Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's true, it is sometimes difficult to defeat an elected official who is running for reelection. On the other hand, election is not the only avenue. An elected official who acts in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is subject to being sued to redress those violations.
That may or not be true, I'm not fully conversant. I'm not so sure that a court of law (in which such a suit could be pursued) would have the authority to remove an elected official from office. Even if convicted of a felony and sent to prison (much less a civil discrimination verdict), the JP can still only be recalled by the state legislature, of which a majority would have to find cause. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Louisiana law is Napoleonic, so there are probably a number of factors there that we can't anticipate. http://www.slate.com/id/2126126/
"In theory, a judge in Louisiana decides a case based on her own interpretation of the code, not those of prior courts. In the other states, judges are supposed to make decisions based exclusively on previous rulings."
That may or not be true, I'm not fully conversant. I'm not so sure that a court of law (in which such a suit could be pursued) would have the authority to remove an elected official from office. Even if convicted of a felony and sent to prison (much less a civil discrimination verdict), the JP can still only be recalled by the state legislature, of which a majority would have to find cause. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"In theory, a judge in Louisiana decides a case based on her own interpretation of the code, not those of prior courts. In the other states, judges are supposed to make decisions based exclusively on previous rulings."
Of course it's true. Regardless of the fact that Lousiana is a Code state, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that in matters of federal constitutional law, which is what Loving v. Virginia is, the federal constitution is supreme over any local law or practice.
I express no opinion as to whether the court has the authority to remove him from office, but it most certainly has the authority to require him to comply with the constitutional requirement that he not discriminate against mixed-race couples.
It is just this kind of thing that will test the fortitude of so many folk's who believe that we have indeed come a long ways from the days of racial segregation. The fact that the couple went to some other person to get married is proof enough that they weren't barred from marrying, but moreover the victims of someones stupidity, this is hardly reason to blink in these modern times, lets just all be happy that this JP is rare and not the common fool we would have seen 50 years ago.
This guy should resign or be impeached, plain and simple.
No reason not to marry anyone who loves one another, and is of consenting age. A Judge doesn't get to say whats right and wrong, a Judge gets to decide if someone broke a law, that was passed saying what is right and wrong.
There was a woman pastor in Minnesota who refused to marry any couples that belonged to her church until the state ban forbidding gay marriage was done away with.
Gosh, liberal posters sure didn't bash her for refusing to marry people.
They applauded her decision !
There was a woman pastor in Minnesota who refused to marry any couples that belonged to her church until the state ban forbidding gay marriage was done away with.
Gosh, liberal posters sure didn't bash her for refusing to marry people.
They applauded her decision !
She isn't an elected official.
Thats like saying a Captain on a ship refused to marry someone. They have that right. However, when you are elected to an office, and then refuse to marry someone for racial reasons, then there is an issue.
What is the point of calling them Judges, if they are to be denied the right to make any judgments? It's all a part of our flow-chart society, in which nobody has the authority to exercise common sense, for fear that someone might make a judgment that offends somebody.
If two people want to get married, why make them appear before a person to do so, when that person is nothing but an automatic rubber stamp? Why not just have them dial an 800-number and oprima el dos para espanol, and then press One for yes, we want to get married, or Two, no we don't want to get married, and have it done with?
There was a woman pastor in Minnesota who refused to marry any couples that belonged to her church until the state ban forbidding gay marriage was done away with.
Gosh, liberal posters sure didn't bash her for refusing to marry people.
They applauded her decision !
And if the JP in question were to refuse to perform any marriages because he disapproves of interracial marriage there might be no basis to sue him. It is the act of exercising his authority in a discriminatory way that will subject him to legal sanctions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
