Your Honor, Schmonner

You know how when you go to court and the bailif comes out and says, "All rise the honorable ____ presiding?"


Well, what if I don't want to rise? I mean why should I? Out of respect? What if he/she hasn't earned my respect? Is this contempt? If so, can I be jailed because I did not rise for another human being when he entered the room? Can I take this to the supreme court?


And what's to say it should stop here? What if they wanted me to genuflect every time a judge walked into the room, would I HAVE to? Just curious.

Yep, you'll go to jail. Yes judges are often pompous. Many don't earn respect and must get it from the trappings of their office. The Supreme Court won't listen to you. You would only get a little jail probably though. Focus on the real injustices done in the courts rather than the petty ego garbage that goes on. There's plenty to really worry about.


FWIW, I would like to see a judge refuse to wear the robe. In some states it's required. But mostly it's a ridiculous tradition started in a monarchy. We should can that tradition. If I run for judge someday, I'll be hitting you up for a campaign contribution because I just might refuse the costume.

that would make me all the more eager to refuse to rise. what is the legal precedence here, HDPM? exactly what law says i have to rise, and has it ever been challenged?

I only know of one young lawyer who "challenged" it. He didn't think through his action completely. He went to jail briefly I think. It is within the court's contempt power. They can make you take your baseball cap off. They can make you stand. At some point I guess you could challenge it, like at the point of forced genuflection and ring-kissing maybe. I won't be the one challenging it. I will represent anyone crazy enough to do it in my state upon the payment of a healthy retainer. Then I will research the question fully. We'd lose, but I'd get paid. :-)

now , i know , i mean really know, you are a lawyer...gl

I think you should do it pro-bono. Think of the attention such a case might receive with the proper publicity. If you win, it could make for a very lucrative practice down the road.

I swear I almost challenged it the other day. I was in court for a traffic ticket and thought to myself why the heck should I rise? What if I were handicapped? Or had a sore toe or something and didn't feel like rising. I really do consider this to be a form of genuflecting. What if my religion stated "though shall not revere another human being?".

Well, I think this (rising) can be interpreted as a form of genuflection and challenged. My religion could easily state, "though shall not unduly revere another human being".

Handicapped people aren't held in contempt for not rising. Even the child molesters faking being all crippled up in a wheelchair and oxygen tank in order to get some sympathy. Sore toe probably won't cut it. Somewhere there's a line, but precisely where it is I can't say.

I'm more of a traditionalist. I think that not only should the judges, but the lawyers as well should wear robes and wigs. Just to preserve the dignity of the proceedings, of course.

. . .for obvious reasons.

This is similar to something I have joked about with a friend who is also a lawyer. Both of us think judges can be pretty full of themselves at times and dislike the grandiose pompousity bit. We also dislike the get-up adopted by Rehnquist - the robe with the chevrons. We thought going over-the-top could be a more powerful statement by a judge rather than simply wearing a decent suit instead of the robe. Thus, we thought a short robe with epaulets, a lot of buttons, some medals, belts, fur of various descriptions, scepter, ring, and Pope or Cardinal hat on top of the wig would be good. With a short robe goes the question of what to wear below. I favor a kilt with dagger in the sock and that furbag thing, etc... My friend is undecided. I think he would wear a suit or morning wear or something. But I also like the idea of a very long robe with attendants carrying the end of it. These ideas sound ridiculous, but I actually researched judicial robes on the internet once and the whole idea is idiotic. Robes started out because that's what professionals wore back in the bad old days. Once professionals stopped wearing that crap, judges (and lawyers in England) hung on to the tradition. In England, the colors signified stuff and they came with prescribed types of fur and adornments based on the season and type of court, etc... Black robes started to mourn the death of some king or queen. The period of mourning is obviously not over since it has only been like hundreds of years. This is why judicial robes in America are so bizarre, particularly in states that require black robes. I mean, the whole basis of our Constitution is that we beat the English monarch in a war and got rid of nobility and such. OTOH, being able to throw a robe on quickly over various states of dress has its advantages. I'll let others elaborate.

Brett,


I like this idea A LOT more then the dealers having to wear face masks.


Regards,


Rick