S. Dakota is at it again:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6288938

Wow....just wow.

So now, everytime a Judge renders a decision, he can be sued by the losing party?

If I were a Judge there and they enacted that rule I'd dismiss, out of hand, any suit brought against a Judge for working his duty.

Except it sounds like a judge doesn't rule on the suit, it's a jury.

It seems like every link I've seen about this is by a person or group that opposes it.

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1004
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HCR1004enr.htm

Vote "NO" on Constitutional Amendment E
The mislabeled Judicial Accountability Initiated Law
http://www.mainstreamsouthdakota.org/amendment-e.html

If I were a judge in that state, I'd quit if that passed.

S. Dakota is at it again:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6288938


One week they do something totally insane.

Next this, this is sooo fricken awesome.

WHOOOTT!

All states should adopt this.



ps I know it won't pass.

Except it sounds like a judge doesn't rule on the suit, it's a jury.

A judge still has to preside...and a Judge involved in any suit long before there's a jury, if there ever is.

One week they do something totally insane.

Next this, this is sooo fricken awesome.

WHOOOTT!

All states should adopt this.



ps I know it won't pass.

Really Fy'yr. You're an idiot when it comes to the legal system. What's the point of an independant judiciary...if you allow Judges to be sued for rendering decisions?

What possible logic could be going through your mind to suggest this is any way shape or form a good idea?

No judge would able to make a ruling on issues. For instance, a woman files suit against the South Dakota in an attempt to get the ridiculous abortion law they have declared unconstitutional.

That judge will be sued, regardless of what he decides.

If you want to retain judges willing to rule as they believe is correct and proper, you cannot permit them to be sued for interpriting and enforcing the laws. If a Judge does something a person feels was wrong, they can appeal it. If they don't agree with the appellate court, they can appeal it yet further. The State Supreme Court (or whatever they call it in that state) cannot be wrong, on a state level, by definition. They decide what laws are and are not sound. They decide if there was judicial misconduct. They rule on the intent and scope of the laws (Unless that law contravenes Federal Law or the US Constituion, in which case the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator).

Any bets that a bunch of lawyers dreamed this up? Funny... I see judges, jurors and state officials on the list, but not lawyers... must just be an oversight, right? /boggle

I'd never agree to be a juror if I could be sued.

*double post*

Just when you thought the American legal system couldn't get more stupid. Even Aidon thinks one is ridiculous.

If it passes, all judges and jurors will refuse to serve, and the court system will grind to a massive halt, as no one can sue anyone and no criminals ever go to trial. Well, maybe that would be good for a time.

Nebraska just needs to do something retarded and you'll have the triumvate of ass backwards states. South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas

I figure all the judges would up and quit. Make it all higgledy piggledy.

Nothing special about judges.
Their sh1t still stinks, and they still masturbate to p0rn.
They are just lawyers with robes, that's all.

Their opinions can be just as wrong as yours, Aidon.
And they frequently are.

I figure all the judges would up and quit. Make it all higgledy piggledy.

That would be even better!

What possible logic could be going through your mind to suggest this is any way shape or form a good idea?

No man or woman should be unaccountable and not responsible for their actions.

No man or woman. Not even a lawyer with a robe.

If you make lawyers and judges responsible and accountable for their actions, what in the world could ever be wrong with that?

That would be awesome!

Every other profession in the US has some form of accountability for their actions, to their customers, to society, it is high time that lawyers and judges come into the real world with the rest of us.

So, someone is always going to lose so they will always be sued.

So, someone is always going to lose so they will always be sued.

So what?!

Doctors and nurses have to deal with that all the time.

They get sued all the time for treating people who are going to die(regardless of treatment) because the patient died.

If the lawyers weren't doing anything wrong, then they should not fear this kind of accountability. Which implies that they are doing sh!t wrong.

If they do their job right and competently they have nothing to worry about, do they? It is time that festering cesspool got a rinse out.

If the lawyers weren't doing anything wrong, then they should not fear this kind of accountability. Which implies that they are doing sh!t wrong.Just dealing with a lawsuit is a massive expense, even if you are innocent. And since lawsuits are so cheap to file, anyone with even a faint glimmer of hope of proving any kind of claim can, and does, file one.

What will happen in reality is that the government will be forced to provide insurance for judges, which just means more expense to the taxpayers, being distributed to a select few lucky plaintiffs.

Doctors save lives all the time.

It is expensive.

They still get sued.



Lawyers don't provide a product to society, let alone save lives, why the hell do they get a pass on accountability?

You can apply every excuse you can(apply to doctors), the good lawyers will stay in practice. And those who practice poorly will be driven out. Only good can come of that.

If the lawyers were doing a great job(and not committing malpractice) they should have nothing to fear. It is only the incompetent lawyers who should fear this accountability.

Lawyers and judges should have the same accountability as doctors do. Only the bad ones should fear accountability.

All that will happen is that the state will have to provide insurance for judges to cover them for these ridiculous lawsuits. That insurance will be paid by the state taxpayers. If they explained that to the voters then the bill would crash and burn quickly enough.

Why will the state have to pay for it?

No, the lawyers and judges will have to pay their own liability insurance. And they can pass that expense to their customers, just like everyone else who has to buy liability insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits. Or eat it, like many have to do.

Hospitals don't pay for my liability insurance, I have to. The state won't have to(they may if they wish I suppose).

Lawyers can buy their own. If they can't afford that business expense, maybe they should find a different line of work.

It is a normal business expense, why should lawyers be exempt? What a silly notion. What are they broke, can't afford to buy their own insurance, gimme a break.

No, the lawyers and judges will have to pay their own liability insurance. And they can pass that expense to their customers, just like everyone else who has to buy liability insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits.Private lawyers can already be sued; this is about suing <i>public</i> officials, including jurors, who aren't lawyers at all.

Judges and jurors have no "customers". They work for the state, and if they can be sued, they will demand insurance from the state.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up insurance for all lawyers, which is a non-issue in this thread. You can already sue your lawyer for malpractice if you like, and your lawyer can (and usually does) buy malpractice insurance, just as doctors do.

Judges and jurors have no "customers".
Ya they do, they just are not accountable to them.

They work for the state, and if they can be sued, they will demand insurance from the state.

They can hold out their hands all they like, don't mean they will get it. Employers regularly require their employees to carry their own insurance.

It does not matter that these people work for the state(does not matter who they work for),,,employers don't have to pay for liability insurance...in fact many times they require it of their employees before hiring.

Employers regularly require their employees to carry their own insurance.

Employees more often require their employers to provide them with insurance.

Judges are not the type of freelancing professionals who would carry their own insurance for short term assignments with multiple employers. In your desire to punish the practitioners of the legal system you seem to be losing sight of the likely outcome.

They can hold out their hands all they like, don't mean they will get it. Employers regularly require their employees to carry their own insurance.Judges will get it. Guaranteed. So will prosecutors. (Incidentally, all law firms provide insurance to their employees, if the firm carries it itself.)

As for jurors, it's forced labor to begin with. If you add liability to the job, no one will agree to do it.

This company provides individual liability policies for over 600,000 nurses.

http://www.nso.com/

Doctors, pharmacists, and other professionals and employees routinely carry their own insurance.

For those who work in the public sector, if the government is paying their insurance, maybe we, The People, should do something to curtail(or just change) that. Prison nurses make bank compared to hospital med-surg nurses already(that is to say, that if public sector nurses are getting the tax payers to pay their insurance, we should stop that too).

Don't expect sympathy from me. If these lawyers(judges are just lawyers) can't afford their own insurance, it is not my fault. Maybe they should sell their boats and second homes to pay for it.

And if some lawyer is going to take a case against some unemployed WalMart worker, too stupid to get out of jury duty, he deserves what he can get out of them. Jurors have no money, no one is going to sue them; and if some lawyer happens to, so be it. Since when is poverty and stupidity an excuse not to be liable and accountable for one's actions?(don't answer that, it is rhetorical).

Prison nurses make bank compared to hospital med-surg nurses alreadyMaybe because they have to work in prison?For those who work in the public sector, if the government is paying their insurance, maybe we, The People, should do something to curtail(or just change) that.Well, the government is paying nothing now, because governmental immunity makes it a moot issue. But if you go to any law firm, for example, the firm will provide insurance for all its employees. With all the special favors judges get already, I have no doubt that the government will provide insurance if this law passes. A judge is a far more prestigious position than a nurse or a run-in-the-mill lawyer; it's a political job too, as the judge must be elected or appointed.

A politician who also happens to be a lawyer, and you say that is prestigious?

You guys give way too much credit where none(or little) is due.


ust be the robes, I guess. Hides the penis pumps.

A politician who also happens to be a lawyer, and you say that is prestigious?Only a select few are chosen to be judges, and then only with outstanding credentials and many years of service (usually public service). So yes, it is prestigious, far more so than the average lawyer-politican.

Any bets that a bunch of lawyers dreamed this up? Funny... I see judges, jurors and state officials on the list, but not lawyers... must just be an oversight, right? /boggle

I'd never agree to be a juror if I could be sued.

All Judges are lawyers.

Nothing special about judges.
Their sh1t still stinks, and they still masturbate to p0rn.
They are just lawyers with robes, that's all.

Their opinions can be just as wrong as yours, Aidon.
And they frequently are.

Yes, but as a society we've agreed that we need someone to do what Judges do. Further, there is already more accountability for Judges, via the appeals process, than there is accountability for virtually any other occupation in our nation.

If you cannot see the that such a measure spells the end for any judicial system which adopts it...then you should cease commenting on all things governmental until you brush up on the basics.

No man or woman should be unaccountable and not responsible for their actions.

No man or woman. Not even a lawyer with a robe.

If you make lawyers and judges responsible and accountable for their actions, what in the world could ever be wrong with that?

That would be awesome!

Every other profession in the US has some form of accountability for their actions, to their customers, to society, it is high time that lawyers and judges come into the real world with the rest of us.

Judges are held to a high level of accountability than any other profession, you ignorant buffoon. On a state level, they can lose re-election (I don't know of a state that has lifetime appointments like the federal courts). Futher, they can be removed from the bench by their superiors for gross incompetence. Finally, even if they were not incompetant (and guess what, virtually every decision that is overturned is not indicative of judicial incompetance, but rather simply differing determination of the matter in question, where the appellate court has more authority) their decisions potentially have four opportunities to be overturned (appellate level, appellate en banc, state supreme court, and if the issue is important enough and an issue of national import, the US supreme court.).

Tell me, how much accountability will you have as a nurse? Relative to a Judge, virtually none. Your union will protect your job. You are virtually immune to malpractice suits, as attorneys don't sue nurses directly (not worth the effort) and your legal expenses would be paid by your hospital's insurer regardless. You are even safe from being fired for incompetance (at least until the resultant malpractice suit is finished).

Talk to me about judicial accountability when you can think of a single profession held more accountable than a state Judge already is.

So what?!

Doctors and nurses have to deal with that all the time.

They get sued all the time for treating people who are going to die(regardless of treatment) because the patient died.

Nurses rarely stay in a malpractice suit. They can't pay the judgement. Further, most nurses are explicitly covered by their employer's insurance.

A nurse has little to fear from malpractice.

If the lawyers weren't doing anything wrong, then they should not fear this kind of accountability. Which implies that they are doing sh!t wrong.

Lawyers can already be sued. Jesus ****ing christ on a pogo stick, the depth of your ignorance on all matters judicial astounds me. Yo're a reasonably intelligent guy...you do all sorts of research for all sorts of reasons. Are you fundamentally incapable of learning even the basic aspect of the judiciary? **** most people have learned by their Sr. year in high school.

Judges have immunity from suits for decisions they've made as a judge for the same reason they cannot be imprisoned for their judicial rulings...you cannot have an independant judiciary, which is vital for a free nation, if they must act in fear of arrest or suit by a party unhappy with their decision.

If their decision was legally incorrect...the appellate process will rectify the situation.

If they do their job right and competently they have nothing to worry about, do they? It is time that festering cesspool got a rinse out.

And just who is going to determine if they did their job "right"? Will you set up Judges for the Judges? If so who will judge the judge judges when they get sued, in turn?

Idiocy of the highest level.

Doctors save lives all the time.

It is expensive.

They still get sued.

They get sued because they committed....wait for it, malpractice!



Lawyers don't provide a product to society, let alone save lives, why the hell do they get a pass on accountability?

Lawyers can also be sued for malpractice...and frequently do. Most plaintiff's tort attorneys are normally dealing with at least malpractice suit against them, even if they win. People sue attorneys for not winning enough.

We're talking about judges though...


You can apply every excuse you can(apply to doctors), the good lawyers will stay in practice. And those who practice poorly will be driven out. Only good can come of that.

If the same could be said about Doctors, there would be less need for malpractice suits against them. A doctor in most states could perform surgery high on cocaine, commit malpractice while high, and still retain his medical license in that state if he agreed to go to rehab...Only one state has a mandatory limit on how often a Dr. can commit malpractice before his license is revoked, Florida. Every other state, a Dr. could commit malpractice time after time after time and still be licensed to work...and still find work.

If the lawyers were doing a great job(and not committing malpractice) they should have nothing to fear. It is only the incompetent lawyers who should fear this accountability.

Again, lawyers do have accountability. They get sued with regularity.

Lawyers and judges should have the same accountability as doctors do. Only the bad ones should fear accountability.

Judges are held to a higher standard of accountability than virtually any other profession. You cannot have an independant judiciary if they can be sued for rendering a decision, even if it ends up being overturned.

All Judges are lawyers.

Yes, but all lawyers aren't judges... very few in fact. My point is, who benefits from additional law suits? The only sector guaranteed to benefit is lawyers.

Why will the state have to pay for it?

No, the lawyers and judges will have to pay their own liability insurance. And they can pass that expense to their customers, just like everyone else who has to buy liability insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits. Or eat it, like many have to do.

Yet again, attorneys already pay for their own liability insurance (except state attorneys who cannot be personally sued for their actions for the state)

Hospitals don't pay for my liability insurance, I have to. The state won't have to(they may if they wish I suppose).

Then find a better union because I don't know of a hospital which doesn't have liability insurance which will also cover you for negligence caused in the scope of your employment. You may want to supplement it, yourself, but that is most likely a foolish expense as rarely do malpractice attorneys bother trying to get a nurse making 60k/year for damages. If you're brought into the suit, its basically a technicality, as any malpractice you commit is still the responsibility of your hospital.

Lawyers can buy their own. If they can't afford that business expense, maybe they should find a different line of work.

Again, they do already, you jaggoff.

It is a normal business expense, why should lawyers be exempt? What a silly notion. What are they broke, can't afford to buy their own insurance, gimme a break.

Hello, McFly. LAWYERS PAY THEIR OWN MALPRACTICE INSURANCE AND ARE SUED WITH SOME REGULARITY.

But we're talking about Judges who work for the state to provide independant judgement on matters civil and criminal.

Yes, but all lawyers aren't judges... very few in fact. My point is, who benefits from additional law suits? The only sector guaranteed to benefit is lawyers.

Both the American Bar Association and the South Daktoa Bar Association publicly stand opposed to the amendment.

So what?!

Doctors and nurses have to deal with that all the time.

They get sued all the time for treating people who are going to die(regardless of treatment) because the patient died.
I thought you didn't like analogies. At least one reason why this particular analogy doesn't work is that, unlike the legal system, there is no appeals process for death.