Talk:Judge

message: You guys need to get this article cleaned up and make it as something that the world can relate and view, not just related to the United States Judicial system. Please hurry up in fixing this article!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.207.53 (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seriously

message: judge jules and judge dread exist, but they are not really judges! hence fictional :) Steeev 23:14, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats why I added "or not real" to the heading! Cheers :-) quercus robur 23:17, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  oops sorry, didnt read before i wrote or look before i leaped  :) Steeev 23:19, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text:  then again fictional and not real, could be deemed to mean the same thing ;-) Steeev 23:20, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Judges 

message: We have got Judge, which includes a list, and List of jurists, not to mention several separate lists by jurisdiction. Needs sorting out. Any proposals? Cutler 00:42, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
If one day I have time, I'll move the dress of French judges to Court dress, but... David.Monniaux 18:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: Would a section detailing more about judicial appointment / election processes be appropriate here or maybe somewhere else?  I've done a little bit of looking and don't see this being covered anywhere on Wikipedia; anyone have any suggestions?  I'd be more than willing to get things started. Peyna 18:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appointment / Election 

message: Under the heading "Judges in the legal system" it says that Finland makes use of lay judges. This is also the case in Sweden (see http://www.dom.se/templates/DV_InfoPage____754.aspx). My guess is that there are additional countries making use of lay judges, besides Finland and Sweden. These lay judges are in Sweden known as "nämndeman" (pl. "nämndemän"), which usually translated into "lay assessor" (Norstedts English Dictionary).
Ohwilleke 05:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the United States, we have some odd differences from state to state.  See state court and state supreme court.  In states operating under the Missouri Plan, judges are practically always lawyers or at least law-trained to some extent, because otherwise the governor would get bad publicity during his reelection campaign for appointing untrained judges.  In states that elect judges directly, there are a lot of lay judges, many of whom are not law-trained and are thus extremely incompetent.  The federal government has no explicit requirement that judges must be lawyers, but as a matter of tradition, the President always nominates well-qualified lawyers.  --Coolcaesar 20:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In England judges may sit with lay assessors, though I have never heard of a court other than the Admirality court do so. It is relatively common in Admirality I believe, but that's not an area of my practice. Many tribunals now refer to their members as "judges" - for example in an Employment Tribunal - and 2/3 of their members will be lay members in the sense of not being lawyers, though they will have relevant experience. With the increasing uniformatisation of tribunals across England this process will continue to increase the number of lay people who sit professionally on tribunals. Francis Davey (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lay Judges 

message: "In addition, judges although in their official capacity should and are free from bias, however a doctrine called as major premise, assumes that all judges are humans and therefore not infallible." This sentence needs re-writing, but I'm not sure what it means as it stands. Rhion 08:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that even though judges officialy are (and should be) unbiased, that major premise doctrine says that they are still human and possibly slightly biased. --Snake712 16:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to be joking  .  They're incredibly biased.  Not to mention self-righteous. 24.68.180.163 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence 

message: Some statements about judges in civil law judges are partly misleading, at least as far as the German legal system is concerned. There, judges do have the power to impose injunctive relief, restraining orders, and limited fines for misconduct in the courtroom. Moreover, ordinary judges can hear some cases in which the government is a party, as the definition of "public law" is narrower than stated in the text. In addition, the part of the text which deals with precedence gives a wrong impression: Although not binding, the research on and the reference to precedence is an indispensable part of daily legal practice. Furthermore, I am not quite sure what is meant by the term "making the law" in the text, but the method of analogy is accepted and common, whereby a statutory rule can be extended even to a case which is not expressly dealt with in a statute, if the law is deemed to contain an unintended lacuna. Finally, the inquisitorial procedure is mainly applicable in criminal and public law cases. In contrast, in private law cases, the judge is limited to the facts (and up to a certain extent also to the evidence) as they are presented to him by the parties. I didn't want all these specific caveats to the text itself, but it clearly seems to need a review.
Ohwilleke 06:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority of judges 

message: The reference given does not say that Canadian judges can only be removed for misconduct; it says that they can be, but is silent on whether there are other reasons (mental incompetence, incapacitating illness, etc.). Does anyone have a reference that states outright that judges can't be removed due to inability to handle the job? --Charlene 10:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Judges - question

message: It seems an important factor that is largely missing from this heavily US-centric article.--77.99.12.23 (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judicial Appointment 

message: I would like to see a section on the kind of training received by judges in different countries. In the United States, it is the law that judges must first have been lawyers, trained in the same law school, where they acquire their single-minded vertical notions of justice. I believe that the UK takes a different approach, and supplies legal training quite separate and isolated from what is required of a lawyer. Has to do with freeing up the mind to rise above polarizing argument, and to think laterally. Also helps to prevent old boy "ties", and loyal surviving friendships with fellow lawyers, causing future conflicts of interest. And creates a good judge's mistrust and even a healthy contempt towards lawyers, seldom seen in the U.S (ever been in court unrepresented?). No, judges should not ever have been one of "them".  JohnClarknew (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Training of judges internationally

message: Why does one address a judge "your honor" instead of "my honor"?  It makes no sense. -Rolypolyman (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is the judge's honour that one is addressing not one's own. Francis Davey (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only rhetoric anyway, designed to condition people to believe in the hierarchy and to submit to the power of the civil servant they're addressing. 216.232.250.111 (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it can be said to be "designed" that way. A lot of court conventions are historical accidents rather than planned outcomes. Judges aren't really "civil servants" since they aren't part of the executive (or, generally speaking "servants" - i.e. not employed). Francis Davey (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I doubt this is a historical accident. And even if so, it has only been maintained due to the hubristic nature of judges. 205.250.243.241 (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Your Honor"

message: Just wanted to say, shouldn't we update the picture on the article with a more recent photograph of a court of law?--Archeopteryx (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update the picture 

message: There needs to be a citation supporting the use of "justice" for the U.S. Supreme Court members.  The Court does call its members that, but the Constitution only uses the term "judge" to refer to them, both in Article II & III.  Is calling them justices a mistake?  If so, when did people start making that constitutional mistake?  The error appears to go back to the Judiciary Act of 1789.  Why did Congress do that, when just two years earlier in the Constitution they called them judges?--222.152.93.87 (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Supreme Court 

message: As a lawyer, I usually refer to the presiding judge as "my lord", as far as I know most of my colleges do the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.129.78 (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Justices 

message: District Attorney's are not judicial, they are executive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.87 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  listing of DA as "judicial title" 

message: I'd like a section on judges' comments at the end of court cases. Something like, "judges are renowned for making highly arrogant comments at the end of court cases, flaunting the supposed merits of their system while pretending they are the ones offering the 'different perspective' (the only, of course, different perspective to be had), and then retaliating when their victims object." It could be worded slightly differently, but the main point would be a recognition of the extreme arrogance displayed by judges when they need to feel powerful at the expense of others. You read it in the papers constantly. Judges give themselves the final words, frame what they're saying as if they're absolutely right, and flaunt their egos, then walk away satisfied, oh so satisfied while their victims are forced to sit silently and submit. 205.250.243.241 (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judicial Arrogance 

message: Seems more like a C or Start class to me. --Anarchyte 11:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this ''really'' a B class? 

message: This article is a lede, and a long section about how judges are called. It lacks essential all substance, for instance, about the different roles that judges play in each listed legal system. This Emperor has no clothes. Calling for an expert. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed tag. Not clear why an expert is necessary for this article. Agree it can be expanded but no need to put off non-experts from helping. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Concur with the C or Start class assessment, and placing tag

message: What does it mean "judges wear a long stripe." Does that mean they ONLY wear a long stripe, b/c the article continues to say lawyers wear black robes, but not judges.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.32.161 (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oman dress 

message: I'm not seeing this as a completed edit or, to be honest, an improvement.
"Judges" in Scotland are called sheriffs. There are also (as this change points out) Senators of the College of Justice. However, as was already sourced, I understand that the majority of those judicial roles who might be encountered presiding in a court in Scotland are indeed sheriffs. This article should state that. Maybe neither version is fully correct, but there needs to be some mention of the sheriffs in there. 
?  Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Judge#Scotland|Scotland]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Judge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118122017/http://www.law.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofLaw/Education/handbooks/Filetoupload%2C150353%2Cen.pdf to http://www.law.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofLaw/Education/handbooks/Filetoupload%2C150353%2Cen.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160328080446/http://ojen.ca/sites/ojen.ca/files/sites/default/files/resources/Jurisdiction%20of%20Ontario%20Courts.pdf to http://ojen.ca/sites/ojen.ca/files/sites/default/files/resources/Jurisdiction%20of%20Ontario%20Courts.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130818100909/http://www.supremecourt.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/supremecourt/judicialcontacts/addressing_judicial_officers.html to http://www.supremecourt.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/supremecourt/judicialcontacts/addressing_judicial_officers.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111211194309/http://ybtj.cjsonline.gov.uk/ to http://ybtj.cjsonline.gov.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the Titles and Forms of Address section is taking up way too much space in this article to the point this is what this article is about. Maybe this section should be moved to a different page or compressed to a table.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC0:B84:8300:9DA:8DA4:C5C3:8A85 (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles section