South Carolina Summary Court Judges' Association - Scscja Home: Fill & Download for Free

Dear Politically Interested Questioner,Engaged citizens often ponder which yoke more strains the public body: judicial tyranny, or legislative tyranny. Come, let’s examine:Judicial ActivismArthur Schlesinger, Jr. is credited with first using the term "judicial activism," in a 1947 Fortune Magazine article, although he didn’t actually define it. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=californialawreviewIn the political context, it’s usually considered an insult to call a judge an activist. Such a judge (the argument goes) “decides cases on the basis of his own policy preferences rather than a faithful interpretation of the law, thus abandoning the impartial judicial role and ‘legislating from the bench.’” Judicial activism | lawMany voters and legislators voice disdain for activist judges. Of course, if the offending “activism” results in a ruling that aligns with their political/philosophical/religious beliefs, the protest’s volume is usually diminished, if not muted:Can we agree that, like a pudding, the test of judicial activism is in the tasting?Regardless of whose ox is being gored, I much prefer the tyranny of judicial activism over the tyranny of (as you put it, Kind Questioner) “accountable” legislators.A quick look at these repugnant laws set aside by “activist judges,” IMHO, makes my position a no-brainer.States Where Kanye Could Not Have Married TaylorNot until the Supreme Court’s decision in “Loving v. Virginia,” (1967) did these sixteen states abandon their devotion to prohibiting miscegenation: Alabama Arkansas Delaware Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Missouri North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Texas Tennessee Virginia West VirginiaKanye most likely is happy with Kim, and Taylor seems content to fret over lost boyfriends forever, but these laws were nevertheless abhorrent, yes?States Where You Couldn’t Have Anal Sex (and I’m not just being salacious)As ridiculous as it may sound, fourteen states had valid laws prohibiting sodomy until 2003, when the Supreme Court held in Lawrence v. Texas that the government probably shouldn’t have a role in which orifice a consenting couple used for sexual pleasure (disclosure: that’s not the exact language of the decision, but it should have been).(Edit note: Thanks to Andrei Istrate and Buddha Buck for catching my error on this. I’d written a draft commenting on how Lawrence overturned Bowers, and in editing deleted the wrong case. Good catch gentlemen!)Your Kid Can’t Go to School HereThis is Linda Brown:Her parents wanted her to attend a decent school in their neighborhood, state law (Kansas) prohibited it. A future (and the first Black) Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall, sued on Linda’s behalf in 1954.Thurgood kicked some serious Topeka School Board tail feathers in what many believe is the most important case ever brought before the Supreme Court, Brown v. Board of Education:I’d like to say that after 1954, it was all lollipops and rainbows for the Linda Brown’s of America, but sadly no.Yet, the point holds: it took a judicial decision to get the ball rolling on school desegregation. If we’d waited for the state legislators across the country to address this issue we’d still be faced with racially segregated schools in America, legally supported by the government, and most likely signs like these would still be common throughout the American South:( Edit note: Thanks to Wyatt Wye for catching my error in placing Ms. Brown in Arkansas rather than Topeka, Kansas, where she lived at the time of the Brown v Board of Ed case. Quora readers are the best.)Want to Vote? Step Right Up and Pay the Poll TaxIf you wanted to vote in the Jim Crow American south, it cost you. This requirement hit poor Blacks harder than most Whites. Once again those pesky activist judges had to step in and right things - as the Supreme Court did in Harman v. Forssenius (1965), overturning a Virginia law.You Like This House? Sorry, Your Skin is Too DarkSome discrimination stemmed not directly from legislative acts, but still relied on the power of the state (“the law”) for their enforcement.Many homeowners feared the infiltration of their neighborhood by “undesirable” Blacks, and used the power of restrictive covenants (contained in property deeds) to prohibit a homeowner from selling to a Black:In 1948 the Supreme Court held that these attempts to contractually bind homeowners were unenforceable. Shelley v. Kraemer (1948).You Love Someone And Want to Marry Them? Not if You’re Gay!Race relations wasn’t the only area where courts stepped in to protect individual rights. After a lot of judicial back and forth, in 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. Obergefell v. Hodges. This ruling overturned a ban against such marriages in 14 states.For many of us in America, this image of a young couple expressed our feelings:Just as an earlier generation had rejected the bigotry of anti-miscegenation laws, we exclaimed, “Hate Is Not a Family Value,” and welcomed the Obergefell decision.SummaryI guess I’ve rambled on enough. With a bit more research I’m sure I could find many other examples where an “activist judge” wisely and compassionately overruled an “accountable” legislator.Sure, judges can go too far. And yes, I often worry about an unelected judge having too much power over public policy. And of course I prefer activist judges who agree with me (duh).That said:Even as I sit here today and contemplate a generation of likely “Trump Court” desecrations of the civil and individual rights victories dating back to the mid-1940’s - I still fear, much more, the tyranny of a future legislative body unfettered by judicial review.Thanks for playing Quora with me!Steve Jennette

It depends on each individual State. Each set varying requirements to run.For instance, to be eligible to run for sheriff in South Carolina, a person must have a college degree, have either 2 years as a SC certified class 1 law enforcement officer or 10 years as a summary court judge, and have no felonies, domestic violence, or DUIs on their record. If elected they must complete additional training at or through the state academy, and maintain the minimum requirements for in service training, usually conducted by the South Carolina sheriff's association.Some states have more stringent requirements, some less.Even in a states with few requirements, they would not be able to carry a gun or make an arrest if they are a prohibited person under state or federal law, and if they were a prohibited person, theoretically the agency would not be able to have guns since the sheriff is the agency head and therefore technically in control of all the agencies guns.

We must start this analysis by considering whether the geese, like the ubiquitous Canada geese, are considered “wild animals,” or, like the proverbial Christmas goose, are farm animals.See 34 Pa.C.S. § 2307, which provides in relevant part:(a) General rule.—It is unlawful for any person to aid, abet, attempt or conspire to hunt for or take or possess, use, transport or conceal any game or wildlife unlawfully taken or not properly marked or any part thereof, or to hunt for, trap, take, kill, transport, conceal, possess or use any game or wildlife contrary to the provisions of this title.The fact that the “game or wildlife” are still alive apparently doesn’t matter, though a study of the annotations to the statute reveals only one case where the “wild animal” was still alive at the time of prosecution. Cf. 58 Pa.Code § 137.1(a)(10) :Unless otherwise provided in this section or the act, it is unlawful for a person to import, possess, sell, offer for sale or release within this Commonwealth the following wild animals or wild birds or the eggs of the birds or a crossbreed or hybrid of the wild animals or wild birds, which are similar in appearance …(10) Game or wildlife taken alive from the wild, except the Commission may import wildlife taken from the wild for enhancement of this Commonwealth’s wild fauna.Subdivisions (d) and (e) of this regulation appear to suggest that a permit and a certificate of veterinary inspection are required to “import” or “transfer” live wild animals.We may also consider the manner, and especially the place, in which our goose-keeper came into that status.In Commw. v. Gosselin, 861 A.2d 996 (Pa.Super. 2004), the Superior Court considered the case of Nutkin the domesticated squirrel. Squirrels are considered “game or wild animals.” The Gosselins were transplants from South Carolina, and when they had lived in South Carolina, they had taken in and domesticated an injured squirrel, which they brought with them when they moved to Schuylkill County. Apparently Mrs. Gosselin in particular was known as a fly in the Game Commission’s ointment.¹ The Game Commission charged her with the summary offence of unlawfully “possessing” a squirrel as provided by § 2307(e)(6).² Relying on the above section of the regulations, the trial court convicted her. But Superior Court³ reversed, observing that § 2307(c) provided:(c) Wild birds and wild animals taken outside Commonwealth.—Nothing in this title shall prohibit the possession, at any time, of wild birds or wild animals lawfully taken outside of this Commonwealth which are tagged and marked in accordance with the laws of the state or nation where the wild birds or wild animals were taken. It is unlawful to transport or possess wild birds or wild animals from another state or nation which have been unlawfully taken, killed or exported.It then concluded that this exception precluded the need to consider this reading of the regulation,⁴ because the latter reads, “Unless otherwise provided in this section or the act,” and it is otherwise provided in the Act; furthermore the regulation may not be in conflict with the statute as a general matter of administrative law. 861 A.2d at 1001 (¶ 19). Considering that[the parties] have further stipulated that in the state of South Carolina the taking and domestication of squirrels is legal and that there are no provisions for tagging or marking animals taken, as contemplated in section (c) of the Pennsylvania statute[,]the court concluded:Thus, because it is agreed by both parties that Nutkin is a “wild animal”, and that she was “taken” outside the Commonwealth in a lawful fashion, the first element of the exception set forth in Section 2307(c) has been established.Nutkin thus had a happy ending, and the case can probably be generalized to other forms of “wildlife”, so long as the “wildlife” actually were “lawfully taken” in another jurisdiction and remain in the possession of the “takers.” (So sauce for the Gosselins could be sauce for the ganders?) One could not, however, necessarily expect the same result had the “taking” occurred in Pennsylvania and thus with § 2307(c) not availing. Commw. v. Smyers, 885 A.2d 107 (Pa.Commw. 2005), finding strict liability for defendant who had “processed” a road-kill deer without first obtaining a permit.Geese can be “domesticated animals” as well, of course. In this event they are “poultry” and subject to regulation as farm animals. You probably would need a permit if your local zoning ordinance so specified.Notes:¹ Judge Hudock observed:Appellant had become known to the Pennsylvania Game Commission by appearing to testify before the Game and Fisheries Committee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in September, 2001. In this testimony, the Appellant complained about the enforcement proceedings of the Pennsylvania Game Commission, and particularly complained of the fact that every year “bubba” hunters showed up in the woods near their house to drive out the deer and the hunters were guilty of various other displays of bad hunting manners….861 A.2d at 998 (¶ 10).² This provision is for “a summary offense of the fifth degree”, a classification of which I frankly had not been aware prior to inspecting this statute. This is surely the bottom of the barrel when it comes to severity of “unlawfulness.” “Summary offense” in the first place is already the lowest category of offence in Pennsylvania, not normally considered “criminal” and not even implicating a right to a jury, though there is language in the case law requiring the Commonwealth to prove summaries by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as is done for criminal cases.³ Normally appeals relating to the Game Commission are heard by the Commonwealth Court. However, I did not actually locate any relevant precedent from the Commonwealth Court.⁴ It probably did not hurt that Mrs. Gosselin wasn’t charged with violating the regulation. 861 A.2d at 999 (¶ 13) and 1002 (¶ 20).