I guess that the question for the OP is whether he himself would be willing to live in his fantasy world where people can defy the courts at will? That would be a world entirely of sovereign citizens, deferring to and obeying no higher authority except when it suits their purposes.
Remember that according to you every person is entitled to this behavior, so it is not isolated, it’s the way the total world works every day. They get to do it to you as much as anybody else. If judges aren’t special, you certainly aren’t. Would you really want to live there?
I get the “we’re all equal” bit and that’s part of my own problems with authority figures, but society doesn’t work unless we have leaders and social rules for how to get along.
Otherwise it is pure darwinian survival of the fittest (or in humans, most dangerously sociopathic) and no organized society can exist. Certainly we would not rise to the level of a modern, technological society under such rules.
Also there’s an entire “Ok, so how come you get to be as much of an asshole as you want to the judge, but they can’t hurt your feelings?” bit of complete bullshit in there that the OP should reconsider.
Alas, the SovCit types among many illusions of folly hold that which says they are going to **be **the “fittest” who will not just survive but rule in that world.
There’s a bit of a difference between hurting your feelings and having you incarcerated, wouldn’t you say? How about we just let the judge be an asshole back, as long as he doesn’t also incarcerate or fine you?
Personally, I think that this contempt of court thing is horrifying in its very concept. I should be able to have contempt for the court. What I should not be able to do is actually disturb the proceedings; interrupting, wasting the court’s time, that sort of thing. So these sovcits that spew nonsense and delay, interrupt, and waste time and just try to gum up the works? Sure, punish them for ‘disruption of the smooth operations the court’.
But a girl flipping off the judge because she’s pissed at him, an action which is rude but completely understandable and did not interrupt, disturb the proceedings, or waste time being punished with incarceration? :eek: That is tyrannical and horrifying, made all the worse by the fact that it’s completely accepted and defended by the laws and a lot of otherwise reasonable people; it’s not someone overstepping their bounds or doing something against the rules. Sure, he didn’t go ‘off with her head!’ but it’s on the same damn spectrum, and it’s a response to…a rude gesture and expression, as she’s leaving? That is some serious Judge Dredd level shit right there.
To use a very appropriate quote: I have nothing but contempt for that court.
I’d like you to experience a week or a month on that bench, trying to keep control and keep the processes flowing while shithead losers think they can do whatever they like and be the biggest assholes they can because “I have rights!”
I bet you’d be screaming at people by the end of the first week.
And probably scream “but this is different!” if your hypocrisy was pointed out.
Oh yes, and while it may be the Trumpian Ethos to hold bits of government in contempt and declare this gives you the right to demand changes to it or eliminate it, but it hardly makes you actually qualified to do so.
Exactly this. I wonder if Mnemnosyne has spent any time around criminal proceedings, especially when a dozen defendants escorted in by the sheriffs deputies need to be arraigned before lunch.
A judge needs to have control over the court proceedings or the system breaks down. Do judges sometimes abuse that authority? Of course. But that’s why we have systems in place to review those actions, and to correct them when needed.
I asked an attorney once if I should get a suit and tie to prosecute my own cases … he said “Nah, you’re a carpenter, dress tidy but don’t worry about it, the judges in these types of cases want to move as quickly as possible and won’t hassle you about it.” … the only times I’ve had judges go off on me is when I say stupid shit …
The very example in the video that I’m referring to, the reason the judge imposed punishment on her was not anything that delayed or otherwise interrupted the proceedings or made things slower. Indeed, it was the judge’s capricious, arbitrary, and tyrannical behavior that slowed things down, by calling her back because he felt offended enough to have her incarcerated for a rude gesture that in no way slowed down or delayed or interrupted things. He caused a delay by calling her back and doing that; she did nothing but express herself rudely, while leaving.
Sure, I may not like it if I’m a judge and people are constantly flipping me off or telling me to go shove a rusty cactus up my ass, but there’s no amount of insults that ever justify imprisoning someone, no matter how pissed off or offended I feel at the assholes and their asshole behavior. If their behavior is actually interfering with the process of the court? Okay, then I see a need to do something about it, and there should be the ability to sentence them for disrupting the smooth operation of the court. I have no problem whatsoever with dealing with people who are actually disrupting the functionality of the court, because the court does damn well need to be able to function smoothly.
But that judge did not sentence that girl for being uncooperative or being difficult or making things take longer than they should have with her attitude. She was leaving after he was done, and he called her back, solely to punish her for having flipped him off and said something rude. And unless that action was reviewed and corrected, then those ‘systems’ we have in place need to be improved, because a petty tyrant shouldn’t be able to throw you in jail for thirty days for making a rude gesture, no matter where it is or who he is. This is the kind of shit we expect from North Korea or something - ‘well of course you got thrown in jail, you insulted the dear leader!’ - not the kind of shit that we should expect from a system ostensibly meant to provide justice.
I strongly disagree with you. Show profane disrespect for the court, spend a few days in jail. Pretty well known that’s what happens and any decent attorney would advise you of this if they thought you inclined to it. And yet, people still do it. They do it knowing what the penalty is.
Do you see a difference between that and showing disrespect for Dear Leader in North Korea, or any other dictator which may have you sentenced for insulting or otherwise disrespecting them?
If you do, what is it? I see no difference other than that the reach of the tyrant is much smaller, in the case of the court, and the punishments he can get away with less severe, but at its core, I see no difference in the spirit of the behavior.
In the case of the judge, it is actions taken to enforce a serious and adult attitude, subject to review by higher authority and designed to allow the justice system to operate efficiently. In the case of North Korea, it is so the dictator can murder tens of thousands of people to maintain his own position.
There is a difference between legitimate and illegitimate authority. It’s called “the rule of law”. You don’t have to respect the judge; you have to respect the office. That’s because the office represents the will of the people, who want authorities in place to maintain good order in our society.
The spoiled brat who flipped the judge off was high at her bail hearing. “Fuck you, I am going to do whatever I like” is not an attitude that is conducive to the way the bail system operates, or the court system in general.
The notion that there is no difference in kind between sassing a judge and questioning a mass murderer is IMO difficult to maintain.
This thread certainly shows that despite great differences in political persuasions, most of us enjoy living in a reasonably ordered society much more than we think we’d enjoy living in a considerably less ordered society.
Both videos showed examples of clear contempt and the offenders were handled appropriately, IMO.
It’s not whether the spirit of the behavior is distinguishable. It’s whether the basis for prohibiting such behavior is. Defiance in the face of executive or legislative authority is a long-protected and even celebrated activity.
Defiance in the fact of judicial authority is not. That’s because the judicial branch only makes decisions. It can’t make the rules, it can’t even really enforce them, only determine whether or not they have been broken.
If you were one of my students, and you were to use profanity to me as you exited my classroom, you’d be called back, and you’d receive a talking to, and you’d be referred to the administration for further consequences. Because in our society, gratuitously mouthing off to people in positions of authority is not tolerated. That’s a lesson someone learns early in life, usually.
Imagine, if you will, a courtroom which did not enforce discipline regarding such behavior. As I mentioned upthread, people in court aren’t at their best regarding where they are in life. Without significant consequences for such behavior, it would quickly proliferate, because, even if they don’t say it, almost everyone is thinking the same thing. So you don’t let it get started; you institute significant consequences for any example of it.
Even if one thinks the judicial system is unjust, unfair, bullshit, etc, it is advisable to keep those sort of thoughts to oneself while physically present in a courtroom. AFAICT, judges have pretty much total control over their little fiefdoms, and generally don’t appreciate or find humor in being challenged on that point.
Indeed, in a large civil suit I was a party to about 10 years back, during our first day in court my lawyer went to us - all in our suits and ties - and pointed at a door and said, “Behind that door is a jail cell. I want you to behave while you’re here or you could end up in it at the judge’s discretion. Don’t invite him to put you there.”
