Perfect example! 
Not to nitpick, but just because you and your ex-husband agreed to divorce terms doesn’t mean that all is left is a monkey rubber stamp. In almost all cases, the judge will be more than happy to give his/her blessing to your settlement, but it still needs to be reviewed to see if it complies with the law, does what’s best for the children, etc.
In your case, it certainly did, but if two other people come into court with an agreement that the kids will do farm labor for 15 hours a day to pay for their own support, it is the duty of the judge to overrule that agreement and apply the law.
Well it’s simple dominance behavior. Whether you’re being brainwashed by the minions of El Maximum Leader so you will accept his right to absolute power, or whether you are recognizing the goodness and wonderfulness of a simple man of faith who leads his followers to heavenliness, the techniques are exactly the same. In the case of judges, you want the individuals to behave with decorum and to accept the right of the judge to make the judgement, insofar as is possible. So he sits at a higher level than anyone else, people stand when he enters the room, he wears a solemn black robe, etc. Just monkey brain stuff, basically.
Absolutely. And yet…if we hadn’t gotten married and just had our daughter out of wedlock, there’d be no such oversight unless someone had cause to think there was abuse going on and reported it.
Right but that’s irrelevant, a judge has responsibility to enforce the law when something comes before them, not to investigate every house in which unmarried couples with children cohabitate.
Is the Judge a King? No. An Admiral? Almost literally yes. Except occasionally by seeming accident, the courts you attend are governed not at all by common law or so-called natural law. They are, and have long since been, entirely governed by a veiled form of Admiralty Law. But that’s a big and convoluted topic! Anyway, when an officer comes into the room, the soldiers have to stand at attention or else they are shot. Same with you. Suck it up slave.
Most of our courts are illegal under not only the constitution but under common law. For instance, all those traffic cases you attended? Who paid the judge? Wellllll…it was the plaintiff that paid the judge. The plaintiff (the state) pays the judge!!! Man, when I go after somebody in court, I would LOVE to be able to be the one paying the judge! See how incredibly f’d up this is? …but don’t get me started…
No they aren’t. They are governed by Statutory Law.
At the Straight Dope, we like to give arguments for our positions, because we know that if we don’t, we have not given anyone a reason to take our position seriously.
Hmmm… I think I’ve caught a whiff of the hoary stench of this particular delusion.
Yes, it is that stupid.
But it’s not etiquette if the judge has the power to compel you. Nor is it respect. The closest term I can thikn of for being compelled to do something that is not actually necessary is “dogma.”
I think in LA the bailiffs always do that, without the judge even asking.
In courtrooms that handle large volumes of misdemeanors, you get a lot of clueless people who have no regard whatsoever for the process going on. It probably would happen on the second time, but I don’t think anyone would hold it against the judge. He says it the first time so that no one complains when they’re hauled off.
Also, I don’t think they would actually book anyone. They’d just take them to the place were the defendants in custody wait and let them squirm.
Well, in England, the supreme court until recently was the House of Lords, except for certain matters under the jurisdiction of the Privy Council. I don’t know much about their courts system but I do know that judges are given the title of “Lord” on appointment, and I imagine that historically all judges were of nobility/peerage. The Privy Council is actually the body of the Queen’s advisors, and its judicial role is secondary – I assume this roots from some point in history when the King himself decided ultimate appeals (and heard them in council).
Perhaps an English member can chime in. Or not, it’s not really important. I only mention this because it seems the “all rise” practice may have something to do with English judges being Lords, as American law is largely based on English law.
chuckle
@ Recliner: Reading OP makes me wonder if you’re a practitioner of “gonzo-style journalism.”
I once wasted an afternoon at a mandatory traffic court appearance and ended up paying a fine of about $200. I was only “slightly” guilty – details don’t matter but I’d chatted with the public defender and she’d agreed that the D.A. would probably drop or reduce the charge. But the D.A. had not condescended to send a representative to watch us peons pay homage to the Judge and any discussion with the D.A. would have required me to waste at least one more afternoon. $200 was more than a day’s wages for me at the time, but, despite my relative lack of guilt, I just paid it to avoid frustration.
I’ve had a few other incidents that are less-than-flattering to the American justice system, traffic or otherwise. Oakland traffic court once refused to accept payment for a ticket and, instead, eventually jailed me for that. (The real offense, I think, was having long hair.) And these incidents despite that my life has been unusually tame and boring! I’ve sympathy for those who must stand up for Hizzoner, e.g. my righteous friend who committed self-defence and was forced(*) to plead guilty to assault.
(* - Plead guilty, go free. Plead not guilty, stay in jail. Makes sense?)
Personally, I have a problem with the fact that a judge can jail anyone on the spot for “contempt”, which strikes me as unconstitutionally vague.