It sounds like you played in Justice court. The name is about as correct as the Patriot act name.
Justice courts are (for the most part) not Courts of record. And (ready for this) your judge did not have to spend 1 day in law school. (Look up Judge VanLandershoot in NLV)
I went into his court, mopped the floor with the Cop, and the prosecutor. THe Judge said and I quote, "The Law Does Not Matter In my Court"
Justice Courts are designed to collect revenue only.
Not hardly.
DISCLAIMER: I am a former Western-state appointed judge, who "did not have to spend 1 day in law school" (except as a guest lecturer).
First, NO judge has to "spend 1 day in law school." Judges in justice court MAY be appointed (the same way supreme court justices are appointed), but many are elected. An elective-office judge likewise has no educational requirements (and, in fact, may have been appointed to fill out the term of a judge who has left office in mid-term, which is how I got onto the bench the first time).
Some of the finest judges I have known were in justice courts, because they didn't want to make a career of it (or had retired from careers in municipal and superior court, and were asked to serve their towns). One major advantage of justice court is that a judge has no obligation to serve until the next election, and it doesn't have to be a full-time job.
Second, while justice courts are often "revenue benches," in most places they are used to take the strain off the superior court system, especially in rural areas. You have the same right of appeal from a justice court that you do from a municipal court. However, a justice court will usually handle "procedural administrative" issues, such as building code violations, local traffic violations (that is, town, city and county traffic laws -- be careful in Oklahoma!), etc. In some areas the Justice of the Peace is the only court at the municipal level, and handles all infraction and misdemeanor cases (including felonies prosecuted as misdemeanors, in states which allow that).
Third, the law doesn't matter in ANY courtroom. "There is nobody on Earth so much like God on his throne, as a judge on the Bench." If the judge is willing to risk having the case overturned on appeal -- and is willing to risk removal from the bench (every state has a commission overseeing judicial conduct) -- he or she can give you a jail term for having appeared on a Tuesday with your hat turned sideways. That's how precedents are made. In the case of the US Supreme Court, the law IS what a majority of the justices say it is, after lower courts couldn't agree (a case goes from court to appeal to the USSC, and only those cases which the Supremes choose to take will be brought before them).
On the other side of that coin, we have jury nullification, which can only be countered by "directed verdicts" (which are nearly always appealed anyhow).
Many non-law-school judges are MORE familiar with the law than those who got a law degree. Consider B-Student Barack, with his Harvard degree (magna cum laude) -- would you want him sitting on YOUR open-carry case? Or would you rather have a justice of the peace, who lives in your town and who takes a 10-minute recess to look up the law as it stands on that morning?
Consider the thread regarding the Clark County regulation, which exempts firearms with a barrel length over 12 inches. The re-elected-since-1970 judge may overlook it, the JP will probably not.
Anyway, you just need to be careful when making comments about judges. No two are alike. If you are ever brought before the Bar, you hope you get one who knows the law, or is willing to look it up, rather than ruling on what he thinks is right.
), I will mention that I took the bench reluctantly, raising the issue of my lack of practice in the law when my predecessor asked me to take over for him.