Louisiana Republicans Blocking black judge from being Chief Justice

[Drakain]

They all know when she started as a judge. They are screwing over a judge who has served the state of Louisiana for many years because she is black and/or liberal and/or a woman. It is unconstitutional, and they know it, but they don't give a shit.

That may be the case, but that's not what they're saying.

What they're saying is that it's unclear whether an appointed judge (not elected) satisfies the definition of what constitutes longest serving.

I'll assume you don't know as much about the U.S. legal system as I do and, to be honest, Louisiana is weird because it's not a common law state. Anyway, there are basically different kinds of judges: apparently in Louisiana they elect their judges. However, things happen to elected judges - they die, they becomes ill, or become disqualified for some other reason. The point is that they can't serve out their term. When that happens a replacement judge can be appointed. Appointed judges are different because there's not elected by the people and, by definition, are considered "temporary" though usually they end up serving the remainder of the term of whoever they replaced.

This judge was appointed and sat at the bench for six years before she was elected. It's not clear to me why she was appointed, but there was some underlying lawsuit the resulted in her getting appointed as part of a settlement agreement, I believe.

What their arguing about whether her appointment - in the absent of an election - counts towards her seniority on the court. That's it. However, that's boring and the fact that she's black makes for a much better story, anyway, because suddenly you can cast this story into a political charged situation. These kinds of lawsuits aren't actually uncommon. Louisiana apparently hasn't addressed the issue of whether a judge who is appointed and subsequently elected to the seat they were appointed to counts towards their seniority.

You could be right. Maybe it's racially motivated. I don't think you are. I suspect her race is a non-issue.

[NeonX]

Funny, the opposite has happened in my country about a year or two ago. Only women and coloured people were allowed for the spot.
White men could bugger off, but it's not discrimination if it harms white people, right? Such is the result of feminism and positive discrimination.

Anyway, yeah sorry for being slightly off-topic.

What country is that?

[Eviscero]

They all know when she started as a judge. They are screwing over a judge who has served the state of Louisiana for many years because she is black and/or liberal and/or a woman. It is unconstitutional, and they know it, but they don't give a shit.

At this point I have to wonder if you're trolling. You have repeated the same statement four times now: "They know when she started..." I'm not sure what makes me think you will hear it from me since you've refused to hear it several times now but nonetheless I will repeat what you are missing:

When she 'started' is precisely what is in question, and this ambiguity is the basis for disputing her promotion. Yes they know when she 'started', they also know when she was 'sworn in,' which is presumably (according to a strict interpretation of the law) the relevant date.

Judges, lawyers, and politicians make careers out of analyzing laws; they may at times adhere to a strict interpretation of the law and at others a loose one to serve their goals and make their case. Moreover, those challenging her promotion may be bigoted assholes who are motivated purely by racism. Unless they come outright and say that, your claims are unfounded and libelous. There is a lawful basis for combating her promotion, regardless of what is in the hearts of the combatants.

[Daelak]

That may be the case, but that's not what they're saying.

What they're saying is that it's unclear whether an appointed judge (not elected) satisfies the definition of what constitutes longest serving.

I'll assume you don't know as much about the U.S. legal system as I do and, to be honest, Louisiana is weird because it's not a common law state. Anyway, there are basically different kinds of judges: apparently in Louisiana they elect their judges. However, things happen to elected judges - they die, they becomes ill, or become disqualified for some other reason. The point is that they can't serve out their term. When that happens a replacement judge can be appointed. Appointed judges are different because there's not elected by the people and, by definition, are considered "temporary" though usually they end up serving the remainder of the term of whoever they replaced.

This judge was appointed and sat at the bench for six years before she was elected. It's not clear to me why she was appointed, but there was some underlying lawsuit the resulted in her getting appointed as part of a settlement agreement, I believe.

What their arguing about whether her appointment - in the absent of an election - counts towards her seniority on the court. That's it. However, that's boring and the fact that she's black makes for a much better story, anyway, because suddenly you can cast this story into a political charged situation. These kinds of lawsuits aren't actually uncommon because Louisiana apparently hasn't addressed the issue of whether a judge who is appointed and subsequently elected to the seat they were appointed to counts towards their seniority.

You could be right. Maybe it's racially motivated. I don't think you are. I suspect her race is a non-issue.

You are exactly right, it is fucking boring, and her record as a public servant has shown she doesn't deserve to be caught up in some bullshit political game the majority party is trying to play here. It is unconstitutional, the DA is already on the case, and the governor as well. I just hate the hypocrisy they show when they want to be fiscal conservatives yet are more than willing to shell out millions in court fees and time for bullshit.

---------- Post added 2012-08-14 at 07:47 PM ----------

At this point I have to wonder if you're trolling. You have repeated the same statement four times now: "They know when she started..." I'm not sure what makes me think you will hear it from me since you've refused to hear it several times now but nonetheless I will repeat what you are missing:

When she 'started' is precisely what is in question and this ambiguity is the basis for disputing her promotion. Your argument is irrelevant. Yes they know when she 'started', they also know when she was 'sworn in,' which is presumably (according to a strict interpretation of the law) the relevant date.

Judges, lawyers, and politicians make careers out of analyzing laws; they may at times adhere to a strict interpretation and at others a loose one to serve their goals and make their case. Moreover, for all I know they may be bigoted assholes who are motivated purely by racism, but unless they come outright and say that your claims are unfounded and libelous. The fact is there is a lawful basis for combating her promotion, regardless of what is in their hearts.

No there is a constitutional basis for her promotion, yet they are ignoring it with some BS technicality because they are the majority party. If they truly gave a shit, they would amend their state constitution instead of taking this into court, and then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[ScottsdaleHokie]

OP: Did you even read the article, or are you just spewing off your MSNBC/HuffPo talking points? They are holding off on appointing her until the courts define her tenure. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Oh that's right, crying racism, blah, blah, blah is so much easier than actually having a point and a brain.

[Daelak]

OP: Did you even read the article, or are you just spewing off your MSNBC/HuffPo talking points? They are holding off on appointing her until the courts define her tenure. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Oh that's right, crying racism, blah, blah, blah is so much easier than actually having a point and a brain.

She has been a public servant for the state of Louisiana, and instead of amending their constitution, they want to waste time in court.

[Eviscero]

No there is a constitutional basis for her promotion...

I agree there is the potential constitutional basis for her promotion, as much as there is a basis for resistance (in other words, a potential basis to deny her the promotion). Again, it comes down to how the law gets interpreted. Laws require interpretation because they cannot cover all possible scenarios (we have here an interesting example of their inherent limitations). As to your point that she deserves it and that the "spirit of the law" says she should get the promotion, this is what is being decided by them "wasting time in court."

Without a doubt there may be political motivations for fighting her promotion. Since judges have so much power in their ability to bend laws (i.e. decide how to interpret them) a judge's ideology cannot be ignored. If this were flipped around and she were a staunch conservative (but still a black female) I guarantee there would still be some opposition from the other side of the political aisle. That doesn't mean the individuals are necessarily racist. Maybe they just disagree with her politics.


EDIT: Do you know what the process is to amend the state constitution? You seem to be suggesting this is a trivial matter.

[Beazy]

She has been a public servant for the state of Louisiana, and instead of amending their constitution, they want to waste time in court.

........actually im not even going to try here anymore.

[Daelak]

I agree there is the potential constitutional basis for her promotion, as much as there is a basis for resistance (in other words, a potential basis to deny her the promotion). Again, it comes down to how the law gets interpreted. Laws require interpretation because they cannot cover all possible scenarios (we have here an interesting example of their inherent limitations). As to your point that she deserves it and that the "spirit of the law" says she should get the promotion, there may be political motivations for fighting her promotion. Since judges have so much power in their ability to bend laws (i.e. decide how to interpret them) a judges ideology cannot be ignored. If this were flipped around and she were a staunch conservative (but still a black female) I guarantee there would be some opposition from the other side of the political aisle. That doesn't mean the individuals are necessarily racist. Maybe they just disagree with her politics.

Correct, if the minority party in Louisiana could resist the appointment they would, but I think Louisiana is a single party government right now.

[Rooflesstoofless]

/pout /slamdoor /jumpinbed/ /placepillowoverhead /cry

Great, now I need to make a trip to the store to buy some cookies and give them all to you because that was freaking hilarious.

PS- Sorry for off-topic.

[tombstoner139]

She has been a public servant for the state of Louisiana, and instead of amending their constitution, they want to waste time in court.

Sometimes issues need to be hashed out it court. i think that's sort of the point for having em. i don't consider looking for clarification as being in violation of any state or federal law. i consider it part of the process. I think the OP is being far to literal in his or her interpretation and understanding of the law. the question at hand is reasonable. when does tenure start, at appointment or election.