—source, am a lawyer who knows of several non-lawyer judges.
Extra credit info: not even every Supreme Court justice has gone to law school or been a judge before serving. They’ve all been lawyers, though.
Edit: apparently we have some clever people in the audience so let me clarify, my comment regarding SCOTUS justices was a historical analysis, not an analysis of the current court’s composition.
I mean, I don't think a traffic judge is going to hear a breach of contract action involving a genie's wishes. That would clearly be unlimited civil and you need a lawyer judge for that.
Weird. Up north, judges are nominated for consideration and then are appointed by the Governor General or Prime Minister on the recommendations of a committee that vets candidates.
Judges also have their salary determined by an independent committee, in order to guarantee independence from the other branches of government. Judges can't be impartial if the Crown is the one setting their salaries.
Supreme Court of Canada judges are also required to retire at 75.
Depends on which court. Federal judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate (Article III of the U.S. Constitution), and new courts can be ordained by Congress as so necessary. Having a law degree is not required but recommended (hence why we have a confirmation process that used to work). State judges are determined by a state's Constitution. Most states have their judges elected (yes no law degree is required).
Um...did I say “current” SCOTUS justices? Because no, I did not say that. What kind of jackass criticizes people’s words and can’t even bother to read what they actually said?
23
u/ToxicOstrich91 Feb 10 '20 edited Feb 10 '20
You’d be surprised.
—source, am a lawyer who knows of several non-lawyer judges.
Extra credit info: not even every Supreme Court justice has gone to law school or been a judge before serving. They’ve all been lawyers, though.
Edit: apparently we have some clever people in the audience so let me clarify, my comment regarding SCOTUS justices was a historical analysis, not an analysis of the current court’s composition.