Read Post
Wed, 08 Jul 2026 23:37:23 -0700
zerosugar from private IP, post #15170459
/all
Judicial immunity is a flawed idea
I asked AI if other countries have the same level of judicial immunity like the USA. Its crazy how broad judicial immunity is in the USA. The USA has senile
boomer judges who do not read courtesy copies and don't know whether they are coming or going on the bench. They are free to insult people even people who
haven't said a word to them. Every now and then some aggressive female judge trying to perform toughness from the bench. I have heard some judges make some
disgusting remarks to both attorneys and litigants. If they were supervisors doing what they do and making the off color remarks they make, they would be
subject to huge lawsuits. I do believe judges get away with making racist, sexist, and sometimes even ageist remarks in court that in any other context would be
actionable. Either way, the justice system in the USA has become a big joke. These suburban county judges are the biggest jokes in Illinois. I suggest anybody
in Illinois avoid Dupage County or Lake. I hope one day when I am more removed from this stuff that I can write about some of these experiences and maybe make
my own hall of shame. I noticed in other countries, judges are so much more professional and civil than here.
Here was the answer from AI:
No, not all countries have judicial immunity exactly like the USA. While the principle of protecting judges from civil lawsuits for their decisions is widely
recognized globally to ensure judicial independence, the scope, criminal accountability, and specific legal mechanisms vary significantly by nation.The nuances
and global variations include:The U.S. Standard: In the United States, judicial immunity is among the broadest in the world. Judges are virtually immune from
civil monetary damages for acts performed in their judicial capacity, even if the decision is alleged to be corrupt, malicious, or in error. They can generally
only be removed via impeachment or specific criminal proceedings.Global Norms: The United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary advocate
for personal immunity from civil suits for monetary damages, but specifically note this is without prejudice to disciplinary procedures or appeals.Criminal
Liability: Unlike in the U.S. where judges are highly shielded, many jurisdictions allow for judges to be criminally prosecuted if they willfully abuse their
power. For example, in civil law countries like France or Germany, judges can be subject to criminal investigation for bias or malfeasance.
#Education #LawFirm #PublicFigures
Wed, 08 Jul 2026 23:39:54 -0700
zerosugar from private IP
Reply #16182424
I disagree with the UN btw. If they are harassing somebody for no reason or cause anybody harm from the bench, they should potentially be subject to a lawsuit.
It should be case by case. I do believe all court proceedings should be streamed and accessible to the public to protect both judges and litigants.
Thu, 09 Jul 2026 06:19:23 -0700
marlon from private IP
Reply #16328017
Sugar is the best judge
Thu, 09 Jul 2026 16:36:23 -0700
zerosugar from private IP
Reply #17661095
I finally got the transcript today of this scumbag judge having a temper tantrum. I am happy it reflects everything. I just wish I had the recording because the
recording would show his tone of voice and body language. South side of Chicago scumba. He brags in his bio about his all boy's Catholic high school. Well his
parents should have gotten a refund for their tuition because he acts like trash. Boomer judges are real assholes. They take the worst of both the modern and
new worlds. They are still closed minded, but they lack the restraint, composure, and etiquette that the silent and GI generations had.
Thu, 09 Jul 2026 16:39:57 -0700
zerosugar from private IP
Reply #12715569
*scumbag
I mean boomers take the worst of the modern and old worlds. Old time closed mindedness minus the etiquette and respect previous generations had.
This guy legit is a scum too. Not just making it up! At the end of the hearing, he realized he had exploded and stated he would recuse himself if I stayed on
the case. He said that to protect the record because he had said some things that were totally biased. If that were the case he should have said so before he
heard my motion and ruled on it. He was so senile this dude he didn't know the basic 7th circuit rule that you cannot dismiss a count for SMJ with prejudice.
Replies require login.
