|
Just seems an odd choice when everything else down to municipal does have that requirement. Why exempt probate?
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
eviltastic posted:Just seems an odd choice when everything else down to municipal does have that requirement. Why exempt probate? If you think that's weird don't look up "Judge-Executive"
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If you think that's weird don't look up "Judge-Executive" I love Kentucky county structures. Judge-Executives are the executive, and are also part of the Fiscal Courts...which are the legislatures. Neither Judge-Executives nor Fiscal Courts exercise any judicial power, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If you think that's weird don't look up "Judge-Executive"
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I love Kentucky county structures. Judge-Executives are the executive, and are also part of the Fiscal Courts...which are the legislatures. What in the blue hell is going on in the Commonwealth?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:What in the blue hell is going on in the Commonwealth? Same as it ever was, basically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:What in the blue hell is going on in the Commonwealth? It's "just" weird names from the 18th century. I'd think that'd be par for the course in a law thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
IANAL though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
I'm not a lawyer either, I've just been around too many! Other fun things, this is the oath of office for all commonwealth officials: quote:I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God. An amendment to remove that part was voted down 20ish years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Upon looking this up, I have learned that Alabama probate judges do not need to be lawyers. Ok then. Wow, even Texas requires that. http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/guide/qualifications.shtml
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
A legal system based on precedent takes pride in its traditions. The US is in the sweet spot where it adopted tradition directly from rough and ready frontier austerity. The original SCOTUS justices actually rode circuits around the country judging cases. And it worked surprisingly well. I mean, would Judge Roy Bean be a worse justice than Judge Roy Moore? eDIT: cAPS lOCK wAS oN. Ceiling fan fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Wow, even Texas requires that. Looks like you could spend 4 or 10 years as a justice of the peace though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I'm not a lawyer either, I've just been around too many! Guess Zell Miller isn't moving to Kentucky anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
In Texas a justice of the peace doesn't need to be a lawyer, nor does a constitutional county judge, which is the name for the ceo of a county. But the county judge can, in some counties, hear trial de novo from a justice court, and can hear probate matters too. It's bad when you have real issues in front of those judges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Aren't those the types that say "appeal me I don't care I'm ordering it this way regardless?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I'm not a lawyer either, I've just been around too many! Honestly? I don't have a problem with that being in the oath. gently caress duels, Hamilton died too young.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I'm not a lawyer either, I've just been around too many! Was this because of Aaron Burr or Andrew Jackson? I always assumed the latter but never looked it up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
1849 so neither. All I can find about it is that it was put into the constitution so that gentlemen couldn't simply cross state lines to settle disputes. This does mean that Abraham Lincoln was ineligible for office in Kentucky when elected president! I have never had to take the oath but my mom has and as a history buff she loved it. Edit: note it says deadly weapons. Taser duels are legal! hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Upon looking this up, I have learned that Alabama probate judges do not need to be lawyers. Ok then. In my state, the position that performs most of the duties of a Probate Judge is a Court Commissioner, and there is no requirement that a Commissioner be licensed to practice law, only that they be a citizen of the United States. They also aren't elected though, they are appointed by the judges of the county in which they sit, and almost every county has a local rule that requires Court Commissioners be licensed to practice law. Mr. Nice! posted:Aren't those the types that say "appeal me I don't care I'm ordering it this way regardless?" I had a Court Commissioner straight up say, on the record, "I don't care what the rules say, I'm not considering this motion. Find a judge." Fortunately it was a small county and opposing counsel and I were able to find a judge that didn't have anything else going on. E: My state also used to allow unlicensed municipal judges and district court judges to serve in small towns and districts, provided you could pass an exam. That was abolished in 2003, but anybody who took the exam before 2003 grandfathered in. I don't know if there are still any unlicensed judges serving though. Not My Leg fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
What happens if a Justice dies between arguments and the release of opinions? Does the replacement Justice get to vote? Do they reargue?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:What happens if a Justice dies between arguments and the release of opinions? Does the replacement Justice get to vote? Do they reargue? 8 justices vote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:What happens if a Justice dies between arguments and the release of opinions? Does the replacement Justice get to vote? Do they reargue? I think the standard procedure is if there's still a majority, they vote without the new justice, if the decision is now tied, they reargue with the new justice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association is a case I'm interested in. Judging by the remarks during oral arguments, it's quite possible that the ability of many public unions to spend their dues on political things is about to get gut-shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
I'll be stunned if the unions win this case. I'd sooner expect a 6-3 (or worse) ruling against them than for any of the conservative justices to rule in favor of a union on basically anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association is a case I'm interested in. Judging by the remarks during oral arguments, it's quite possible that the ability of many public unions to spend their dues on political things is about to get gut-shot. They already cannot spend compulsory dues on political lobbying. The argument from plaintiff is that since they are employed by the government, any negotiation done by the union, whether for pay/benefits or not, is de facto political lobbying. Thus no union dues can compulsory. A win here basically destroys any government employee union.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I'm not a lawyer either, I've just been around too many! my dad's a kentucky colonel I forget how that scam works
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They already cannot spend compulsory dues on political lobbying. The argument from plaintiff is that since they are employed by the government, any negotiation done by the union, whether for pay/benefits or not, is de facto political lobbying. Thus no union dues can compulsory. Couldn't you equally argue that capitalism is a political ideology, therefore all negotiation is political lobbying? Or maybe only companies that are regulated by the government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They already cannot spend compulsory dues on political lobbying. The argument from plaintiff is that since they are employed by the government, any negotiation done by the union, whether for pay/benefits or not, is de facto political lobbying. Thus no union dues can compulsory. For what it's worth, I personally belong to a government employee union that does not collect compulsory bargaining dues. So it's certainly possible for such a thing to exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Public sector unions won't die overnight, of course. The old timers will mostly keep paying their dues. But as time goes on you'll get more and more people coming into those jobs saying "well the pay and benefits are already good, why would I pay dues??" and before you know it, there aren't enough dues-paying members to keep the organizations afloat. And of course, any loss of funds significantly impacts local lobbying efforts. Unions spend a lot of money on local matters that come before state legislators and supervisory boards and the like. So yeah, public sector unions will still exist, they'll just lose what little clout they have left.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Couldn't you equally argue that capitalism is a political ideology, therefore all negotiation is political lobbying? Or maybe only companies that are regulated by the government. While I don't think that your idea necessarily would work, there certainly are think tanks working right now on ways to expand this decision to private sector unions if they win at the SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:While I don't think that your idea necessarily would work, there certainly are think tanks working right now on ways to expand this decision to private sector unions if they win at the SCOTUS. Oh, those plans/arguments would have been in place before this case ever started. The better shops have a couple cases planned out for any foreseeable outcome of the current test case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:my dad's a kentucky colonel You ask a state legislator nicely and you later get a nifty looking certificate in the mail. You can nominate other people. This works best for the spouses of active duty or retired Lt. Colonels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:my dad's a kentucky colonel Please tell me your last name is Sanders.  Litany Unheard posted:Public sector unions won't die overnight, of course. The old timers will mostly keep paying their dues. But as time goes on you'll get more and more people coming into those jobs saying "well the pay and benefits are already good, why would I pay dues??" and before you know it, there aren't enough dues-paying members to keep the organizations afloat. Agreed; it's hard to message the importance of a union to people already working 60 hours a week at a little above minimum wage. The union lacks the strength to get a better wage and the workers see the union as too weak so why bother paying or being involved, and a vicious cycle digs them into non-existence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They already cannot spend compulsory dues on political lobbying. The argument from plaintiff is that since they are employed by the government, any negotiation done by the union, whether for pay/benefits or not, is de facto political lobbying. Thus no union dues can compulsory. then by that logic isn't every company that has a government contract actually a lobbyist? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
axeil posted:then by that logic isn't every company that has a government contract actually a lobbyist? Yes and?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
axeil posted:then by that logic isn't every company that has a government contract actually a lobbyist? Money is just speech my friend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
axeil posted:then by that logic isn't every company that has a government contract actually a lobbyist? Are you under the delusion that anti Union legislation is done in good faith?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
axeil posted:then by that logic isn't every company that has a government contract actually a lobbyist? You can even expand this logic and say that all non-consumption taxes are a restriction on free speech, because less money = less speech.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Agreed; it's hard to message the importance of a union to people already working 60 hours a week at a little above minimum wage. The union lacks the strength to get a better wage and the workers see the union as too weak so why bother paying or being involved, and a vicious cycle digs them into non-existence. Current fight in Pasadena.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Yes and? gonna laugh for when this destroys unions and as a last measure the unions get every major corporation in america classified as lobbyists. Gerund posted:You can even expand this logic and say that all non-consumption taxes are a restriction on free speech, because less money = less speech. you joke, but i bet we'd see a constitutional challenge to the income tax if it wasn't already enshrined as an amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 14:51
|
|