Recourse against judges

[nobody011]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Unspecific

My question asks what recourse citizens or attorneys have against judges who knowingly make unconstitutional rulings or deny parties their rights in the legal process. At appeals, it is the ruling itself that is being challenged and not the capabilities and integrity of the judge who made it. When a ruling is overturned, the case may be resolved but the judge who's (potentially unconstitutional) ruling sent the case to appeals is still on the bench and may be continuing to misapply the law or make decisions that are biased and potentially illegal. It is one thing for legal experts to disagree on the application of an obscure and awkwardly worded law, or to dispute one another on common law. However it is much different when a judge blatantly allows evidence that, according to the letter of the law, should be inadmissible (or vice versa).

Judges are given the freedom to make many arbitrary decisions in court and are not necessarily required to justify them on the spot. At the same time, all of their decisions are still supposed to be unbiased and based solely on the laws of their territory. Now if a ruling is appealed, it doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't based solely on the law, just that it may represent an inaccurate application or interpretation of the law. At the same time, a ruling (or even just a decision regarding evidence or objections) may have been made without basis in the law and instead based upon personal beliefs of morality or social norm (which would be biased and unconstitutional). When a judge's reasoning for a decision falls outside of the law, they have defied their oath of office (by making a biased decision) and are no longer fit to serve the public.

Is there a process by which a judge's decisions can be called into question and cross examined for the purpose of determining their capacity to hold office (and not just to determine whether such decisions should be overturned)?

I am not an attorney or legal expert. However if I were, and I faced a judge who's legal decisions were made with bias or blatant disregard for the law or a person's rights, then my priorities would be set on getting them off the bench rather than just winning my case at appeals.

EDIT: It is my understanding that many states have a committee appointed by the supreme court for the purpose of hearing complaints against judges. However, the purpose of these committees, as they present themselves, are to assess the a judge's behavior (e.g. judges that are disrespectful or misuse court funds) and not the integrity of their legal decisions.

 

[quincy]

The state matters.

Check out the requirements for Massachusetts magistrates, for one example of why.

Check out judges in Michigan, for another.

 

[TheGeekess]

The state matters.

Check out the requirements for Massachusetts magistrates, for one example of why.

Check out judges in Michigan, for another.

Some states elect their judges, so they can be dismissed by an unhappy electorate.

 

[quincy]

And some judges in some states are not required to have a law degree, so it is not surprising that they do not know the law. Some judges do not even need college degrees. Some judges in some states are appointed for life by the governor and very little can be done to get them removed. Some judges in some states have even retained their judgeships when imprisoned.

And then, as TheGeekess notes, there are the sane states () where judges are required to have a law degree and are expected to know the law, and are elected to a term of x number of years, and will not be re-elected if they fail to please the electorate (or if they don't have a catchy name that the electorate can easily remember come election day).

So, the state matters, nobody011. The recourse you may have depends on your state (and on all facts).

 

[nobody011]

I am a bit irked that because I said 'unspecific', people hastily assumed that I thought the state did not matter. I know full well that laws vary, sometimes very drastically, between states. What I meant was that my question was not specific to any particular state. I am looking for information about all of them, and had hoped that responses would offer accounts for several states, possibly with some comparisons.

I also feel as though my actual question was answered unclearly. Am I to understand that aside from the threat of not being elected, nothing short of actually being convicted of a crime (and sometimes not even that) is sufficient to remove a judge from office? That seems awfully destructive to a society where a law-abiding person's livelihood can depend on a whether a judge decides to act with integrity.

 

[quincy]

I am a bit irked that because I said 'unspecific', people hastily assumed that I thought the state did not matter. I know full well that laws vary, sometimes very drastically, between states. What I meant was that my question was not specific to any particular state. I am looking for information about all of them, and had hoped that responses would offer accounts for several states, possibly with some comparisons.

I also feel as though my actual question was answered unclearly. Am I to understand that aside from the threat of not being elected, nothing short of actually being convicted of a crime (and sometimes not even that) is sufficient to remove a judge from office? That seems awfully destructive to a society where a law-abiding person's livelihood can depend on a whether a judge decides to act with integrity.

I'm sorry. You expected the volunteers on this site to tell you about all 50 states. I don't think that will happen. However, to start you off:

In Michigan, judges need to be lawyers and they are elected and, if they displease the electorate, they may not be re-elected. That is how you remove judges. And, if a judge were to commit a crime while serving, s/he can be forced (through public pressure) to resign.

Forty-nine states to go.

Good luck on your whatever quest you are on.

 

[Proserpina]

I am a bit irked that because I said 'unspecific', people hastily assumed that I thought the state did not matter. I know full well that laws vary, sometimes very drastically, between states. What I meant was that my question was not specific to any particular state. I am looking for information about all of them, and had hoped that responses would offer accounts for several states, possibly with some comparisons.

I also feel as though my actual question was answered unclearly. Am I to understand that aside from the threat of not being elected, nothing short of actually being convicted of a crime (and sometimes not even that) is sufficient to remove a judge from office? That seems awfully destructive to a society where a law-abiding person's livelihood can depend on a whether a judge decides to act with integrity.

Try researching.

I doubt anyone here is going to search every state's rules for you.

 

[nobody011]

Try researching.

I doubt anyone here is going to search every state's rules for you.

Again, I feel this is an unfair assumption about what I am asking for. That was not my expectation either. I was hoping to get an overview as a result of people simply offering what they knew, not a comprehensive list of every state's laws as a result of other people researching for me. I found this forum somewhat randomly but I was under the impression that it was frequented by attorneys from a variety of states who would each be able to offer an account of their own states' laws and possibly one or two others in which they may have practiced law in the past. Perhaps where they went to law school compared to where they're at now (if a different state)?

So far all I've been told is that judges who perform poorly can fail to be re-elected (which I already knew), and that they can only be removed if they commit a crime. This is very disheartening if it is the case that this is the only way, since judges have a far larger number of restrictions in the uses of their power.

It seems unavoidable that officials in the in the legislative or executive branches would enjoy the luxury of fearing only impeachment or losing their re-election. There are far less restrictions on the scope of their decision-making power. They are actually allowed to use their own personal beliefs about how society is to be run. Judges are not, to do so would break their oath of office to remain unbiased.

Judges on the other hand, (at least as I understood) are effectively logical analysts of written law and common law statutes, assessing them and drawing conclusions based on them in conjunction with facts presented to the court. Degree or not, they hold their position because their knowledge of law and analytical abilities are exceptional enough for the public to rely upon. They act with no bias, no prejudice, and no personal view what-so-ever. It is the judge's responsibility to assess with the highest degree of accuracy the intentions of the law-writers (while taking into account solely that language used in the actual law). Just a human mind performing functions of pure reason. If I am mistaken on this, please correct me.

 

[TheGeekess]

Again, I feel this is an unfair assumption about what I am asking for. That was not my expectation either. I was hoping to get an overview as a result of people simply offering what they knew, not a comprehensive list of every state's laws as a result of other people researching for me. I found this forum somewhat randomly but I was under the impression that it was frequented by attorneys from a variety of states who would each be able to offer an account of their own states' laws and possibly one or two others in which they may have practiced law in the past. Perhaps where they went to law school compared to where they're at now (if a different state)?

So far all I've been told is that judges who perform poorly can fail to be re-elected (which I already knew), and that they can only be removed if they commit a crime. This is very disheartening if it is the case that this is the only way, since judges have a far larger number of restrictions in the uses of their power.

It seems unavoidable that officials in the in the legislative or executive branches would enjoy the luxury of fearing only impeachment or losing their re-election. There are far less restrictions on the scope of their decision-making power. They are actually allowed to use their own personal beliefs about how society is to be run. Judges are not, to do so would break their oath of office to remain unbiased.

Judges on the other hand, (at least as I understood) are effectively logical analysts of written law and common law statutes, assessing them and drawing conclusions based on them in conjunction with facts presented to the court. Degree or not, they hold their position because their knowledge of law and analytical abilities are exceptional enough for the public to rely upon. They act with no bias, no prejudice, and no personal view what-so-ever. It is the judge's responsibility to assess with the highest degree of accuracy the intentions of the law-writers (while taking into account solely that language used in the actual law). Just a human mind performing functions of pure reason. If I am mistaken on this, please correct me.

From the TOS:

The FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues. FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting on the Forums or the identity or qualifications of any person asking questions or responding on the Forums.

 

[nobody011]

From the TOS:

This is getting somewhat annoying. I apologize for not reading the TOS in full detail, but I don't think that makes my question any less reasonable. It seems like people here are more concerned with criticizing me for asking questions than answering them. All I was looking for was responses from a variety of people based on what they knew. I thought there might be some professionals here but even if there aren't, there may still be some informed individuals. Instead, I seem to be getting flamed for viciously demanding that the people on this forum research the law in every state for me when that is not at all what I said or did and then chastised when I reveal that I had hoped to get (at least some) professional answers. Lay answers are acceptable as well (I didn't think everyone here was a lawyer either). Just offer what you know based on your current knowledge. All information is appreciated regardless of what state it applies to or how detailed it is.

 

[CdwJava]

Regardless of what you - or I - might want a judge to be, and how we might want he or she to behave, judges possess a great deal of immunity. The means by which a judge might be sanctioned depends on the law of the particular state, the level of court at which the judge might sit, the allegation against him, etc.

There is no star chamber panel that oversees judges. A judge can be prosecuted for crimes, and in some states might even be able to be removed from office for some level of malfeasance. It might also be possible that the only repercussion a misbehaving judge might face is that his ruling(s) might be overturned.

What is it you are seeking? If you simply want to discuss what the role of the judge might be and what you would LIKE to see as the ideal, then you might want to find another forum. If you wish to find out the alternatives available to challenge a judge for a specific action, the state, level of court, and nature of the allegations will be a HUGE help.

 

[ecmst12]

We don't do homework and we don't do hypothetical situations. If you have a REAL situation in an ACTUAL state, you can tell us about it and get some advice.

 

[TheGeekess]

This is getting somewhat annoying. I apologize for not reading the TOS in full detail, but I don't think that makes my question any less reasonable. It seems like people here are more concerned with criticizing me for asking questions than answering them. All I was looking for was responses from a variety of people based on what they knew. I thought there might be some professionals here but even if there aren't, there may still be some informed individuals. Instead, I seem to be getting flamed for viciously demanding that the people on this forum research the law in every state for me when that is not at all what I said or did and then chastised when I reveal that I had hoped to get (at least some) professional answers. Lay answers are acceptable as well (I didn't think everyone here was a lawyer either). Just offer what you know based on your current knowledge. All information is appreciated regardless of what state it applies to or how detailed it is.

Alrighty then.

 

[Ohiogal]

And some judges in some states are not required to have a law degree, so it is not surprising that they do not know the law. Some judges do not even need college degrees. Some judges in some states are appointed for life by the governor and very little can be done to get them removed. Some judges in some states have even retained their judgeships when imprisoned.

And then, as TheGeekess notes, there are the sane states () where judges are required to have a law degree and are expected to know the law, and are elected to a term of x number of years, and will not be re-elected if they fail to please the electorate (or if they don't have a catchy name that the electorate can easily remember come election day).

So, the state matters, nobody011. The recourse you may have depends on your state (and on all facts).

I disagree that the sane states are the ones who elect judges for a specified term. That way if the judges do not please the electorate they can be kicked out. Pleasing the electorate has very little to do with applying the law correctly. Those two things are not directly in correlation. Judges can be elected for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with whether they properly apply the law.

 

[Eekamouse]

Really? All information is appreciated? I don't think so. Every time you reply, it's to be rude and complain that you're not hearing what you want to hear. You're not happy with your judge? Boo hoo. I imagine he/she wasn't particularly happy with you either.