Posted on 01/06/2005 12:27:49 PM PST by End Times Sentinel
You: "He has no right to his job, however, and one who can't maintain a high standard of private behavior -- much less keeping one's private behavior private -- ought not be a judge."
Well, to become a judge he passed the national concours exams and was qualified, and he is a civil servant, so he does have a right to his job unless he commits a crime.
The "high standard of private behavior" you speak of is a curious and dangerous standard. It amounts to a non-legal standard that anyone in authority can use on anyone else. Clearly a nation of laws cannot have such a standard without it being abused all the time, given the weakness of men for power.
Now, just as clearly, advancement in the magistracy is a matter of getting good evaluations from one's senior's and being named for higher and higher posts by them, so I would expect someone who is constantly out in bordels, or drunk, or impolite, ill mannered or generally disliked would not attain higher office unless he remained discreet.
Nevertheless, having passed the examination and being inducted into the magistracy many years before, this judge certainly has a right to his job regardless of his unpleasant personal behavior, so long as that behavior is not criminal.
If strict sexual morality is a condition of employment, then it must be made so as a matter of law. In a nation of laws we cannot have people making up laws on the spot and depriving people of their employment because they do not like what someone else is doing, unless that thing is illegal!
Out of curiosity, did the French restaurant supply all necessary and proper cutlery, or did you resort to tearing the duck apart by hand? Did it trust its patrons with knives, unlike the Chinese usually do? Also, did you see the headline linked on Drudge that the Chinese population has now topped 1.3 billion. I think its strange that they all look pretty much alike; I think they're up to something.
Huh? You are trying to apply American law to France and Germany? Are you one of those "world government" dudes?
Yeah, like I'm sure he's some great Casanova lover type! Why else would he be going to l' ho'house?
And they are up to something, I'm sure. You get that many people together and mix in a little boredom and something bad is bound to go off before its over with.
At least that's the way it was when I was a kid.
How does one remove an unsatisfactory judge?
Hontang didn't approve of the poontang.
Me, originally: "Not as such, no. If something is legal, the law applies equally to all people. There is not one law for the low people and a different law for the high people. There is one law for all people, and all people are equal under that one law. Now, certainly if he were an elected official, the voters could punish him by not voting for him. But he is mere civil servant, a judge. There is no special law for judges when it comes to sex. Nor can I see any reason for there to be."
You: Huh? You are trying to apply American law to France and Germany? Are you one of those "world government" dudes?
Well, actually, what I wrote there is the French philosophy of law. The law is the law, it applies equally to everyone. The judge is nothing more than the mouth that pronounces the words of the law, which are made by the Parliament and not by judges, ever. There is no "equity" in French law: the law is what the legislature has passed. And it applies to everyone.
My interlocutor was suggesting that there is some flexible and loose "moral" standard to hold a job which exceeds the law. In other words, that the French legal system might fire a judge because he slept with women other than his wife.
Now, perhaps in the American system a President may be removed from office for breaking that standard, but not in the French. Adultery is wrong, but it is not illegal. Therefore, clearly a civil servant cannot be removed from office in France for having committed a legal act. He could be subtly denied promotion, but not removed on vague "moral standards" grounds. The law is the law. If it is not prohibited, it is legal. That's not a particularly US standard. Indeed, in the US employers can and do fire people for doing LEGAL things which the employers do not like. Employers in France cannot do that.
You just can't make this stuff up....
Try us.
Let us not forget they were not at a conference for LEGAL issues, but rather ETHICAL issues. Stealing credit cards to get sex no matter what language you say it in is an ETHICS issue. That is the IRONY of the story.
You: How does one remove an unsatisfactory judge?
It is always difficult to remove a civil servant.
You must follow all of the prescribed procedures and prepare a dossier detailing specific acts of misconduct under the law or the magistracy rules. Having a bit on the side is not illegal and would be beyond the scope of the magistracy rules. Knowingly and intentionally using another's credit card is a crime, and magistrates may not commit crimes.
So, once the dossier was prepared it would be submitted for review and there would be an investigation. A review board would prepare a finding and a recommendation, and there would be review of this decision. Of course at all times the judge will be represented by the union, who will seek to preserve his employment.
It is most likely that a first offense which is not a crime (a felony) would not result in being removed from the civil service, but in being placed under warning and supervision.
A serious crime is a separate case.
Clearly a judge will not be permitted to perform his magesterial role while he is actually being tried for a crime! But, since he is innocent until guilt is established, he must continue to be paid and to maintain his seniority.
In brief, to remove a judge, or any civil servant, requires that a provable pattern of incompetence or proscribed misconduct be documented, or that he be convicted of a serious criminal offense.
"Let us not forget they were not at a conference for LEGAL issues, but rather ETHICAL issues. Stealing credit cards to get sex no matter what language you say it in is an ETHICS issue. That is the IRONY of the story."
Well of course the story is immensely entertaining!
The hot rabbit gets his head caught in a trap complaining to the farmer about the quality of carrots that the rabbit was attempting to steal!
The story is very funny.
It must s*ck to live in France :-)
Granted it's not easy here but when public opinion goes against them -- i.e. caught stealing a credit card for hookers, or even caught in a bordello, even a legal one -- they will be gone.
"Granted it's not easy here but when public opinion goes against them -- i.e. caught stealing a credit card for hookers, or even caught in a bordello, even a legal one -- they will be gone."
This doesn't sound so good, really, for civil servants to be able to be fired simply because "public opinion" goes against someone for doing something legal (I am not talking, of course, about stealing credit cards, which is illegal).
After all, elections are grand expressions of the public opinion. So what is to prevent, say, a new Republican Administration in Washington from firing all the Democrat civil servants, on the grounds that "public opinion has turned against them"? Or what is to prevent, say, a new Democrat Governor of a state from firing all the Republican civil servants of the state on the grounds that "public opinion has turned against them"?
It would seem to me unjust to take someone's livelihood away from him simply because someone else doesn't like what he does in his non-work time, so long as what he does is not illegal. Certain US Mayors are very much opposed to smoking. May such a mayor fire all of the municipal employees of a city who smoke when they are not on the job, because he and his cohorts think smoking is immoral?
This seems very dangerous and not very free.
It seems to me that the only standard that can keep people free and not intruded on in their private lives is that they can be told what to do when at work, of course, and can perhaps be punished at work if they commit penal infractions that relate to their work (a judge stealing money, for example, is a bad thing relating to what he does for a living) when they are not at work. But otherwise it seems wrong to me that employers either governemental or private should have to power to remove a person's livelihood simply because they do not like an employee's private morality when what the employee does is legal under the law.
So, I could see that the employer of a municipal bus driver could perhaps fire him if he smokes hashish off the job or on it, or could fire the bus driver if he smokes cigarettes while driving the bus if this is against the city's ordinances. But I cannot see how the employer can be granted the power to fire the bus driver because the bus driver smokes cigarettes when he is off duty. Even if the community is very opposed to smoking in general and makes it clear that they think it is immoral, so long as they do not make it illegal.
It seems to me that there is a sphere of privacy around individuals when they are not directly at work that must be respected by the state, and that the state must not empower employers to intrude and punish employees for doing legal things when they are not at work.
But this is perhaps part of a general obsession with privacy that is very characteristic of French law and French culture. That which is not illegal and is done in private cannot possibly be some employer's business. It seems scary that public opinion about legal things can cause people to lose their jobs. It seems like this makes a complete sham out of the concept of "liberty". Someone is "free" only to the extent that the boss who has direct economic power over him approves of what he does in his off time, when not at work, even when the thing done is legal? A boss who dislikes motorcycles may fire an employee because he discovers the employee has a motorcycle in his garage at home?
The French would never accept such an intrusion into their privacy! Never.
I don't think Americans would like it very much either.
"Stealing another judges credit card and using it for a hooker is really not appropriate, don't you think?"
I think if you deconstruct this statement and analyze it in terms of solecistic gender/hegemonic principles, you will find that it's actually a pretty funny idea, postmodern critical theory-wise.
After all, that's what the sophisticated and nuanced euro-intellectualoids do...
"'Stealing another judges credit card and using it for a hooker is really not appropriate, don't you think?'
I think if you deconstruct this statement and analyze it in terms of solecistic gender/hegemonic principles, you will find that it's actually a pretty funny idea, postmodern critical theory-wise.
After all, that's what the sophisticated and nuanced euro-intellectualoids do..."
Oh dear!
Now, judges (and prosecutors) are not always civil service protected jobs here. Clinton famously fired a whole pile of GOP prosecutors when he took office.
Federal judges, of couse, have lifetime appointments but they can stil be removed from office -- or censored -- for behavior which falls short of being illegal. The most obvious example is taking gifts.
Certain US Mayors are very much opposed to smoking. May such a mayor fire all of the municipal employees of a city who smoke when they are not on the job, because he and his cohorts think smoking is immoral?
There are many facets to that statement that I cannot adequately broach them all. It is my understanding that the concept has been considered and it's not so much a matter of "may" but of "would". The mechanism would not be a mayor's order but a municipal law. The opposition would not be federal but would mostly come from municipal unions, and the public.
And too, a municipal employee -- especially a low-level one -- would not necessarily be fired for breaking a law such as being caught with a prostitute. The more the responsibility the higher the standard.
It seems like this makes a complete sham out of the concept of "liberty". Someone is "free" only to the extent that the boss who has direct economic power over him approves of what he does in his off time, when not at work, even when the thing done is legal?
What about the liberty of the boss? Can't he spend his money as he sees fit?
A boss who dislikes motorcycles may fire an employee because he discovers the employee has a motorcycle in his garage at home?
The bigger the company and the more people affected, the more problamatic something like becomes i.e. most companies do not want to pointlessly anger motorcycle riders who may be customers. Still, motorcycle owners are not a category protected by civil rights laws, and this basically can be done here.
Normally when FreeRepublic gets such a fervent poster, that person is pretty new (like you are) and a troll, perhaps from DU or just a typical DIM wit.
You: "Firstly, thanks for having the courage to post here. You have my respect."
This is not courage. Those soldiers who go into combat, or pilots who fly off of ships or firemen who go into burning buildings - that is courage!
This is just expressing opinion. Now, if someday the computer evolves to the point that someone of a different opinion can actually reach through the screen and throttle me: THEN it will take bravery to write on-line! But this?
No, this is just amusement.
You: "Now, judges (and prosecutors) are not always civil service protected jobs here. Clinton famously fired a whole pile of GOP prosecutors when he took office.
Federal judges, of couse, have lifetime appointments but they can stil be removed from office -- or censored -- for behavior which falls short of being illegal. The most obvious example is taking gifts."
The judiciary in France is the civil service. Prosecutors are part of the same branch. To become a judge, one studies the subject in university and takes the competitive national exams, and the highest scorers are interviewed and admitted into judge school, then become lower level magistrates and prosecutors. Prosecutors are part of the judiciary in France, and magistrates do tours of duty as bench judges and also as "floor judges" (prosecutors). But French criminal justice is inquisitorial, not adversarial, so many of the reference points with the US common law system are not there. American courts are single judge and the trial court is the trier of facts. But in French justice the concept is "Juge unique est juge inique"..."The sole judge is the iniquitous judge" and there is suspicion that any man with sole power will abuse it. So French trials are before three or more judges, and the judges actively question the witnesses.
Judges are promoted to higher courts based on seniority and professional reputation among other judges.
There are two separate judiciaries in France, one for civil and criminal matters, and the other for matters in which the State is a party (the Administrative Tribunals). Also, in the USA there are state judges, local judges and federal judges. In France, judges are all of the State.
Me: "Certain US Mayors are very much opposed to smoking. May such a mayor fire all of the municipal employees of a city who smoke when they are not on the job, because he and his cohorts think smoking is immoral?"
Your Response: "There are many facets to that statement that I cannot adequately broach them all. It is my understanding that the concept has been considered and it's not so much a matter of "may" but of "would". The mechanism would not be a mayor's order but a municipal law. The opposition would not be federal but would mostly come from municipal unions, and the public.
And too, a municipal employee -- especially a low-level one -- would not necessarily be fired for breaking a law such as being caught with a prostitute. The more the responsibility the higher the standard."
I agree that higher officials have higher standards applied. This can only be sensible. What I worry about is that in the US the standards do not seem to be legally defined but seem to be discretionary. Now, if one is a political official, chosen servant of an elected-officeholder, it only makes sense that he could be fired by the higher official. But a judge or civil servant? It would seem to me that such people should only be able to be removed "for cause", and that "cause" cannot simply be that the senior official does not like the civil servant or what the civil servant has done. Otherwise the whole of the civil service would be manned by political laquais of the persons in power, and would be easily dominated for political reasons.
Think of this senior magistrate who may have stolen a credit card and used it. He makes decisions from the bench which concern honesty and the economic interests of the State and private interests. Clearly his dishonesty and willingness to commit a crime of theft is a serious matter directly affecting his professional position. And the rules of the judiciary say so, so he may be disciplined or even removed from the bench for it (although that is perhaps too harsh). But his visiting the professional girls - this is not illegal, and it is not anybody's business. If he makes a public spectacle of this and it becomes an embarassment, then no doubt his seniors will start to evaluate him harshly and seek other evidence of his poor judgment. He is unlikely to be promoted, and his other mistakes will not be overlooked. But to directly remove a judge for legal private recreation? That would be wrong, even dangerous. Few people are so morally pure that they could not be blackmailed, by the threat of loss of their livelihood, if that alone were the criterion for losing one's job! The French make a clear distinction between that which is legal, and directly punishable (and loss of one's job is certainly a very severe punishment!), and that which is merely disgusting and disgraceful. Those things which are disgraceful will result in loss of prestige, status, influence, goodwill and the ability to advance. It will make superiors much more inclined to focus on every error and fault, which of course all human beings make. Such a person will go no farther up the ladder, and will lose all prestigious roles since someone else will be picked. But removing him completely from his job and leaving him destitute for doing something legal? This is wrong. At least the French would say it is wrong.
Me: "It seems like this makes a complete sham out of the concept of "liberty". Someone is "free" only to the extent that the boss who has direct economic power over him approves of what he does in his off time, when not at work, even when the thing done is legal?"
You: "What about the liberty of the boss? Can't he spend his money as he sees fit?"
But who is "the boss" here? It is the State. The State is the People, and they have enacted their laws and rules through Parliament. If the People wanted the standard to be "no frequenting of prostitutes by any men", they could make the law as such. But they have not done so. Therefore, some other civil servant above the grade of this magistrate should not arrogate to himself the power of the People of France to set a whole new law and establish a new standard of his own and punish what the People of France have chosen not to punish. Civil servants are not kings but servants! They serve the People, and the People through Parliament set the laws by which civil servants live. Of course the civil services do have rules.
And as to other bosses, yes they can spend money as they see fit. But they only pay for eight hours a day of labor from a worker. If they wish to have 24 hours a day command over every facet of that worker's life, including legal activities that the boss simply does not like, then the boss has to pay for a full 24 hours of the worker's time. As it is, he pays for eight hours of time, and he should expect 8 hours of obedience. He should not pay for eight hours of time and expect 24 hours of control, any more than I should expect to pay for eight eggs but walk out of the store with 24!
Of course this has always been difficult for more powerful actors to accept, that their greater degree of power should not give them complete control over their inferiors in all aspects of life outside of the sphere. It is why there are limits on government, why there need to be two houses of Parliament, why there needs to be more than one judge sitting at a trial, and multiple levels of appeal, and why there are labor unions.
You:"The bigger the company and the more people affected, the more problamatic something like becomes i.e. most companies do not want to pointlessly anger motorcycle riders who may be customers. Still, motorcycle owners are not a category protected by civil rights laws, and this basically can be done here."
But why would the motorcycle owner need to be "protected"?
Why would the owner of the company be thought to have the power to police what his employees have legally in their house in the first place? Of course an employer might say that nobody can drive a motorcycle onto his factory. And if there is a discretionary life insurance benefit might refuse to pay it out for an employee killed in a motorcylce accident. But the employer of a store clerk pays for 8 hours of that clerk's time, and has authority during that 8 hours when the clerk is in the store or being paid by the employer. Why would the law extend the employer's authority over the store clerk to the 16 hours when the employer is paying him nothing at all, and he is not on the employer's property? Why would the law extend the power of the store owner to punish the clerk for a legal activity on his own property during the time he is not being paid for by the store owner?
This does not make sense at all.
I don't understand why the CLERK in this case would need legal PROTECTION. It would seem to me that the question ought to be why does the law give the employer legal authority over the employee during the time that the employer does not pay for? This seems to be a grant of sweeping power without compensation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.