[Jacquerie]

For J24, according to today's (14 June) WSJ, NY governor Paterson's office said, "Only the state legislature has the power to set judicial salaries. The judge's decision flies in the face of the state Constitution."

Do you not agree that the judge usurped legislative powers and has a conflict of interest?

For Almondjoy, I too have been told by the esteemed counsel j24 to "go to hell". You see, j24 thinks "The Law" is best understood and delivered by our betters, ie like him. As far as he is concerned, "The Law" is above the comprehension of the proletariat.

For Enchante, Governor Paterson agrees with you.

[Almondjoy]

I know.. lawyers tend to think they are better than everyone else because you know.. if it weren’t for lawyers then we wouldn’t have law... or something like that.

It would be interesting to see on what basis the judge said not giving a raise for 10 years was unconstitutional. Sir Judge? Does that extend to all jobs? Salaries below a certain amount are unconstitutional? Maybe we should just set everyone’s salary to 1 million. It would be interesting if Congress came back and said here is your raise we’ll give you 1 more dollar.

[jude24]

You see, j24 thinks "The Law" is best understood and delivered by our betters, ie like him.

Not quite. Would you listen to medical diagnoses by someone with no medical training? How about structural analysis by non-engineers? Stock advice by someone who doesn't know business? Why is the law so different, that the uneducated's opinions trump that of those who have studied it in depth? All too often, people knee-jerk reactions against a legal conclusion without examining the opinion that formed the basis behind it.