"not an unreasonable requirement in my view,"
Really? Sometimes, a little common sense, is worth all the Doctors of Jurisprudence put together. I would like to see more Non lawyers on oversight boards (ethical enforcement bodies of the legal community) Limiting the guards of the chicken houses to the foxes has never been such a good idea.
There are laypeople on the attorney grievance committees (and judicial grievance committees) of every jurisdiction. And there are laypeople on most judicial selection panels, too. That's a different function from what the Senate Judiciary Committee is supposed to be doing-- conducting hearing to determine the qualifications of judicial candidates in order to make a recommendation to the body as a whole, in furtherance of the constitutional advise and consent duty.
The Senate has members from all sorts of walks of life-- astronauts, comedians, physicians, you name it. They all get to vote on nominations. It is an unusual doctor or astronaut that has much knowledge about how courts or judges work. Lawyers, who are the consumers of judicial services, understand this stuff.
Of course, this is all hypothetical. The reality is that Franken, a comedian, intellectually towers over Jeff Sessions and the others, who are clowns.
There maybe a couple, I don't know about "every jurisdiction," but they are way outnumbered by the so called professionals. I do know that in Georgia the members of the Judicial Qualifications Committee don't even see the complaints made unless they somehow make the mainstream media.
I once complained about a judge "practicing law" in his own court (in violation of Georgia Statutes0 to the Judicial Qualifications Committee in Georgia. It was completely blown off by the executive director and I know for a fact the members never saw the complaint, which ultimately didn't matter anyway.
Lawyers aren't really "consumers" they are "Officers of the Court" and reap enormous financial benefits from their services. Their ultimate loyalties lie with the court which puts food on their table. to suggest anything else is just intellectually dishonest.
Abraham Lincoln was a so called "lay person" he never went to law school but learned it on his own. I believe anyone who can read and write can understand how the courts work if they can spend the time to learn it. Layers tend to forget Gideon v Wainwright (sp?) anyway that type thing would be very unlikely today because anything "pro se" is not likely to even be viewed in todays court a or by those who think so called "lay" people can't or don't understand the law or courts. It doesn't take a whole lot of smarts to recognize corruption when you see it, it so transcends all the professional expertise.
Lincoln was admitted to the bar. Actually going to law school was much
more uncommon back then, and many lawyers clerked and studied independently. (Robert H. Jackson was the last Supreme Court justice not to have graduated from any law school, ad I've met a few lawyers who have been admitted that way. It is still fairly common in Finland to practice law without law school training or passing the bar. But I digress.)
I think there is a difference between grievance committees and judicial selection panels. In the former I'd say your take is mostly correct-- a lay person is competent to recognize a violation, and I have no problem with lay participation in that context. Judicial selection is a slightly different proposition. Possessing the technical knowledge necessary to properly evaluate a judge's capability is something that takes training, and recognizing proper judicial temperament is something that takes experience. Lay people don't spend the time in court that lawyers do, and lack this experience. There are exceptional cases, of course, but this is an area of expertise that members of the bar have that the lay population does not.
Well, I must say I'm a little surprised that Finland would allow someone to practice law without passing the bar exam or some sort of demonstration of proficiency. I'm simply saying that one can know the law and become proficient without going to law school as Lincoln and apparently others did too. I think there are only two or three states where one can take the bar exam and practice "sans" law school. I think the law schools do a much better job of indoctrinating up and coming lawyers than they do creating "professionals" with courage and convictions based on an understanding of moral and ethical principles and legal principles based on a firm foundation in history and understanding of the fundamental principles espoused in our constitution and other founding documents going back to the magna carta in history or further. I guess, I just don't see the legal branch capable or willing to police themselves or enforce ethical/moral standards. The problem being as officers of the court they can't really criticize without possible forfeiting their livelihood. As a country we seem to be pretty good a destroying those whistleblowers who really are the last bastion of defense
I think maybe the thing we disagree on, if we do disagree, is the amount of deference you are willing to pay to the legal "professionals" and their so called training vs "lay" people. I guess it starts to appear to me as the tail wagging the dog. The legal branch of government needs checks and balances as much or more than any other and that has to come from the "lay people" or the citizens they purport to serve. Education is certainly necessary but, hey in a democracy it is very important also because a democracy can't function any better than the citizens who supposedly run it. I don't really see any real functioning checks and balances on the legal community. Oh sure, there is the sacrificial lamb offered up when it serves their interest but generally when you have a corrupt judge it has to become absurdly egregious and way beyond hiding before there is any punitive action. I know there maybe exceptions but I came by these opinions honestly and at great expense having learned my whole life that the pen is mightier than the sword, blah blah blah and I found it very difficult to be dispelled of all the myths and beliefs in the ultimate honesty and integrity of our judicial system.
It's not so much education that qualifies someone to recognize what a good judge should be as it is experience. Unless someone has practiced law, even a little, all the talk in the world about temperament, or discretion, or even what "following the law" means is very abstract, and more than likely subject to being misunderstood.
You seem to think that the legal system is basically corrupt, and I'd dispute that. The system mostly works, but it is necessarily far from perfect. The axiom that trial judges like to use is that parties are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one, and for the most part that's what people get.
Well, I know better, but I'm not an "officer of the Court" and can afford to call it as I see it. I'm not in a position of losing my livelihood if I criticize corruption in our judicial system. When you can't get basic, simple due process then you've got real problems. We've got kids who have been held in Guatanamo for more than seven years without receiving the most rudimentary aspects of due process much less a fair trial. You are either blind or fooling yourself. You don't have to practice law to know about the innocent people convicted of murders they didn't commit and prosecutors and judges who knew they had incarcerated an innocent man but refused to do anything about it because of nothing less than politics. Hell, here in Georgia I've watched them file court orders surreptitiously, "find" the order in the clerks file after thirty days stamp it with 30 days previous date effectively denying the victim even a right to appeal because by the time she gets the order the appeal deadline is over. The list goes on and on. To suggest that it is anything but corrupt is simply a fraud on the public and that's why I respectfully suggest that for effective checks and balances the public has to be involved in the selection of judges and the policing of judges and lawyers. Otherwise you have the fox watching the chicken house, which is a very comfortable position to be in, if you're a fox. I would start with due process before I even began to think about having "fair" trials.
PS. This case:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/0...xecution-again/
about Troy Davis pretty well depicts the ability of our trained professionals to dispense justice and/or fair trials. It would appear that the system of justice is determined to execute this man no matter what the injustice. There is every reason to believe that the man is innocent, to execute this man takes a level of "experience" that I hope I never attain. I think I'll pass on the "fair trials" and try to just remain outside our legal system of such fair trials, thanks, but no thanks.
Commenting by HaloScan
