Judges Serve a Unique Function for the Public
All members of government are equally important; yet it can be argued that judges provide the Nation an essential service that supports democracy. A judge that operates according to position standards delivers resolutions that are supported by evidence, validated by the Constitution, laws and ethics under light of the Supreme Court Rulings. Judges are necessary for a healthy republic performing democracy.
Comparatively explained; legislators create laws, executives uphold those laws, while judges act as referees for the public, business, organizations and members of government, by identifying if actions of individuals or groups of people abide by the law or violated it. Judges review actions through evidence, of individuals, businesses, individual members of government, bodies of government, any division of public service, and dozens more sources of issues that seek judicial counsel.
A judge rules on matters with intent to end conflicts between people or groups, and makes determinations to settle disputes so both parties can move forward, therefore the judiciary acts as an umpire that observes the real-world and makes the final say to provide justice in a fair fashion.
A judge can muddy the legal waters, since they can be influenced by outside pressures or have personal opinions or motives that appear in their courtroom hearings to dismantle practices that are intended to produce fair and just rulings.
Wisconsin Judges Are Elected
All Judges in Wisconsin are elected by the public for all levels of courthouses; municipal to State. Prior to elections seek information on candidates through city hall or websites to decide who qualifies to sit at the bench. Speak out about behaviors of local judges that do not adhere to state guidelines to possibly prevent a reelection.
Judicial Procedures – Supreme Court Rulings (SCR)
Chief judges within the U.S. Supreme Court write rules that influence all States and the Wisconsin Supreme Court does the same to influence all judges within the State. Search online for “Wisconsin Supreme Court rulings (SCR)” to review documents that lower courts are obligated to perform.
Compare actions of a judge to position guidelines provided by the State of Wisconsin in Supreme Court Rulings that are available online, such as:
SCR Chapter 60 Code of Judicial Conduct
SCR Chapter 70 Rules of Judicial Administration
Public Trust of the Judiciary
The judiciary earns trust by faithfully performing duties as described in Supreme Court Rulings and adhering to ethical standards, Constitutions and laws, to deliver services for the public and members of government who are associated with all forms of public service that characterize Wisconsin as a member of the republic, United States of America.
Wisconsin Statutes focused on judiciary:
Wis Stat Chapter 753 – Circuit Courts
Wis Stat Chapter 755 – Municipal Court
Wis Stat Chapter 757 – General Provisions Concerning Courts Of Record, Judges, Attorneys And Clerks
Wis Stat Chapter 758 – Judicial Branch Agencies And Committees
Wis Stat Chapter 800 – Municipal Court Procedure
Wisconsin Judicial Commission
The judges can be held accountable for misconduct. Experiencing deviation from judicial protocols can be addressed by another judge performing judicial review to determine if corrections should be supplied in a future hearing. When evidence of a judge’s actions are contrary to Supreme Court Rules, a reelection can be challenged by spreading the word locally and/or the evidence can be submitted to the Madison, Wisconsin, Judicial Commission for possible correction.
Prepare for Court Hearings
Preparation for a hearing increases effectiveness as a self-representor or with an attorney. Unfortunately self-representation can result in unfairness depending on the judge at hand. Courthouse staff recommend hiring legal representation rather than answering questions classified as legal advice. A courthouse can provide procedural information since it is promoted by direction of a judge who manages courthouse efforts.
Case Law Explained
Case law explains past interpretation of statutes by judges or creates new rules where none existed, forming binding precedents that lower courts must follow in similar future cases, ensuring consistency and fairness by guiding how laws are applied in real-life situations, according to the principle of stare decisis (to stand by things decided).
Presenting past rulings in court adds additional arguments showing how a past judge handled a similar case in the past. The collection of past verdicts are referred to as case law, common law or judge-made law. Case law shows past actions of judges in addition to written law. Federal rulings apply in all states by federal preemption. State court decisions are binding only on lower courts within that specific state’s jurisdiction. State-level case law generally does not apply in other states.
Search online for case law at Justia U.S. Law.
History Section of Wisconsin Statutes – Case Law
Look for the “History:” section toward the bottom of Wisconsin statutes. It may contain applicable case laws established by judges in the past.
Website pages of the Wisconsin Constitution on the Wisconsin Legislature website contain numerous cases that stem from the portion of constitution where they rest.
Administrative Procedure & Review
Individuals “adversely affected or aggrieved” by agency action can seek judicial review through Chapter 227 Administrative Procedure and Review.
Judges review evidence to determine if actions of a person, business, member of government or body of government were within bounds of constitutions, laws, regulations or other documents of interest. Judicial review includes a judge determining if actions of a previous judge were legitimate or if an additional hearing should be performed to supply corrections.
It balances efficient administration with public input and provides judicial checks against arbitrary, unjustifiable, or unconstitutional government actions.
Judicial review covers a broad spectrum of issues such as maintaining checks and balances within government, upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and invalidating unconstitutional/unlawful acts of government. Justices can invalidate laws, legislative acts, executive orders, regulations, or government actions that conflict with the Constitution or exceed statutory authority.
Judicial review can limit government overreach. Courts can halt or dictate the actions of federal, state, and local government workers. and agency actions that conflict with the Constitution, serving as a critical check on government power.
When courts invalidate laws or actions reform can take place. Courts determine if agency decisions are reasonable, authorized by law, and procedurally correct.
Jurisprudence
The practice of jurisprudence is complex involving the study of law, its purpose and application to real-world events. Justices determine the meaning of statements within constitutions and laws, also how they apply to specific real-world situations.
Jurisprudence involves analyzing the nature of legal systems, the relationship between law and morality, and how legal reasoning functions. Contemplations and interpretations are available as jurisprudence online. Search “where is jurisprudence available online”.
Available Possibilities in Court of Appeals
Verdicts can be appealed for a defendant or prosecutor to have the matter addressed by an alternate judge. Ask courthouse staff for procedural information or search online for forms and motions.
Victim Impact Statement
Allows crime victims to describe the emotional, physical, and financial impact of a crime to the court before sentencing or parole decisions. Its purpose is to personalize the crime, inform judicial decisions on sentencing/restitution, and provide victims with a sense of closure. Statements can be sent to Wisconsin Courts through the Federal District Courts.
Court Orders
A judge can create court orders, a legally binding command issued by a judge that dictates specific action. Such orders can involve citizens, organizations, employees of the government and bodies of government.
Reconsideration
A formal request asking a court to review and potentially change a previous ruling. It is typically used to point out specific errors of law or fact, or to introduce newly discovered evidence that was unavailable during the original proceeding.