If judges can be bought, does it mean justice is on sale.?
599222
Here's another thing to think about...while some judges CAN be bought, they aren't even the real problem. The philosophy for being a judge is to have no political affiliate, to be fair and impartial, to listen to the merits of each case seperately and as presented. But some judges, especially a couple of new Supreme Court Justices, do not feel the need to represent the law, leaving their political views outside their courtrooms. Worse than one crooked judge in a million, is the zealot who believes it is his or her responsibility to "fix" what he or she believes is wrong in the world - and now has the power to do that! Scary stuff.
1092914
The Judge can enforce a court order by holding you in contept of court. A crime in most states.
833152
Well you can.Ptovided someone else wants to buy it
402050
Judges is the best example I think.
954225
Indeed, very dangerous. Judges are intended to interpret the law but have been using their power to create the law. That is very bad. Impeachment or recall are the only real options for activist judges.
1124603
To be assured of court position on centre and No 1 courts are always best bought in advance. By queueing early morning there is a chance of getting a ticket for that day and seeing a match of yuor choice. Good luck.
253967
No, \n\nwas it a documented court order? \n\nIf not, realize talk at court means little to nothing, its all in the paperwork. \n\nIf so, this so-called judge is a nut-case (like most).\n\nTry Yahoo searching "outlaws legal service" (outlaw meaning someone denied equal protection under the so-called law, not criminals) You'll learn what these crooks in disguise are actually doing.
782019
Not where I live.  Judge thinks hes god here.  Good to know if any wway any one could complain.  Ill check back on you.
109512
It does appear that way. I am not sure if antitrust laws apply to mergers though. With very large mergers I do think people do question the lawfulness of the transaction. I am not too sure though.
566275
Possibly.  The main way to do so would be to file for a Motion of Summary Judgment, wherein the judge will determine whether there is even a case to pursue.
998932
Really an age old question that dates back to the Roman empire and the effects of Jesus on the western judicial system.  During the time before Christ judges were not given any latitude and were expected to apply the law without any discretion.  People were treated the same without taking into account the total circumstances.  After Christianity was introduced judges were expected to apply the law but were also expected to use their discretion.  Now a judge can have the same facts presented in two matters and decide them differently.  Both cases could be appealed and both would be affirmed as long as the matter decided was a matter within the judges discretion.  This level of flexibility can be good for the concept of fairness but works against the ideals of consistent predictable outcomes.  In recent years the application of discretion has become a problem because attorneys can no longer offer written opinions about the acceptability of courses of action and people can't predict the legal ramifications of their decisions. Courts are always balancing the stated law and the ad-hoc fairness issues.  So the answer to your question is yes; a judge could decide the same issue two different ways on the same day.  Odd isn't it-- no wonder the study of law is considered to be difficult.
109307
Hopefully none.  This does not sound like something our government should be involved in.  There are companies that will buy your judgement,
763369
Nothing is inevitable. You never know which side a Justice will come down on. I would like to believe they weigh the arguments and then place them in a context of what is allowed by the Constitution. Activist judges ruling by judicial fiat from the bench are not good for anyone, no matter which side of the political spectrum they fall on.
273638
I want to be called, so I can go in there, look the judge in the eye, and say:\n\nI know that, as a juror, I will have the power to nullify any law I consider unjust, by finding the accused not guilty even though he broke the law. \n\nCommon Law rules, as adopted by the Founding Fathers, centers around this and other similar powers, which can prevent many kinds of corruption in the legislature and judiciary.\n\nUnfortunately, judges are too corrupt already, and will reject you if you simply KNOW ABOUT the law.\n\nThis means that I will be able to do my Civic Duty, by striking a blow for justice, the Constitution, and Common Law, and yet won't actually have to get paid four cents per day to sit for some trial.\n\nMore info at:
708979
It's used when an objection is made -- basically the judge is agreeing w/the objection.
891083
it's not breaking the law.\n\nit's kind-of well understood that different types of folks visit different types of web-sites. And some people buy things from one 'vendor' because the price is 'more', - so it must be better.\n\nThat's like taxing 'idiots' - and I'm all for that. And if the company get make more money of person 'A', then the can make less money on person 'B'.\n\nWhat the market will bear, - is my motto. And besides, they're not descriminating on age, gender, race, etc.
694651
Justice is a public good in the interests of the whole of society, the costs should be borne by society as a whole until wrong-doing is proved, at which point the costs should be put to the account of the wrong-doer.  The onus must always be on the prosecution to prove wrong-doing, not on the accused to prove innocence.