Judges from magistrate to constitutional
This seemingly biased opinion, tied to the graduation of judges by levels, can shed light on the forming foundations of ordinary views and assessments. In general, such a component of the legal culture of society, as the attitude to representatives of the authorities, can be safely attributed to a key aspect of this very culture. If we talk about the judges, especially the judges of the “people's” courts, who are in direct contact with the population and resolve this population’s disputes, then they are no less than the very same traffic police officers (to whom, by the way, the bailiffs are more and more closely adjoining) disgrace. Most goes to the magistrates, although the judges of the district courts are no less. Anger is clear: someone’s case was considered not in his favor, hence the discontent, complaints. Moreover, the line of such “dislike” can have the exact opposite - if your case has been considered in your favor, you are satisfied by default, even if you yourself see the error of the decision. Evaluating the work of a judge has always been a matter of honor: it does not matter if there is a valid basis for a particular assessment or not. The main factor is the emotional one, and here the judges are turned into anyone: from guardian angels to the fiends of hell. Is such an attitude adequate to reality or is someone wrong?
In general, if you take the same professionals, legal representatives, that is, an approximate situation has developed there. Judges are judged by the levels in the judicial hierarchy and it has become so simple that the lower the judge in this structure, the less competent, as it were to put it mildly, considered. Yes, the opinion is common, but often quite reasonable. The chic with which justices of the magistrate justice (well, what can it be - it is they who fall into the risk category) sometimes plunges even experienced ones into bewilderment. Either the situation is such that burn it all with fire, or indeed, qualification is lame, or both. But here it is overlooked how, in fact, it turns out like this - we see the consequences, there is no reason not to notice. The daily activities of a magistrate justice (and even higher court judges) cannot be creative from the word at all, which does not characterize the state of things in any way: neither positive nor negative. Any arbitrariness in the administration of justice on a daily basis will lead to collapse, and even to resignation. Is creativity or ingenuity necessary where they may not be appropriate at all? The desire to unify, smooth out the protruding corners also leads to not quite expected results, but discontent cannot be avoided, however, it is possible to develop suitable expectations from the trial, which happens. Yes, the specifics of the work of lower-level judges of courts of general jurisdiction is unfavorable for the professional evolution of a practicing lawyer in the mantle, often carries an involutionary color. Indeed: routine, simplicity and repeatability of situations, connectedness by procedural norms, the ambiguity of material norms, the ruthlessness of internal statistics and the endless stream of suffering litigants inevitably "rolls" any romantic student from jurisprudence. Moreover, the expectations and requirements for each individual judge both from society and from the state are growing, regardless of what is said. You have to write in a way that is good and comfortable, but also so that everyone, without straining their heads, understands what you wrote - and here, too, a remarkable skill is required. In fact, it turns out that it turns out: the solutions do not contain any motivation at all - a kind of problem that they are supposedly struggling with, in fact realizing that it is unrealistic. It’s unrealistic to motivate everything. In any case, try it yourself!
Further, the requirements for himself as a professional lawyer, far not of all judges atrophy under the influence of time and conditions. This is often discerned in the attempts of experienced judges to break free of woolen turns, stereotyped wording, general inconsistencies between promises and consequences, facts and conclusions, which, contrary to the majority opinion, are clearly seen and noticed by the judges themselves. Rarely are these attempts, albeit by chance, accepted “from above” and judicial practice is changing this way, more often than not. Of course, if you see and feel the meaning of the norm, at the same time assuming that those whose disputes are resolved, and possibly colleagues from above, will not understand them for anything, you are on the verge of giving up your instinct or going on the thumb, for which in the long run is "cancellation"?
The degree of such balancing can grow over the years or be completely lost. What is there, in high instances? Those wilds of factual circumstances, which are connected by the first instances, seem to be ignored by subsequent ones, but how can they be without them if they are the basis? To apply the law and verify the correctness of application is such a wild riddle-paradox, along with many other paradoxes of law. Who can evaluate the other, should be able to evaluate himself, but when evaluating himself you cease to be the one you value, still being evaluated - this kind of bifurcation leads to the fact that you cannot consider anything final and correct, only by setting the conditional limit to a series of evaluations. If you have a higher authority over you, you will be appreciated and the fact that your decision has not been changed does not mean that everything is “ok”.
This sword of Damocles, brought over by judges, makes the latter insensitive to those shades and subtleties of situations that, being naked, require that they be noticed. However, what is the point of showing such meticulousness, if there, above, there is someone else who not only can, but must also notice? There are, in the end, the parties themselves - let them notice it. We agree that the hierarchy of ships inclines precisely to this. Will the parties be unhappy? Of course they will, but this, as they say, is a completely different story.
It would seem that the arbitration judges have a comfortable position - there, in their seats, you are not a judge, but the arbiter - the more convincing one is, the less likely the other is to win Themis's favor. And in order not to burden themselves with scribble, the arbitration judges and their specialists have long learned to use text recognition programs. Who is suing in fact? Parties? Well, yes, they are the secret judges ... the gray cardinals behind a particular judge. What about competency? Why is it suddenly, and this is the case, the qualifications of arbitration judges are taken to be incompatible with the judges of the same courts of general jurisdiction? Very, very strange and incomprehensible. Well, yes, representatives of a slightly different audience, somewhat abstract from the reality of the texture of the cases, but ... What about the qualifications, however? It’s empty it will be sky-high, but if you are a “pro” of big sport, you won’t be able to show your talent totally on mini-platforms. Probably, the only patrimony where legal thought is allowed and ordered to roam (and what to hide: thoughts in general) seems to be, apart from the others, the constitutional court. As a court ruling, presence, institution, he is like an elder brother to all other courts. The area of it’s attention is unlimited and is not connected with anything “earthly” - it is like a space of jurisprudence in comparison with the land of ordinary justice. Here, with such input data, you can inadvertently become proud, because if you are a judge of the constitutional court, you are no match for all other courts and judges, from magistrate to supreme.
This is an occasion for the latter to consider themselves inferior - because any, even the most correct, decision that is consistent with the rest of the case-law (a decision not in the sense of a judicial act, but in the sense of a fundamental principle) can easily be cast aside by the higher brethren as incorrect, outdated, insufficiently correct, eventually.
This state of affairs, however, has one decisive characteristic: the ability, despite everything, to stay afloat and ... function.