I pit the Louisiana judge who is, apparently, stuck in a time warp

[Voyager]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

F1>IndyCar!

What, for the JP? Nothing. He’s an elected official, and as such almost entirely immune from prosecution for actions taken in the course of carrying out the duties of his office (as long as he’s not doing anything really naughty.)

He might not get reelected, of course… but then, it’s Louisiana, so he might actually pick up votes.

Assuming he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States upon taking office, maybe he can get zapped for breaking his oath.

[Voyager]

@Bricker

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.

Here is a page describing the varieties of Louisiana courts, including the Justice of the Peace courts.

Unlike the rest of the country, Louisiana Law is based on French and Spanish, not English, common law. Cite. When i lived there I heard that it was very hard for people trained in Louisiana to move out of state to practice and vice versa, but I’m not sure how true that is.

[RTFirefly]

@Stoid

I’ve believed for a long time that in another hundred years or so, everyone in the US (the world will be later) will be a sort of latte color, and all recognition of racial difference will be history.

Mmmmm…latte!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Voyager

Unlike the rest of the country, Louisiana Law is based on French and Spanish, not English, common law. Cite. When i lived there I heard that it was very hard for people trained in Louisiana to move out of state to practice and vice versa, but I’m not sure how true that is.

France has no common law. You mean French civil law.

[elucidator]

@Stoid

I’ve believed for a long time that in another hundred years or so, everyone in the US (the world will be later) will be a sort of latte color, and all recognition of racial difference will be history.

Fuck for Peace? Works for me.

[Oakminster]

@E-Sabbath

I say, Bricker? Any other lawyer? Assuming, for the sake of this argument, that this judge is violating the constitutional rights of these two people to get married, what are the possible consequences?

Eg, assuming that there is a constitutional right to get married, that a Justice of the Peace has the obligation to carry out marriages, given no valid cause not to, and that the couple being biracial is not a valid cause?

Here’s the link I posted in the GD thread:

18 U.S.C. 242

[Der_Trihs]

@Stoid

I’ve believed for a long time that in another hundred years or so, everyone in the US (the world will be later) will be a sort of latte color, and all recognition of racial difference will be history.

And then we can persecute the cyborgs!

[Captain_Carrot]

@Guinastasia

Cite? Or is this a whoosh? :dubious:

I think TFD doesn’t know about any SC cases but Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, and maybe Marbury v. Madison.

[Tamerlane]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

He might not get reelected, of course… but then, it’s Louisiana, so he might actually pick up votes.

Every time I read about this case, the same line flashes in front of my eyes:

Is you is, or is you ain’t, my constituency?

[E-Sabbath]

So, 18 USC 242 actually has criminal penalties. Huh. Nice to know the Constitution has teeth. Now, who can bring charges?

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Stoid

I’ve believed for a long time that in another hundred years or so, everyone in the US (the world will be later) will be a sort of latte color, and all recognition of racial difference will be history.

It’s like that in some South American places already.

[Miller]

@E-Sabbath

So, 18 USC 242 actually has criminal penalties. Huh. Nice to know the Constitution has teeth. Now, who can bring charges?

I’m guessing any of the couples this chucklehead has refused to marry.

[Mtgman]

Up to and including death actually. The couple can press the charges.

I’m still not sure I see a big difference between this and the pharmacist refusing to dispense. Apparently under color of law(acting as an agent of the law) you can be executed for refusing to perform some duty you have a personal objection to, but refusing to perform a duty as a civilian doesn’t even get you fined/fired.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Miller]

@Mtgman

I’m still not sure I see a big difference between this and the pharmacist refusing to dispense.

The difference is there’s no amendment to the constitution mandating access to birth control.

[marshmallow]

@Stoid

I’ve believed for a long time that in another hundred years or so, everyone in the US (the world will be later) will be a sort of latte color, and all recognition of racial difference will be history.

I’ve often looked at third world genocides and wondered how they knew who to kill because they frankly all looked the same to my ignorant whitey eyes. But the differences are there, you just have grow up there to intuitively detect them.

Failing that, we can always move on to culture and religion.

[elucidator]

Personally, I think a war of extermination against lolcats is wholly justifiable.

[BigT]

@Miller

The difference is there’s no amendment to the constitution mandating access to birth control.

Neither is there one for marriage; marriage is an interpreted right, neither the 10th nor the 14th (mentioned upthread) explicitly mentions marriage. The reason that marriage is considered a fundamental right, while marriage is not has nothing to do with the Constitution itself.

[Kobal2]

@Stoid

I’ve believed for a long time that in another hundred years or so, everyone in the US (the world will be later) will be a sort of latte color, and all recognition of racial difference will be history.

As an added advantage, once the US reaches that state, racists will be identifiable by skin color

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@BigT

Neither is there one for marriage; marriage is an interpreted right, neither the 10th nor the 14th (mentioned upthread) explicitly mentions marriage. The reason that marriage is considered a fundamental right, while marriage is not has nothing to do with the Constitution itself.

There isn’t even an interpreted right to birth control; there is an interpreted right to privacy which protects the rights of women to obtain and use birth control, but does not necessarily deprive others of the right not to dispense it.

Stupid, but there you go.

[Miller]

@BigT

Neither is there one for marriage; marriage is an interpreted right, neither the 10th nor the 14th (mentioned upthread) explicitly mentions marriage. The reason that marriage is considered a fundamental right, while marriage is not has nothing to do with the Constitution itself.

Neither the 14th nor the 10th amendment explicitly mentions lunch counters or bus seating, either. What they do mention is that it’s illegal to treat someone differently because of their race. Which would be the law I was referring to in my last post.