If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Maybe we should eliminate the middleman and just let wealthy people rent judges directly. It works with hookers and clowns   (nytimes.com) divider line 31
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4627 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2014 at 5:16 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-01 05:12:35 PM  
MONEY IS SPEECH!
 
2014-03-01 05:18:22 PM  
What about clown hookers?
 
2014-03-01 05:20:33 PM  
It already happens all the time. Look at the terms on your credit card for "binding arbitration." This would just be an extension of that.
 
2014-03-01 05:21:07 PM  
Rent?  If I pay off a judge, he better stay paid off!
 
2014-03-01 05:22:58 PM  

"I am the Law!"


multiverse-magazine.com

 
2014-03-01 05:23:19 PM  
FTA: litigants using their resources to close court systems that taxpayers support
Also in FTA: pay $12,000 in filing fees and $6,000 a day thereafter

One of those can't be true.
 
2014-03-01 05:24:29 PM  

Ker_Thwap: Rent?  If I pay off a judge, he better stay paid off!


Not if someone outbids you.

/I predict a 5-4 USSC ruling in favor of the ultra-wealthy
//stick a fork in us, we're done
 
2014-03-01 05:31:37 PM  
Why not? The legislative and executive branches are already openly for sale to the highest bidders. We don't even pretend anymore that they can't be bought. Why not dispel the illusion and openly auction the courts as well?
 
2014-03-01 05:39:02 PM  
The rulings would only be binding in Delaware anyway. There's no way a judge in any other state would recognize such a ruling; it'd be illegal as hell. And there's no way that would pass constitutional mustard at the federal level.
 
2014-03-01 05:39:55 PM  
Apparently, History is no longer taught to lawyers, judges, or the wealthy.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-03-01 05:43:12 PM  
Something happened around 2001. In a nutshell, there was a decision that wealth is a virtue, and we should reward virtue, so the richer you are, the more you get. This is by no means new, but it has accelerated terribly since then.

This "law" of Delaware's reminds me of the "laws" South Dakota passed for credit card companies and interest rates. I'm guessing Delaware wants to attract the headquarters of every major corporation by making it easy for them to buy justice by the ton, and they're hoping that, like South Dakota, they can be an island of very illegal profitability.

Nevada must look at stories like this and pine for the old days of their own islandship.
 
2014-03-01 05:45:34 PM  
The state has long been a magnet for corporate litigation because of its welcoming tax structures and the court's business expertise. Yet the State Legislature became concerned that Delaware was losing its "pre-eminence" in corporate litigation to a growing market in private dispute resolution.

Because that's what's important when you're a court: your profit margin.
 
2014-03-01 05:47:05 PM  

iheartscotch: The rulings would only be binding in Delaware anyway. There's no way a judge in any other state would recognize such a ruling; it'd be illegal as hell. And there's no way that would pass constitutional mustard at the federal level.


img.fark.net

Feds pass the ketchup and pickles.
And notsureifserious.jpg
 
2014-03-01 05:50:16 PM  
It's just arbitration, nothing new. Both parties have to agree to it.
 
2014-03-01 05:51:56 PM  

iheartscotch: The rulings would only be binding in Delaware anyway. There's no way a judge in any other state would recognize such a ruling; it'd be illegal as hell. And there's no way that would pass constitutional mustard at the federal level.


Why would it be illegal, it's just binding arbitration - happens all the time.
 
2014-03-01 05:56:35 PM  
Money can buy justice? Since when?
 
2014-03-01 05:58:09 PM  

Kibbler: Something happened around 2001. In a nutshell, there was a decision that wealth is a virtue, and we should reward virtue, so the richer you are, the more you get. This is by no means new, but it has accelerated terribly since then.

This "law" of Delaware's reminds me of the "laws" South Dakota passed for credit card companies and interest rates. I'm guessing Delaware wants to attract the headquarters of every major corporation by making it easy for them to buy justice by the ton, and they're hoping that, like South Dakota, they can be an island of very illegal profitability.

Nevada must look at stories like this and pine for the old days of their own islandship.


The bolded headline shows how colossally ignorant you are of history.
 
2014-03-01 05:59:15 PM  

rkiller1: iheartscotch: The rulings would only be binding in Delaware anyway. There's no way a judge in any other state would recognize such a ruling; it'd be illegal as hell. And there's no way that would pass constitutional mustard at the federal level.



Feds pass the ketchup and pickles.
And notsureifserious.jpg


Damned auto correct!

With a few notable exceptions, you can't be tried in absentia; that's why you have to be extradited to the state where you allegedly committed the crime. It's in the 6th amendment.

In essence, a lawyer in California can't take you to court in California if you live in Nebraska(unless it's a federal court). The Nebraska court, except in very specific cases, won't recognize the California court's ruling. The California lawyer would have to take you to court in Nebraska, or get Nebraska to extradite you to California.
 
2014-03-01 06:01:53 PM  
Article is demanding a log in. Can someone post it to the thread for those of us who don't have a NY Times account. (What happened to Fark's "no log in" rule for links?)
 
2014-03-01 06:10:04 PM  

rkiller1: iheartscotch: The rulings would only be binding in Delaware anyway. There's no way a judge in any other state would recognize such a ruling; it'd be illegal as hell. And there's no way that would pass constitutional mustard at the federal level.

[img.fark.net image 776x225]

Feds pass the ketchup and pickles.
And notsureifserious.jpg


I like the homonyms "tow the line" and "toe the line". I originally thought the expression referred to dragging boats through locks. ("Towing the line.") Why? Because dumb.
 
2014-03-01 06:16:24 PM  

Carousel Beast: Kibbler: Something happened around 2001. In a nutshell, there was a decision that wealth is a virtue, and we should reward virtue, so the richer you are, the more you get. This is by no means new, but it has accelerated terribly since then.

This "law" of Delaware's reminds me of the "laws" South Dakota passed for credit card companies and interest rates. I'm guessing Delaware wants to attract the headquarters of every major corporation by making it easy for them to buy justice by the ton, and they're hoping that, like South Dakota, they can be an island of very illegal profitability.

Nevada must look at stories like this and pine for the old days of their own islandship.

The bolded headline shows how colossally ignorant you are of history.


Well. I'm devastated.
 
2014-03-01 06:18:05 PM  
There is a depressingly high level of legal illiteracy in this thread.

Binding arbitration has been around for ages. Confidentiality is a good thing, because companies get to protect their trade secrets and their internal document security.This isn't Judge Dredd, this isn't Delaware going rogue, or jurisprudence run amok, this is just promoting a practice that is incredibly good for the judiciary.

Take pressure off the already strained court system, put some money in the state's coffers (taken from the people who can afford it) and let corporations resolve their disputes without a PR nightmare.
 
2014-03-01 06:27:47 PM  

yakmans_dad: rkiller1: iheartscotch: The rulings would only be binding in Delaware anyway. There's no way a judge in any other state would recognize such a ruling; it'd be illegal as hell. And there's no way that would pass constitutional mustard at the federal level.

[img.fark.net image 776x225]

Feds pass the ketchup and pickles.
And notsureifserious.jpg

I like the homonyms "tow the line" and "toe the line". I originally thought the expression referred to dragging boats through locks. ("Towing the line.") Why? Because dumb.


Me too, prolly because of this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skydln4BhDI
 
2014-03-01 06:32:10 PM  
This has nothing to do with superior courts having rented judges. They can already do that in every state during the election cycle.

This is closer to the USPS trying to compete with UPS. The Delaware courts want to bring private arbitration into their system, so they can get a taste of those tasty fees.
 
2014-03-01 08:32:18 PM  
Wait, when was there ever a middle man?
 
2014-03-01 09:10:13 PM  
I thought they already owned the Justice System.
 
2014-03-01 10:54:10 PM  

rkiller1: FTA: litigants using their resources to close court systems that taxpayers support
Also in FTA: pay $12,000 in filing fees and $6,000 a day thereafter

One of those can't be true.


Your state highway patrol is supported by tax-revenue, but also fines they collect, and fund-raising. Government agencies do, in fact, have more than one source of funding.


/more news at 11?
//Should I have, perhaps, mentioned Ric Romero??
///Slashies
 
2014-03-02 12:33:44 AM  

Reiderate: There is a depressingly high level of legal illiteracy in this thread.

Binding arbitration has been around for ages. Confidentiality is a good thing, because companies get to protect their trade secrets and their internal document security.This isn't Judge Dredd, this isn't Delaware going rogue, or jurisprudence run amok, this is just promoting a practice that is incredibly good for the judiciary.

Take pressure off the already strained court system, put some money in the state's coffers (taken from the people who can afford it) and let corporations resolve their disputes without a PR nightmare.


Finally sense prevails. Thank you. BTW Judge Judy = civil arbitration.
 
2014-03-02 12:52:18 AM  
Secret rulings in a courthouse is one hell of a slippery slope.

It can only end horribly.
 
2014-03-02 02:13:44 AM  

Carousel Beast: Kibbler: Something happened around 2001. In a nutshell, there was a decision that wealth is a virtue, and we should reward virtue, so the richer you are, the more you get. This is by no means new, but it has accelerated terribly since then.

This "law" of Delaware's reminds me of the "laws" South Dakota passed for credit card companies and interest rates. I'm guessing Delaware wants to attract the headquarters of every major corporation by making it easy for them to buy justice by the ton, and they're hoping that, like South Dakota, they can be an island of very illegal profitability.

Nevada must look at stories like this and pine for the old days of their own islandship.

The bolded headline shows how colossally ignorant you are of history.


Couldn't make it to the end of the first paragraph before commenting, could you.
 
2014-03-02 08:24:49 AM  

iheartscotch: rkiller1: iheartscotch: The rulings would only be binding in Delaware anyway. There's no way a judge in any other state would recognize such a ruling; it'd be illegal as hell. And there's no way that would pass constitutional mustard at the federal level.

Feds pass the ketchup and pickles.
And notsureifserious.jpg

Damned auto correct!

With a few notable exceptions, you can't be tried in absentia; that's why you have to be extradited to the state where you allegedly committed the crime. It's in the 6th amendment.

In essence, a lawyer in California can't take you to court in California if you live in Nebraska(unless it's a federal court). The Nebraska court, except in very specific cases, won't recognize the California court's ruling. The California lawyer would have to take you to court in Nebraska, or get Nebraska to extradite you to California.


These cases are civil disputes, and as such have nothing to do extradition.  Civil cases are tried "in absentia" all the time..we call them default judgments.

Once an arbitration is decided, a party can go to court to have the award confirmed.  At that point, it becomes the same as a civil judgment for money.  Once you have that judgment, the Full Faith and Credit Clause (and the uniform enforcement of foreign judgments acts in the various states) permits you to have it recognized in just about any state.  There's even a federal law which permits the use of their courts for doing this in interstate disputes.  It's been in place since *GASP* 1925.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report