Finally the GOP is starting to make headway into protecting marriage.

[Conan71]

If by a set-up, you mean they specifically chose this JOP so that they could shine a light on his ignorance, and hopefully shame him into retirement, or at least discourage his reappointment/reelection or solicit some disciplinary action, then you probably right.

If you think they somehow plan to sue & recover monetary damages, highly unlikely.  Judicial immunity is one of the broadest forms of immunity.  As long as he was acting in his "judicial capacity", they won't recover a dime from him.

This is about all I could find on La. law when googling liability for JOP's in La.

"Limitations on liability for damages
Any act or issue done in conformity to a written order or judgment of any judge of court shall not be liable against the clerk or court or deputy of such officer in either his individual or official capacity to any person, firm, or corporation.  This exemption from liability shall extend to any surety or liability insurance carrier of such officer. (LA RS 13:760) "

Here's an interesting piece of cocktail party trivia:

Leased musical instrument not subject to seizure for rent 
No landlord, lessee, owner of any tenement house(s), or agent of such may seize for rent any piano, organ, or other musical instrument in the property that is not the personal property of the inmates or sub-lessee. (LA RS 13:3878)

[pmcalk]

^^I was thinking more of federal (such as a 1983 claim), which definitely provide judicial immunity.  I'm not sure what sort of claim you were thinking, but Louisiana grants pretty extensive immunity to judges/JOP as well:

In Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d
555 (1988), the United States Supreme Court recognized the long
history of judicial immunity and its importance in protecting judges
from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants. The judge
is entitled to absolute immunity where he performs "judicial" acts.
Moore v. Taylor, 541 So.2d 378 (La.App. 2d Cir.1989). A judge, of
whatever status in the judicial hierarchy, is immune from suit for
damages resulting from any act performed in the judicial role. Judges
are absolutely immune from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability for all acts
performed within their subject matter jurisdiction, even if the acts are
malicious. This immunity extends to justices of the peace as well as
those that sit on the supreme court and shields judges unless they act
either in "the clear absence of all jurisdiction over subject matter" or in
a nonjudicial capacity. Moore v. Taylor, supra.
The Louisiana jurisprudence on judicial immunity mirrors the
federal doctrine. A judge may not be cast for damages for his errors
unless he has acted outside of his judicial capacity. Moore v. Taylor,
supra. Even where the judge has technically acted outside his
jurisdiction and contrary to law, he will remain protected, unless his
actions were based on malice or corruption. Moore v. Taylor, supra.
Therefore, to state a cause of action against Judge Moore, the
plaintiff must allege facts showing not only malice and corruption, but
that Judge Moore acted beyond his jurisdiction or outside his judicial
capacity.

http://www.la3circuit.org/opinions/2005/04/042705/04-1199opi.pdf (Interesting case in which the judge presided over a divorce involving a women with whom he was having an affair.  Thank goodness they are so concerned with the sanctity of marriage in Louisiana).

[rwarn17588]

If by a set-up, you mean they specifically chose this JOP so that they could shine a light on his ignorance, and hopefully shame him into retirement, or at least discourage his reappointment/reelection or solicit some disciplinary action, then you probably right.

An interesting thought. But anyone who has views like that in the first place is probably immune to the concept of shame.

[Townsend]

He resigned today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33609707/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity

BATON ROUGE, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry a couple because the bride was white and groom was black resigned Tuesday.

[cannon_fodder]

In a related topic:

Maine voted 53% in favor of stripping the right to marry away from gay couples.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/04/maine-same-sex-vote-no-election


Take that homosexuals!  Now they'll all go out and marry people of the opposite sex and procreate.  Which is, of course, the purpose of a real marriage.  /sarcasm

[Townsend]

In a related topic:

Maine voted 53% in favor of stripping the right to marry away from gay couples.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/04/maine-same-sex-vote-no-election


Take that homosexuals!  Now they'll all go out and marry people of the opposite sex and procreate.  Which is, of course, the purpose of a real marriage.  /sarcasm

Swell, now they'll get their gay all over the breeders.

[guido911]

In a related topic:

Maine voted 53% in favor of stripping the right to marry away from gay couples.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/04/maine-same-sex-vote-no-election


Take that homosexuals!  Now they'll all go out and marry people of the opposite sex and procreate.  Which is, of course, the purpose of a real marriage.  /sarcasm

To me that development was one of the most significant election return from last night (the other of course being New Jersey). Olbermann will obviously have a special comment tonight arguing how "horrible" this is and how gay marriage is not about politics but rather about "the human heart".  Oh, and I have no objection to gay couples marrying.  

UPDATED:  Or should I be rethinking this non-objection in light of this dooshbag:

In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side "will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives."

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/128048.html

California redux.

[Hoss]

To me that development was one of the most significant election return from last night (the other of course being New Jersey). Olbermann will obviously have a special comment tonight arguing how "horrible" this is and how gay marriage is not about politics but rather about "the human heart".  Oh, and I have no objection to gay couples marrying.  

UPDATED:  Or should I be rethinking this non-objection in light of this dooshbag:

In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side "will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives."

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/128048.html

California redux.

How can that be any different than the Minnesota Senatorial race from last year?  Does that make Norm Coleman a 'dooshbag' also?

[we vs us]

I can't find the actual video to post at work, but Jesse Venture had a nice sum-up during CNN's coverage last night: 

"You can't put a civil rights issue on the ballot and let the people decide. You have to have elected officials who have courage to make the right decision. If you left it up to the people, we'd have slavery, depending on how you worded it."

[Conan71]

I can't find the actual video to post at work, but Jesse Venture had a nice sum-up during CNN's coverage last night:  

"You can't put a civil rights issue on the ballot and let the people decide. You have to have elected officials who have courage to make the right decision. If you left it up to the people, we'd have slavery, depending on how you worded it."

Wait a second here.

This guy:




Thinks only a select few should decide civil rights issues...bullshit.

[guido911]

Wait a second here.

This guy:




Thinks only a select few should decide civil rights issues...bullshit.

Come on, politicians are way better than the average, knuckle dragging member of the electorate at standing up for civil rights. Interesting that the pro-gay marriage folks in both Cali and Maine, doing their best Sore-Loserman impersonations, actively seek out those behind the anti-gay marriage to destroy them personally or, in the case of donors who are business owners, destroy them financially. In Maine, the pro-gay marriage people want to know where the anti folks live I guess to get even for their exercising their civil right to vote.

[Conan71]

Civil rights issues appearing on ballots is the only true way for the majority to be heard, not a small minority of our citizens in the form of corrupt politicians.

Just FYI- I don't have a horse in this race.  If gay people want the punishment of marriage, more power to them.  Personally, I don't think the government has a place in sanctioning marriage regardless of gender.

[we vs us]

I like that whole "attack the fruity messenger" thing.  Awesome. 

Ventura's a smart guy.  We know the majority isn't always correct in everything.  That's why we have so many constitutionally sanctioned ways to thwart it.  It's that whole tyranny of the majority thing. 

I'm not sure why we wouldn't want politicians making the occasional decision on their own.  Since, you know, that's why we elect them.  To represent us.

[Hoss]

Civil rights issues appearing on ballots is the only true way for the majority to be heard, not a small minority of our citizens in the form of corrupt politicians.

Just FYI- I don't have a horse in this race.  If gay people want the punishment of marriage, more power to them.  Personally, I don't think the government has a place in sanctioning marriage regardless of gender.

And my thought is that the government has NO place sanctioning morals of ANY type.  For me, that includes sanctioning ANY religion over another, sanctioning a 10 commandments tablet or the like.

The job of the government is to govern, not to preach.

[Conan71]

I like that whole "attack the fruity messenger" thing.  Awesome. 

Ventura's a smart guy.  We know the majority isn't always correct in everything.  That's why we have so many constitutionally sanctioned ways to thwart it.  It's that whole tyranny of the majority thing. 

I'm not sure why we wouldn't want politicians making the occasional decision on their own.  Since, you know, that's why we elect them.  To represent us.

Sorry Wevus, I can't put that much trust in people who have ZERO altruism in their hearts and who vote for the interests of the highest bidder and their own subjective beliefs.