More court house wedding issues - how many people?
I don't think 10 people is a big deal, but I wouldn't have it any larger than that. A lot of places just do it in an actual courtroom which could easily fit quite a few guests, and others do it in an office which are usually large enough to hand a small group. Do be prepared on these people wanting to do (even a small) something afterwards though, you might want to have cake and punch at someone house or something similar. Yes, next year is the big hurrah but this is still a big day and people who care about you want to be involved.
In court, do Jewish people have to put their right hand on the Bible?
Those who answered yes because they think the Christian bible is the same as the Jewish Torah, but that is a false assumption. The Christian bible has always been different because it was not only translated incorrectly when first done because they did not know the Hebrew language. There are no vowels used and some words have different meanings,as does English, that are dependent upon the sentence or paragraph. Since then, is has been changed many times throughout history to better fit their dogma. Think about how many versions there are of the Christian bible today! As for the original question, I work in the law enforcement field and have had to testify before Grand Juries and in the courts. I have never had to put my hand on any type of book and have never heard any god invoked when someone is being sworn in. Regardless, it would be as improper for someone who was Jewish to lie as it would be for anyone in that situation.
Why do they still have court room sketch artists? Don't people take pictures or videos in court rooms even though there may be some rules against it? Are these rules outdated?
The sketch artists are there so that newspapers and television stations can have some sort of visual thing to show the readers/viewers. Images sell.There’s no legal purpose for the sketch artist (as I wrote in this answer a couple of years ago); the official record of the proceeding is the transcript. Sketch artists are tolerated as long as they don’t themselves interfere with the proceeding.I don’t see anyone getting away with taking pictures or videos in the court rooms I hang out in, though. There’s a “no phones” rule that the bailiffs have been known to enforce by confiscating the offending electronic equipment. A couple of neighbouring counties actually prohibit the cell phones from the entire facility—you can’t even get into the building, much less the courtroom, with one.On rare occasions a court may permit videography of the proceeding, but I don’t think the rules are outdated. While the general concept is that the courts are open, there are still rules of decorum, and phones and video cameras are a potential breach of that decorum.The phone or camera can be a distraction; participants or jurors might mug for cameras. (Even without reference to photos or videos, phones ringing are a possible problem.)Sometimes there are concerns that observers in the courtroom might use such recordings in furtherance of efforts to intimidate or harass witnesses or jurors.Another concern might be efforts by parties to generate (possibly misleading) publicity about the case while it’s being decided. A video that is edited to omit important parts of the proceeding might give an entirely inaccurate impression of what is going on.
Why do people sue for everything in America?
Well, to get the legitimate reason out of the way . . . there are a LOT of people and companies out there acting irresponsibly and carelessly, causing injury to people and property (e.g., a grocery store letting a broken jar of mayonnaise sit in an aisle for hours until someone slips and falls because of it, or a business polluting a river until people downstream are harmed by it). And people have a right to be compensated for losses incurred thereby (I’m sure you’ve seen Erin Brockovich (2000) and Silkwood (1983)).But a big reason for court-clogging litigation until fairly recently was . . . easy $$$$. Until about 10–15 years ago, many companies, people, etc. would sue over every fender-bender, and the defendant would just file an insurance claim, and let the insurance company pay the plaintiff a token settlement for a minor-to-moderate “wrong” - just so the plaintiff would go away and the defendant wouldn’t have to take the time and trouble to deal with the trouble of the judicial system. THEN at some point, the camel’s back broke, people “scamming the system” skyrocketed, jury verdicts skyrocketed, so insurance rates skyrocketed, and companies/people could no longer afford to just “roll over and pay” (Wal Mart was a major factor here . . . they have a formidable legal team and a notoriously strict policy of taking EVERY claim - from the smallest “slip and fall” to the largest environmental lawsuit - ALL the way). In other words, don’t sue Wal Mart - or most other large American companies - unless you’re in it for the long haul. And trust me, you’ll be broke from legal fees LONG before they will.So now, the money is not quite as “easy,” but as Bill Null says below, the U.S. does not have a “loser pays court costs/legal fees” system like England (one element of their legal system we did NOT adopt), so there is still a lot of questionable litigation, because there is relatively little disincentive - short of cost - in the U.S. for someone to bring a lawsuit (a lawsuit has to be pretty bad for a court to decide that it is a “nuisance” lawsuit and actually sanction someone for that).