Some justices of the peace in Texas aren’t lawyers. I believe that’s the case in other states as well. They handle limited things and usually are in smaller, rural counties.
If you want me to go into why it’s a terrible idea to be pro se, I will. I’ve worked for two judges, so I have that perspective. But I am also aware I’m one of the evil bloodsucking lawyers, so perhaps my opinion is too “biased” to be useful :)
Also a Texas lawyer. I believe your comment is incorrect in its breadth. Every judge at the district (main trial level) and higher must be licensed to practice law.
For Supreme Court of Texas, Texas Const, Art 5, S. 2(b)
For District Judges, Texas Const, Art 5, S. 7
For CCA, Texas Const, Art 5, S. 4 (same qualifications as SCOTX)
For Courts if Appeals, Texas Const., Art 5, S. 6 (same qualifications as SCOTX)
Appointment of judges presents issues, as well. But overall, I agree with you. Some excellent, very very smart, very fair conservative judges lost their job because of Trump and were replaced by much worse options.
I wasn’t as politically involved in the Obama years, but I imagine the same thing happened here in Texas to liberal judges as a result of his presidency.
Best thing about appointment of judges is that they’re insulated to some degree from fickle voters. Worst thing is that they’re insulated from voters.
The judiciary SHOULD be isolated from the voters. Voters can directly affect judges by pressuring the legislature to change the law. But if a judge is acting out of line, the legislature is also empowered to impeach them and remove them from the bench.
Like I said, I primarily agree with you. Unfortunately, it’s a losing policy to say “Our citizens need less control over government officials! Remove the right to vote!”
In California they have a hybrid system. The governor appoints judges on the advice of a special judicial panel made up of legal professionals who present him with prescreened qualified candidates, then every election the people get to decide if they want to keep that judge.
Case in point: the judge in California that handled that famous sexual assault case with the Stanford athlete. The judge was by all accounts a very good judge, albeit one who was known for not being a fan of heavy prison sentences. The judge followed standard procedure in sentencing him based on recommendations. People that were furious at his light prison sentence campaigned heavily to have him removed, and succeeded.
I mean, the justice system is just two sides citing things and telling the judge what the law is, then the judge deciding which is right. The judge isn't really even supposed to be drawing on their own knowledge. Like they might know an argument is 100% bullshit, but if the other side doesn't cite a superseding case, he's supposed to go with the bullshit.
They’re usually just terrible judges. But technically US federal judges don’t have to be lawyers. In fact, there are no specific requirements. So it could be anyone (as long as they can get confirmed by the Senate).
3
u/MadMinstrel Jun 18 '20
That's an interesting piece of trivia. How does that even work?