why don't judges in La. rule by the law?
966476
First, remember that just because a state follows Community Property laws doesn't mean that all property is automatically CP. If the income derives solely from a separate property asset, it generally remains separate property. Each CP state has different rules for modifying this, but the basic premise remains.\n\nAlso remember that Louisiana is a civil law, rather than common law, jurisdiction. That means that each judge is free to interpret the statutory laws as they wish, and that prior judicial rulings do not have the same binding effect that they do in common law states. Thus, unless the legislative statute specifically determines what happens in a particular situation, the outcome is less certain than it would be in other states.\n\nThere are not enough facts to answer your question fully. If the working spouse owns the business, and owned the business before getting married, then the business may be considered a separate property asset, and thus any proceeds are separate property. Or the working spouse may be entitled to specific assets because of a pre-nup agreement. Or because of debt allocation. Or for dozen other reasons, all dependent on facts not listed.\n\nThe bottom line is that the judge probably is ruling according to what the law (the legislative statutes) say, but either the statutes don't cover this particular case, or the facts lead to a situation that may not make sense at first glance, because of the way the law is written. But if the judge isn't following the law, that's grounds for appeal.
590793
Courts are not punished. There are times when their decisions are overturned. Sometimes a judge will be punished for breaking the law outside of their courtroom, but their decisions in the courtroom are not grounds for punishment. The term for this is Judicial immunity.
270575
Judges typically are there to ensure that all rules of the court are followed – most importantly, the Rules of Evidence.  Judges can rule on whether certain evidences are admissible (to be presented to the jury), as well as ruling on any motions either side would make.  Judges would also answer any questions from the jurors when they are deliberating.  If a defendant chooses to have a “bench” trial, the judge also serves as the jury (fact finder) as well.  The judge would also give sentences to convicted defendants according to the rules.
910026
Because liberals never want the people to have their way, that is why we have roe vs. wade and other bad cases.  They want judges to decide for us.  Good luck with that in Taxachusetts.
502468
Why not, it's no better than the Bill Of Rights unless you are before a judge on the take then and only then do you get the full protection of the law.
203050
This is what happend in the United States when an activist Supreme Court treats the Constitution as a "Living Document".\n\nSeveral democrats have been recently quoted as having concerns about Judicial nominees because the courts can "make laws".\n\nThis is not true.  Judges "interpret" law.  \n\nLiberal activist judges "interpret" law like Clinton "interprets" fidelity and integrity.\n\nCongress "makes" law.  Citizens "make" case law.
658374
The vast majority of judges were lawyers before they became judges.\n\nThey had to prove themselves for years in a court room as a lawyer before they were appointed or elected as a judge.\n\nOnce a judge they don't have to do as much leg work and research as the lawyers that come into their court. But they must know and understand all aspects of the law, they have to be fair (even if they don't like the defendent or the lawyers) and they have to read tons of legal paperwork.\n\nBeing a judge is hard work that may appear easy to most of us, but we have to remember that the judge had to really prove themselves with years of hard work before they became a judge.
358285
Get your law degree, then pass the bar exam. Then get some experience in practice.\n\nAfter that, it depends on which type of judge you're talking about.\n\nFederal judges are appointed by the President (see US Constitution, Article 2 Section 2 and Article 3 Section 1).\n\nState judges may be appointed by the governor, or by the legislature, or may be voted in by the public. It varies by state. Also, temporary judges (like for small claims or municipal courts) may sometimes be appointed.\n\nCheck your local listings.
578845
I BELIEVE IN ALMOST ALL COUNTIRES THE JUDGES ARE MANIPULATED BY THE POLITICIANS. ITS ALL A SCAM, THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD ABANDON THE LAWS THIS IS WHAT KEEPS SOME OF US IN LINE.
629555
people in LA wouldn't want to show up....just another person to them. \nwhereas, small town america....it is their moment of glory.
64298
Judges do that all the time.  I am not saying that they are perfect.  They normally make decisions based on the law that exist at the time.\n\nAs long as the majority of the Supreme Court is able to be unbias, then I am happy.
243451
Judicial activism implies that judges who do not like the laws created by Congress will fashion new laws through their published opinions (which is an impermissible usurpation of Congress's law-making power so long as the laws they overturn are not in violation of the Constitution).  The most aggressive judicial activists will not even heed the rules and policies set down by the higher courts in other cases.
27887
They don't, unless you believe what you see on T.V.  I have been an attorney for 12 years and was a paralegal for 3 years before that.  In my entire career, I have NEVER seen a real judge bang a gavel.
413670
A magistrate is simlilar to a judge but has a narrower range of functions.  A magistrate probably has immunity from suit but I would think he can be removed from a case for the same grounds that a judge can be removed from a case (e.g. bias).
1130898
Great question. Remember the judge that gave the guy probation after raping a 9 yr old girl saying he was of small stature and would not survive in prison. I think the judges in this country are not following the law. They are following their own value system. A good example is the 9th circuit court of appeals.
504914
some argue it is unconstitutional to implement mandatory sentencing because it does not allow for alternative sentencing to compliment the different situations. plus, it limits the judges (who are experienced and well-trained) the discretion to form judgment on the most suited punsihment.
499109
You cannot sue a judge just because you disagree with his rulings.  IF a judge truly is biased, then attorneys have avenues of getting that judge removed from the case, but not by sueing them.  You sue someone for money you have lost (or things along those lines).\n\nChances are, the judge is NOT biased, just that you see the situation differently than him.