Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
I thought I explained, albeit perhaps not persuasively, in the rest of myh post. I take it you didn't like it?
You apprenetly assume a different result is an inequity. You also assume the only distinction between cases is a different judge. This is a faulty assumption, as each case is highly unique. When you use the term inequity do you mean in an absolute sense or in a legal sense within our system?
|
Neither one of you are admitting what you both believe to be true.
We have some lousy judges that carry over into the miscarriage aspect. There are variations of facts, and lots of reasons for differences, i.e., racial application, wealth of participants, but sometimes, we have underqualified judges.
We have a judge originally endorsed by our local paper, who was elected solely on the basis of her gender, who had NEVER practiced as a lawyer or litigant, yet she became a judge of general jurisdiction for criminal and civil cases. She is atrocious, perhaps not because she's inherently a bad person, just lacks the experience to be a good judge.
We have statistics that show our voters will vote for a fictitious female over a popular sitting male judge.
We have many lousy judges, but the bad ones unfairly taint the good ones.