The Law Library · a policy position, sourced

Who gets to judge?

Here's what Michigan law actually requires of the person who sits in judgment of you — cited, so you can check it — and then the curator's labeled opinion that the gate is too narrow. The facts are facts; the position is opinion; the counterargument stays in, because this house debates, it doesn't dunk.

A robe is not a brain, and a diploma is not a conscience. So who, exactly, do we let hold the gavel — and why them?

What the law actually says (cited)

⚖️ To be a judge, you must be a lawyer

In Michigan, every judge of a court of record — Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit, District, Probate — must be licensed to practice law in the state and have been admitted to practice for at least 5 years, be a resident of the district, under 70 at election, chosen in a nonpartisan race.

Source: Michigan Constitution of 1963, Art. VI, §19.

🚪 But one door is already open: the magistrate

The district court magistrate — who handles arraignments, bail, small claims, civil infractions, traffic, warrants — does NOT have to be an attorney. Michigan law expressly provides for non-attorney magistrates. The bar to clear: be a registered voter in the district, appointed by the district's judges and approved by the county board of commissioners.

Source: MCL 600.8501 (and the public District Court Magistrate Manual).

🗺️ It's not unheard of elsewhere

Several states still seat non-lawyer judges in limited-jurisdiction courts — New York's town and village justices and Texas justices of the peace are long-standing examples. The idea that only a J.D. can judge is a choice each state makes, not a law of nature.

General; verify your state's specifics — non-lawyer judging is limited and varies widely by jurisdiction.

The position (opinion — the curator's, clearly labeled)

⚑ Policy position · the curator's, not the house's fact

The curator's blunt title for it: "Why Lawyers Shouldn't Actually Be in Charge." The house states it cooler, but the fire is his, on the record:

Requiring a law degree to sit in judgment is gatekeeping, not quality control. Law school costs a fortune, which makes the bench a money-gate before it's a merit-gate. A bar card certifies that you passed an exam and paid your dues; it does not certify wisdom, fairness, temperament, or the ability to weigh a human being honestly — the things a judge is actually for. A profession that alone decides who may judge has a quiet incentive to keep the circle small. The credential is standing in for the qualification, and they are not the same thing.

Open the bench. Let demonstrated judgment, character, and a real competence test qualify a person — not just a diploma. We already trust non-lawyer magistrates with people's mornings in court; the wall between "magistrate" and "judge" is a line someone drew, and lines can be redrawn. (The curator's blunter words for the guild exist; they're left in the parking lot, because this house attacks the idea, not the person — that's the rule, even when you're hot.)

The honest other side (because we don't dunk)

🛡️ A gate can also be a standard

The strongest version of the other side, stated fairly: the law is genuinely technical, and a judge who misreads it can wreck a real person's life — their freedom, their kids, their home. Years of training are one way (not the only way, but a real one) to lower the odds of catastrophic error. "Competence is how you protect the people in the room" is not a guild talking point; it's a real concern, and any honest reform has to answer it — ideally with a test that measures the competence directly, instead of a diploma that only proxies for it.

Two real sides, no cheap dunk. That's what makes it a resolution worth debating, not a slogan. Put it to the room.

The moonshot — and how the ladder actually works

So here is the honest path, start to finish:

1 · Learn the law

You can't reform what you don't know. The Revised Judicature Act and the public Magistrate Manual are free; read the job before you run at it.

2 · The real rung: non-attorney magistrate

It exists today, legally, for non-lawyers. Appointed on competence, character, and community standing — exactly the things a body of public work can build.

3 · The moonshot: open the bench

A true non-lawyer judge would take amending Art. VI §19 — a legislature fight, not a courtroom one. Which means the judge dream and the statehouse dream are the same dream. You don't sneak through the gate; you move it.

Where the house stands. The law here is cited and real — read Art. VI §19 and MCL 600.8501 yourself. The position (open the bench / the JD is a gate) is the curator's opinion, clearly labeled, and the strongest counterargument is kept in on purpose, because the whole site is built against the cheap dunk and the ad hominem. No invented holdings, no fake stats, no smearing a whole profession to win a point. The one rule holds: no lying — and aim at the gate, not the people. Sister rooms: Haines v. Kerner, the resolution, the AI Amendment.

Read the sources:
· Michigan Constitution — Art. VI §19 (judge qualifications)
· MCL 600.8501 (district court magistrates — non-attorneys permitted)