accountable to
nobody approving judges.
In NY, all judges were elected until about 15 years ago, when the
state constitution was amended. Now only trial judges are elected
(but the intermediate appellate court judges are selected from the
trial judges by the governor), and in most cases, the elections are
uncontested, the incumbent having received the endorsements of all
major parties in advance. As a practical matter, judges are selected
by party leaders. There is a loophole however. When a vacancy occurs
between elections, the governor may appoint an "acting justice" to the
trial court. I beleive that the term for judges in the supreme court
(ny's trial court) is 14 years.
In California, the state supreme court judge's are originally
appointed by the governor, but are subject to an election some number
of years (10?) down the line to stay in office.
--
larry kolodney:(l...@world.std.com)
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
Free & Common Socage:Knight Service:Gavelkind:Frankalmoign:Burgage
daniel r. reitman, attorney to be
The Bird election was an unusual intrusion of party politics into the judicial
system. I've read that the California Republican Party was behind the
anti-Bird campaign. That election was one reason I dispute the propriety of
electing judges (and, for an Oregon resident, them's fightin' words).
It also should be noted that the jurisprudential reputation of the California
court has deteriorated drastically since the Bird election.
Bjork
minimal.
This is true in any state where judges are elected in non-partisan
elections. The point is less that judges are relatively safe, but rather
that the temptation to make popular, as opposed to correct, decisions is
stronger. Also, as we increase the pay of judges (in Washington, a court
of general jurisdiction judge is paid $94,000 or so) and as the number of
lawyers increases, judgeships seem more-and-more financially interesting.
At one time there was an unspoken rule that lawyers did not run against
"good" judges (i.e., those with good reputations amongst the bar); that
rule no longer exists. As a mediocre lawyer who ran against a sitting
Washington Supreme Court justice said to the press last year, "it's a
$1000 lottery ticket," a thousand dollars being the filing fee (1% of the
annual salary). The mediocre lawyer lost, but narrowly.
The press does a lousy job of covering the judiciary. The only time judges
get any coverage is if they make a sentencing decision denounced by a
prosecutor or crime victim as too lenient, or if they impose a sentence
that breaks records of length, or if they get busted themselves. When the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Washington was defeated by an
unknown lawyer a few years back, the editorial writers and local
columnists wrung their hands about this sad, ignorant state of affairs.
Yet the papers had run nothing of substance about the race. While the
unknown lawyer had no record to expose, the Chief Justice had written
hundreds of published opinions on every possible topic from criminal
sentencing to tort reform to the environment. There were lots of reasons
to vote for or against him, but none were evident from the media. By the
way, the unknown lawyer is doing a fine job as an associate justice.
A modified Missouri plan (appointment by the executive branch, periodic
retention elections) is best for the independence of the judiciary and the
public. While the Rose Bird rejection in California may have been
unfortunate (of course, depending upon one's opinion of Rose Bird), it
didn't change my mind. The people need a method of ridding themselves of
unacceptable judges (even if mistakes are occasionally made for political
reasons); judges need independence from pot shots by lawyers with money
who want to be judges without going through a merit selection process.
R. Kessler
Peter Michaud
J>preface our remarks with "With the greatest respect, M' Lord".
Reminds me of something I like to tell lawyers (at least those with a
sense of humor) who appeared before me: When you say, "With all due
respect," what you usually mean is something more like, "You stupid
idiot!"
As a workers' compensation commissioner (adjudicator) I was often
addressed as, "Your honor." I invariably replied, "You don't have to
call me that" to make it clear to all that I was not, strictly speaking,
a judge--and that I knew my place.
P.
peter....@inforail.com
---
~ CMPQwk #1.4~ UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
Jonathan M Hill
"If it pleases Your Lordship I would contend that your
Lordship is mistaken in law as a result of a deficiency
in what your Lordship is pleased to call your lordship's mind.."
which only *might* get you disbarred.. :O)
For an overview of the etiquette and general workings of the
British Courts, try the excellent and very readable book
"advocates" by David Pannick.
If only female judges in the U.S. were Lords as well, the
confusion would not arise.. :O)
Jonathan Hill
Dept. of Law
University College London
Doug S. Caprette
> As a (hopefully soon to be) Canadian lawyer, we call Supreme
>Court/Queen's Bench (it varies from province to provice) justices "My Lord"
>or "My Lady", depending on gender. I believe any judge on the bench
>below these are referred to as "Your Honour". I don't have a great
>deal of courtroom exposure as an articled clerk, so a full-fledged
>Canadian practitioner may wish to comment.
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, I heard that in the US some judges are
>elected in some areas. How far up the "chain of command" are these
>judges, and how does this work?
>
As you might guess, it varies by the state. In some states (e.g. Ohio) the
state supreme court (Highest state appeals court) judges (er justices?) are
elected to rather long terms. Most judges in Ohio get elected. I remember
seeing comercials on TV at election time that showed someone being put into
a cell with a voiceover to the effect of:
"Reelect judge Foo Bar, he puts criminals behind bars!" Pretty tacky, eh?
In other states, they are no doubt appointed.
Maryland has the best (or the worse) of both systems. As near as I can figure
judges in Maryland are appointed, then must stand for a vote of confidence
during the next election to remain in office.
I grant you that there certainly are problems to be expected when judges are
elected, though I daresay that a blatently unqualified candidate would be a
sitting duck for his opponents. Not so for an unqualified individual appointed
to a low level judgeship as an act of cronyism:
Circa 1972 I read a survey that found 75% of juvenile court judges in the US
were not licensed to practice law, 50% had not even completed a four year
college degree in any field. The overwhelming majority of juvenile court
judgeships were patronage posititions. I'm afraid my source was "Reader's
Digest". Hey! I was only in High School at the time, so if you don't like
this reference sue me.
I wonder if this was really true then, and if matters have improved any since.
--
d...@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov
| Regards, | Hughes STX | Code 926.9 GSFC |
| Doug Caprette | Lanham, Maryland | Greenbelt, MD 20771 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's a little truth in all jive, and a little jive in all truth."
-- Leonard Q. Barnes
Fizmo
is ok to refer to them as Ma'am. Common politeness and respect. The
local bar association has published a new brochure concerning "bias free
conduct". It recommends things that carry this issue to an extreme and is
almost laughable. Virtually every lawyer, including several women, that I
have discussed this with agree that those that are hung up on titles that
are strained, are in fact hung up on their own ego. Business and law is
difficult enough without having to deal in such trivialities. Been
practicing 17 years. Fizmo at America Online
kEvin
> [ deletions ] ...When the
>Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Washington was defeated by an
>unknown lawyer a few years back, [ more deletions ]
> ... By the
>way, the unknown lawyer is doing a fine job as an associate justice.
Is there really much difference between the outcome of cases
handled by competent judges? If the law is clear, they'll
all rule the same, and if it isn't, how is one opinion "better"
than another? I see the difference between competent and incompetent,
but is there really any distinction between "brilliant" and competent?
In theory, the outcome of a case shouldn't depend on which judge
handles it, and if that does make a difference, the appeals process
is supposed to even things out, with multi-judge panels used to
moderate individual effects even more.
In this context, I've only seen brilliant applied to decisions that
changed things or added new stuff, and since I think the courts
have gained too much power at the expense of the legislature, I
view "brilliance" in a judge as a problem. (and a threat to the
concept of precedents)
kEvin
I think Scalia
is "brilliant"
Stuart P. Derby
>In article <3gf3h7$q...@panix.com> aa...@cfn.cs.dal.ca (Sean Smith) writes:
>> Just out of curiosity, I heard that in the US some judges are
>>elected in some areas. How far up the "chain of command" are these
>>judges, and how does this work?
>As you might guess, it varies by the state. In some states (e.g. Ohio) ...
[ ..trimmed..]
>I grant you that there certainly are problems to be expected when judges are
>elected, though I daresay that a blatently unqualified candidate would be a
>sitting duck for his opponents. Not so for an unqualified individual appointed
>to a low level judgeship as an act of cronyism:
Texas elects its judges, and has a Supreme Court for civil matters
and a Texas Criminal Court (or somesuch name) as the final court of
authority on criminal matters.
In the Republican landslide, a highly questionable candidate gained a seat
on the Texas Criminal Court. He had spent only a few thousand dollars on the
campaign, had no one's endorsement, not even the Republican party's, lied
as to his place of birth, lied as to the extent of his criminal legal
experience, etc. etc. He had no judicial experience whatsoever. He has
a misdemeanor marijuana conviction and was once charged with unlicensed
practice of law in Florida. And according to his ex-girlfriends, he lies
in personal ads too.
-Stu Derby
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stu Derby |"Mr. Kelsey got into the dirt business in the usual way,
sde...@bcm.tmc.edu | studying international relations with an emphasis on
Baylor Coll. Med. | Portugese-speaking countries..." WSJ,6/25/93,p.A1,col.4
daniel r. reitman, attorney to be
sde...@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Stuart P. Derby) writes:
> Texas elects its judges, and has a Supreme Court for civil matters
>and a Texas Criminal Court (or somesuch name) as the final court of
>authority on criminal matters.
> In the Republican landslide, a highly questionable candidate gained a seat
>on the Texas Criminal Court. He had spent only a few thousand dollars on the
>campaign, had no one's endorsement, not even the Republican party's, lied
>as to his place of birth, lied as to the extent of his criminal legal
>experience, etc. etc. He had no judicial experience whatsoever. He has
>a misdemeanor marijuana conviction and was once charged with unlicensed
>practice of law in Florida. And according to his ex-girlfriends, he lies
>in personal ads too.
If this is true, I wonder what the disciplinary committee is doing right now.
Last year, the Oregon court suspended a judge for various misconduct, including
abusive comments from the bench. He was defeated in a recall election last
week.
as...@orion.alaska.edu
I'm a PL student here at UAA. There is a judge who teaches some classes
at the university (I think state superior court but I could be wrong),
but he isn't one of my professors. I also sort-of know him and his
family ... we attend the same church.
Since I'm not a lawyer and don't have a job in the legal field (yet),
and I've never had the opportunity to deal w/ him in the legal/school
settings, I was wondering if anyone knew how I should address him?
Judge? Mr? Dr (I don't know if he has a JD or not)? Hey you? What???
I looked it up in Emily Post (my etiquette bible), but she didn't have
anything to say on the subject. Any ideas?
Kerry Jane
as...@orion.alaska.edu
Larry Kolodney
>I have a question I thought maybe some of you folks could answer...
>I'm a PL student here at UAA. There is a judge who teaches some classes
>at the university (I think state superior court but I could be wrong),
>but he isn't one of my professors. I also sort-of know him and his
>family ... we attend the same church.
>Since I'm not a lawyer and don't have a job in the legal field (yet),
>and I've never had the opportunity to deal w/ him in the legal/school
>settings, I was wondering if anyone knew how I should address him?
>Judge? Mr? Dr (I don't know if he has a JD or not)? Hey you? What???
It all depends on the context and the individual. Generally speaking,
when (American) Judges are addressed by litigants, they are called
"your honor" or "judge". Outside of court, they are usually referred
to by professional acquaintances as Judge X. So for example, someone
who knows a judge and sees her in the elevator may say "Hi judge".
I think the safest rule is that if you're not on a firstname basis,
calling them "Judge X" or "Judge" is least likely to offend.
Bjork
>handled by competent judges?
Judges are not computers, applying the law mechanically. There is a great
deal of discretion built in to judicial decision-making that defines the
line between good and bad. Furthermore, judges are court administrators,
balancing rights and process, moving cases while considering the needs of
the immediate parties. While trial court judges should avoid reaching to
make law, it is inevitable, since rarely do fact patterns fit directly
within prior precedential decisions. There's a big difference between
fair, good and brilliant, and I doubt that contested elections are the way
to find the good and brilliant.
R. Kessler
Bjork
you.
Lefiowa
>Just out of curiosity, I heard that in the US some judges are >elected in
some areas. How far up the "chain of command" are >these judges, and how
does this work?
In Illinois state courts judges are elected. This is true at all levels:
Circuit Courts, Appellate Courts and Illinois Supreme Court. The
elections are pretty much like elections for any other office - all
eligable voters in the geographic area.
I'm familiar with Illinois and Iowa (governor appoints from among
candidates recommended by merit commission). The two systems do present
interesting contrasts.
Linda F.
kEvin
>el...@netcom.com (kEvin) writes:
>>Is there really much difference between the outcome of cases
>>handled by competent judges?
>Judges are not computers, applying the law mechanically. There is a great
Is the quality of a judge directly related to their ability to mimic
a super computer or is it inversely related? (not related at all?)
I tend to think of the ideal as being computer-like: consistent,
analytical, predictable. (computers have gotten to the point where
these terms don't actually apply to them anymore, but that's another
story)
>deal of discretion built in to judicial decision-making that defines the
>line between good and bad. Furthermore, judges are court administrators,
>balancing rights and process, moving cases while considering the needs of
>the immediate parties. While trial court judges should avoid reaching to
>make law, it is inevitable, since rarely do fact patterns fit directly
>within prior precedential decisions. There's a big difference between
>fair, good and brilliant, and I doubt that contested elections are the way
>to find the good and brilliant.
Could you post an example that would show the difference
between fair, good and brilliant rulings? I'm more than
willing to accept that some judges are smarter than others,
but I don't understand how they can make correct rulings
that would differ. (ie, if a brilliant ruling is different
from a merely good one, how can they both be correct?)
kEvin
el...@netcom.com
daniel r. reitman, attorney to be
>Could you post an example that would show the difference
>between fair, good and brilliant rulings? I'm more than
>willing to accept that some judges are smarter than others,
>but I don't understand how they can make correct rulings
>that would differ. (ie, if a brilliant ruling is different
>from a merely good one, how can they both be correct?)
If it was by Judge Manton (before he was forced to resign), it's a fair ruling.
If it was by Gus Hand, it's a good ruling.
If it was by Learned Hand, it's a brilliant rulilng.
:-)
Lefiowa
you.
Even if he's a she. :)
Good practical advice though!
Linda F.
Bjork
>analytical, predictable.
These are three very important qualities; predictability is essential. We
look for different qualities, however, between trial judges and appeals
judges. Trial judges are not setting precedents, or at least not binding
ones. Appellate judges write opinions which are binding upon trial judges.
Trial judges' decisions rarely impact more than the parties to the cause
of action (and witnesses sometimes; crime victims aren't parties in
criminal cases but are clearly interested in a judge's decision in their
case). Nixon kvetched about judicial activism; he was referring to
"liberal" Supreme Court justices, although the public tended to apply it
to all judges. While trial judges can be activists (particularly federal
judges), their activism is usually limited in scope and time, since
appellate review is just around the corner. Of course, there is
conservative activism as well.
Most cases are not amenable to any of this analysis. It's X vs. Y, and the
decision goes no further. Both X and Y are entitled to a consistent,
analytical and predictable result. If there is no jury, the judge is
weighing evidence and deciding credibility, so "predictable" is difficult
to predict, at least in the fact-finding process.
>Could you post an example that would show the difference
>between fair, good and brilliant rulings? I'm more than
>willing to accept that some judges are smarter than others,
>but I don't understand how they can make correct rulings
>that would differ.
A hundred years ago, the Supreme Court said that separate but equal public
facilities meet constitutional muster. In 1954, Earl Warren is able to
brilliantly pursuade his colleagues, both liberal and conservative, that
separate but equal is inherently unequal, so the Supreme Court unanimously
overruled its prior decision. The unanimity was essential. The opinion was
short and persuasive and unassailable.
Eric Weir
attorney to be) writes:
>In article <3h0mhn$o...@panix.com>,
> sde...@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Stuart P. Derby) writes:
>> Texas elects its judges, and has a Supreme Court for civil matters
>>and a Texas Criminal Court (or somesuch name) as the final court of
>>authority on criminal matters.
>
>> In the Republican landslide, a highly questionable candidate gained a
>>on the Texas Criminal Court. He had spent only a few thousand dollars o
>>campaign, had no one's endorsement, not even the Republican party's, li
>>as to his place of birth, lied as to the extent of his criminal legal
>>experience, etc. etc. He had no judicial experience whatsoever. He has
>>a misdemeanor marijuana conviction and was once charged with unlicensed
>>practice of law in Florida. And according to his ex-girlfriends, he lie
>>in personal ads too.
>
>If this is true, I wonder what the disciplinary committee is doing right
Nothing, I believe. He apparently met the minimum requirements for
running for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and he got elected, so
what are we to do? He's changed it from a disciplinary issue to a
political one. Of course we all suspect that politicians lie when they
run for office, should we not expect the same of elected judges? We
assume that the politician, regardless of his lies, has the best interest
of his constituents at heart, even if he gets elected for lying ... "In
maleficiis voluntas spectatur, non exitus."
The latest issue of the Texas Bar Journal has a little article about
the new judges being sworn in, excerpt follows:
"'I was probably the most surprised person in Texas when I found out
at midnight on Nov. 8 that I was elected to the court', said Judge
Mansfield, who graduated from Boston University law School in 1977 and
passed the Massachusetts bar exam in 1978. After working as in-house
counsel for several insurance companies, he moved to Houston in 1986 where
he began working for Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. He was admitted
to the Texas Bar in 1992."
"'Though I come into this office with a cloud over my head, you will
find me the hardest working judge the Court of Criminal Appeals has ever
seen,' he said in a short speech after taking the oath. 'I will be the
first here in the morning and the last to leave at night. In six years,
you will see what a good judge I can be.' Judge Mansfield won,
_amid_some_controversy_, against incumbent Charles Campbell."
-- 58 Tex.B.J. 138,139. (emphasis supplied)
(During the campaign, he had claimed to have been a member of the
Texas Bar since 1986 or perhaps earlier, and said that he had extensive
experience in criminal trial law. I remember that much. I can't vouch
for the rest of the allegations made by Stuart Derby, but I heard stories
similar to what he wrote. It was pretty clear to informed voters that
candidate Mansfield had problems with the truth. Whether he lied or is
simply out of touch with reality is a good question, because when he was
confronted with the variances in his record during the campaign, he
admitted he had misrepresented his background, and then manufactured more
fictional qualifications in practically the next sentence. Perhaps he is
doing the same thing in his acceptance speech.)
>Last year, the Oregon court suspended a judge for various misconduct, in
>abusive comments from the bench. He was defeated in a recall election l
>week.
"But that's different." :-) He hasn't done anything bad as a judge
yet -- he hasn't done anything at all.
--
Eric Weir eric...@bga.com Austin, Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every time I got a dozen eggs, I sold them for a dollar."
--- WinQwk 2.0b#1298
Lori Fox
: Since I'm not a lawyer and don't have a job in the legal field (yet),
: and I've never had the opportunity to deal w/ him in the legal/school
: settings, I was wondering if anyone knew how I should address him?
: Judge? Mr? Dr (I don't know if he has a JD or not)? Hey you? What???
Judge is always acceptable (and allow him to tell you if he'd prefer
something else). I have only once met a lawyer who wants to be called
"Dr." on the basis of his law degree, and he was a pretentious twit.
*Don't* do it unless you're *really* big on brown-nosing.
LEF
Dick King
|> between fair, good and brilliant rulings?
|>
I don't have a specific example [they would be rare because you usually only
get one ruling per case unless you have an overruling in which case the
conclusions of the two rulings differed]. However, IMHO the distinction is
that brilliant rulings can be better than fair but correct rulings by
explaining the reasoning better and setting the boundaries more crisply.
-dk
David Dyer-Bennet
All probably true. As a follow-on, more to the original message (which I did
not see other than in the quote) than the reply, consider the rate of
reversals of various lower courts (although the re-argument may be relevant in
addition to the different judge) and the number of non-unanimous decisions by
multi-judge panels (particularly the Supreme Courts of various states and the
US). Apparently different judges sitting listening to the same arguments *do*
often reach different conclusions (though of course the cases reaching the top
courts must generally be the more difficult cases).
--
David Dyer-Bennet Network Systems Corporation
d...@network.com Brooklyn Park, MN +1-612-391-1353
d...@terrabit.mn.org My postings represent at most my own opinions.
Web URL: http://www.mtn.org/~ddb (SF, photography)
Stuart P. Derby
:In <3h0nc0$r...@panix.com>, drei...@oregon.uoregon.edu (daniel r. reitman,
:attorney to be) writes:
:
:: sde...@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Stuart P. Derby) writes:
::: Texas elects its judges, and has a Supreme Court for civil matters
:::and a Texas Criminal Court (or somesuch name) as the final court of
:::authority on criminal matters.
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
::: In the Republican landslide, a highly questionable candidate gained a
:::on the Texas Criminal Court. He had spent only a few thousand dollars o
:::campaign, had no one's endorsement, not even the Republican party's, li
:::as to his place of birth, lied as to the extent of his criminal legal
:::experience, etc. etc. He had no judicial experience whatsoever. He has
:::a misdemeanor marijuana conviction and was once charged with unlicensed
:::practice of law in Florida. And according to his ex-girlfriends, he lie
:::in personal ads too.
::
::If this is true, I wonder what the disciplinary committee is doing right
:
: Nothing, I believe. He apparently met the minimum requirements for
:running for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and he got elected, so
:what are we to do?
The man in question is Steve Mansfield. I had based my previous remarks
upon recollection of a _Houston Press_ article from somewhat after the
November elections. I haven't laid hands on that article, but the in
_Houston Press_ voter's guide issue, Nov.3-9, 1994 (Vol 6.,no.44), they wrote:
_Texas Lawyer_ labeled Court of Criminal Appeals hopeful Steve
Mansfield a "stealth" candidate for distorting his legal experience,
failing to disclose his previous congressional races in New Hampshire,
and claiming a long legal history in Texas when in fact he was licensed
to practice law in Houston just two years ago. Mansfield ... also
inflated his courtroom experience from a record of a few appearances in
municipal courts to handling a hundred misdemeanor and criminal cases.
They also repeated that he misrepresented his state of birth.
There was some talk that the Attorney General was going to see if
Mansfield met the statutory requirement of 10 years "practice" of law,
and whether that required membership in a state Bar Association for that
length of time.
: The latest issue of the Texas Bar Journal has a little article about
:the new judges being sworn in, excerpt follows:
:
: "'I was probably the most surprised person in Texas when I found out
:at midnight on Nov. 8 that I was elected to the court', said Judge
:Mansfield, who graduated from Boston University law School in 1977 and
:passed the Massachusetts bar exam in 1978. After working as in-house
:counsel for several insurance companies, he moved to Houston in 1986 where
:he began working for Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. He was admitted
:to the Texas Bar in 1992."
[trim]
Since taking his seat, Mansfield made the news when someone complained
about his practice of keeping his two dogs in his car during the day.
The (SPCA?) investigator decided that conditions for the animals were
legally adequate.
-Stu
Pat Mizell
> "Dr." on the basis of his law degree, and he was a pretentious twit.
> *Don't* do it unless you're *really* big on brown-nosing.
>
> LEF
>
>
>>>>
lawyer calls himself "doctor" with only a J.D., he's a clown, plain and simple.
Pat Mizell
cl...@sccsi.com
Bozo the c
Nominating Committee, the Governors Council and the Governor (this is the
way a judge is selected in Massachusetts), I guess I know the answer? I
hope the newly elected judge uses his prior experience as and Insurance
Company Atty. to best results in Criminal court.!