Justices of the Peace in Louisiana are judges. They handle preliminary hearings for certain criminal charges (misdemeanors) and have (extremely limited) civil jurisdiction.
Sure it is. It’s not explicitly spelled out in the US Constitution but higher courts have widely held that marriage is a fundamental (and therefore constitutionally protected) right under the 10th (and 14th) amendments.
According to Wikipedia, Tangipahoa Parish has about 100 K people, 70% of whom are white. Voter turnouts are usually low, so I’d be surprised if we were talking more than 25,000.
Huey Long could have done it, but he wouldn’t have.
WTF?! Of course it did. It was about a lot of things, of course, and a reaction against a lot of things; but it would have been somewhat different, and probably less vigorous, if American racism had not been there to react against. It was in significant part a reaction against all traditional hierarchies in American society, including hierarchies of race as well as class, sex, age and culture.
This is not to be belligerent, for clarity: exactly what distinction, other than terminological, do you see in making this distinguishment?
In New York State, J.P.'s, now differentiated into Town and Village Justices, may: (a) conduct small claims court and try civil suits below a monetary cap; (b) try offenses against municipal ordinances; (c) try traffic offenses, petty penal offienses, and misdemeanors; or (d) issue arrest warrants, arraign and set bail on felony accusations. And of course (e) officiate at civil marriages.
They are elected by the voters of their jurisdiction, byt may not enter into the exercise of their office until they successfully complete a training program, unless they are Bar members or have taken the training previously. And once trained and sworn in, they are regarded as the lowest tier of judges.
The term is used to identify a fairly wide ranging set of officials. JPs in New York may be judges with limited jurisdiction, but in many states (presumably including Bricker’s) they’re just notaries.
They are members of the judiciary in Louisiana, for the record- see my post above.
Don’t bother. This Starving Artist drama has played out a million times in a million threads, so I’ll give you the Cliff’s Notes version:
Starving Artist says something about how everything was better in the fifties, back when “civility was still a virtue” (or something similarly inane).
Somebody asks SA if civility requires black people to sit at the back of the bus.
Starving Artist acts outraged and vehemently denies racist tendencies, sometimes demanding an apology and/or accusing the other poster of tarring all conservatives with the racist brush.
Other posters roll eyes.
Starving Artist makes up a statistic which proves that life was more civilized back then.
Third poster demands citation.
Starving Artist promises to provide one, but not right now because he’s really busy.
Somebody bumps thread two weeks later to ask if SA had time to find those cites.
Thread is forgotten, and the Circle of Life continues.
Hey, I think I know just what you’re saying here – it was the image of the dignified but implacable middle-class blacks and the poor blacks who had dressed up in their Sunday best for the occasion, politely but very firmly asserting their rights as against a subset of Southern whites who came across as Sheriff Buford T. Justice and his Redneck Yahoos (and not as a band name), generally live on TV, that swayed the previously uncaring heart of the nation to respect and enforce their rights.
But I hope you realize that to a fair-sized set of Dopers – and to my shame it was my first reaction – what it sounds like is a racist “longing for the days when those uppity blacks knew their place.” And for that you can expect to be reviled – even though I realize it’s not what you actually meant.
I am pretty much in agreement with you on the need for civility in discourse. There is a time and place for incivility, in delivering the well-deserved putdown to the most obstreperous of sociopaths. But it should be rare that it’s needed. However (and here is where I suspect we part company) this is something that each person should expect of himself, as an individual ethical obligation socially ‘expected’, not something to be enforced by incivil behavior towards the offender.
If only there was some cells that can become other cells. Maybe we could solve the issue from which this stems. Who wouldn’t be in support of doing some research into this?
Interesting. I didn’t know that – in Virginia we haven’t had justices of the peace since the early 1970s; they have been replaced by “magistrates” which have limited judicial power. Magistrates can perform only the following in Virginia:
[ul]
[li]Issue arrest and search warrants upon showing of probable cause by a police officer[/li][li]Set bail immediately after arrest[/li][li]Issue arrest warrants upon showing of probable cause by a citizen with the approval of the Commonwealth Attorney’s office[/li][li]Issue civil summons for sheriff or constable[/li][li]Perform marriages[/li][/ul]
Without checking Louisiana, I wonder if the situation isn’t similar: a JUDGE can hear felony and misdemeanor trials, for example, and a magistrate cannot; seems in Louisiana the line is drawn differently, but there is a line. They ARE judges, just limited in their powers.
Can we please pretty please for the love of god avoid turning this thread into yet another episode of the Starving Artist show? There’s enough ridiculous to mock without having yet another useless discussion with him.
My thanks to RNATB and Bricker for the clarification. Virginia and North Carolina Magistrates seem to have roughly equivalent powers. (I assume bail setting includes arraignment in Bricker’s list – we tend to overlook arraignment, but it is the default right for which Habeas Corpus is the remedy – the right not to be jailed for more than a brief period without being confronted with what offense known to the law one is charged with violating, and the opportunity to seek bail and counsel.)
Hmm, I wonder. What makes this case different from pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control or morning-after pill scripts? He’s recusing himself from performing the marriage. He’s not ruling on a case of someone else’s marriage, or passing a law which makes it illegal for them to marry, he’s just saying he won’t, personally, sign it.
I can see a couple differences, one is public, one is private. A Judge/Magistrate/JotP whatever should well know about protected classes and know it will be his job to provide his services without violating these protections. A pharmacist doesn’t take an oath to support a body of laws which includes something which says refusing to fill a script is illegal.
So what makes refusing to fill a script a matter of personal choice and refusing to sign a marriage certificate a matter of law? Or is there something I’m missing?
Actually no-- arraignment is conducted in General District court, presided over by a judge, not a magistrate.
An arraignment proceeding may also include a bail set or bail mod motion, but it doesn’t have to. Typically the magistrate’s bail numbers are crazy high and the judge will give your guy something more reasonable.
If you allow whites to marry non-whites you dilute the white race! You get just a huge pile of muddy crap. The white race needs to remain pure so that they can bestow their kindess and wisdom to the lesser races.
WTF?! Of course it did. It was about a lot of things, of course, and a reaction against a lot of things; but it would have been somewhat different, and probably less vigorous, if American racism had not been there to react against. It was in significant part a reaction against all traditional hierarchies in American society, including hierarchies of race as well as class, sex, age and culture.