[jeffkrol]

Bobby Jindal Appeals Ruling On Bernette Johnson, Black Supreme Court Justice

Jindal, who is Indian-American, on Friday asked an appeals court to review a lower-court decision to allow black justice Bernette Johnson's to succeed a white chief justice retiring next year.

The dispute over whether Johnson should be the first black justice to head the Louisiana court has highlighted long-standing racial tensions in the state.

The state constitution stipulates that the longest-serving associate justice takes the top post. Johnson began serving on the state Supreme Court in 1994 while white justice Jeffrey Victory did not join the court until 1995.

But Johnson was initially appointed to the Supreme Court, not elected, as part of a state settlement with the federal government over racial discrimination that expanded the court to seven justices from six.

The other members of the current court, who are all white, contend that Johnson does not have the seniority to be the next chief justice. Johnson's colleagues on the court say that her first six years as an appointed justice should not count toward her seniority.

bit more background:

When voters elected her in 1994, Johnson at first filled an appeals-court seat but was assigned to serve on the Supreme Court full time under terms of a civil-rights-lawsuit settlement. Some argued that Justice Jeffery Victory, who has served since 1995, has served longer than Johnson. They wanted the Louisiana Supreme Court to settle the question.

But Johnson argued that she had served longer than any other justice, and that this is all the state Constitution requires. The federal judge agreed.

Johnson's attorney James Williams said the ruling effectively renders the state Supreme Court's debate on the issue moot and blocks them from deciding who has more seniority.

Lawyers for the state didn't immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press seeking comment.

Various parties had weighed in on the case.

A motion by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal's executive counsel last month said he believed the matter was an issue for the state to decide. Jindal was not taking a position on who should be chief justice.

Meanwhile, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed a brief supporting Johnson, who went to federal court to make sure her fellow justices don't deny her the chief-justice position next year.

The civil-rights group's brief said that Johnson has undeniably served the longest and that state Supreme Court actions to determine whether Johnson's years as an appeals-court judge permanently assigned to the court should count as years of service infringed on the federal court's authority to oversee the civil-rights settlement.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019056171_louisianacourt03.html

[mikemike]

I think you answered it yourself:

A motion by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal's executive counsel last month said he believed the matter was an issue for the state to decide. Jindal was not taking a position on who should be chief justice.

The proper way to resolve this would be to appoint one or the other, I personally think Justice Johnson has the right of way, then put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot at the next statewide election, they could probably even get it on the ballot for November to resolve the rules and apply them immediately to the current court. If an amendment which clarifies the rules to only count service that resulted from an election than put Justice Victory gets the position otherwise Johnson continues.

[jeffkrol]

I think you answered it yourself:


The proper way to resolve this would be to appoint one or the other, I personally think Justice Johnson has the right of way, then put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot at the next statewide election, they could probably even get it on the ballot for November to resolve the rules and apply them immediately to the current court. If an amendment which clarifies the rules to only count service that resulted from an election than put Justice Victory gets the position otherwise Johnson continues.

yes the answer is obvious:

The civil-rights group's brief said that Johnson has undeniably served the longest and that state Supreme Court actions to determine whether Johnson's years as an appeals-court judge permanently assigned to the court should count as years of service

Oh and obviously THEY were not "behaving well" in the eye's of Fed laws before...

THe STATE overriding it's own rules is a matter of concern here as to determine motive for said hypocrisy........

[mikemike]

As is indicated by the articles that you have read about this, the Supreme Court Justices here are elected to office. The fact that every president prior to Obama was a white man does not prove the existence or prevalence of racism or sexism any more than his election proves that racism is a thing of the past. And actually, the current chief justice isn't retiring until February so there is plenty of time to let the voters decide although that does not look like it is a path being entertained.

[jeffkrol]

As is indicated by the articles that you have read about this, the Supreme Court Justices here are elected to office. The fact that every president prior to Obama was a white man does not prove the existence or prevalence of racism or sexism any more than his election proves that racism is a thing of the past. And actually, the current chief justice isn't retiring until February so there is plenty of time to let the voters decide although that does not look like it is a path being entertained.

When voters elected her in 1994, Johnson at first filled an appeals-court seat but was assigned to serve on the Supreme Court full time under terms of a civil-rights-lawsuit settlement. Some argued that Justice Jeffery Victory, who has served since 1995, has served longer than Johnson.

Well apparently they lost once in court..these are not trivial matters.. Maybe you can answer exactly what she was elected to? I've never known appeals courts to be voter chosen positions

Unambiguous wording in the Louisiana Constitution suggests there's nothing for the justices to decide in the first place. Once current Chief Justice Kitty Kimball retires next year, the next-longest serving justice should replace her. That's Johnson.

Except that some folks think it isn't. And one of them, it turns out, is the man who'd get the coveted post if she doesn't.

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2012/08/justice_bernette_johnson_makes.html

I did mention hypocrisy didn't I...........

The court did agree to credit Johnson for years served for the purposes of more mundane matters, like who got the best office, but the minutes also specify that the decision "is to be given no precedential weight whatsoever in that prospective future controversy," about the selection of chief justice. The record also notes that "Justices Johnson and Victory did not concur in the ... disposition of these two issues, since both believe they are senior to the other for all purposes."

[mikemike]

They are here, and she actually never one the election for the appeals court because the federal ruling came in between the primary and the runoff election and the front runner, Miriam Waltzer (a white lady and holocaust survivor), bowed out so that Johnson could get onto the supreme court which the feds were requiring went to a black judge.

Attachment 140122

If you go to that website and lookup the results for the next election November 8, 1994 you will see that this office wasn't on the ballot. An old-timer around here filled me in on the back story since I was only 11 years old in 1994. While racism does have some pertinence to this fight, there are some legitimate issues with the validity of her accession to the court and some bad blood about the federal government interfering with state matters.

[jeffkrol]

They are here, and she actually never one the election for the appeals court because the federal ruling came in between the primary and the runoff election and the front runner, Miriam Waltzer (a white lady and holocaust survivor), bowed out so that Johnson could get onto the supreme court which the feds were requiring went to a black judge.

Attachment 140122

If you go to that website and lookup the results for the next election November 8, 1994 you will see that this office wasn't on the ballot. An old-timer around here filled me in on the back story since I was only 11 years old in 1994. While racism does have some pertinence to this fight, there are some legitimate issues with the validity of her accession to the court and some bad blood about the federal government interfering with state matters.

down south there is always (and apparently will always be) "bad blood" between the Fed and state..

Having someone drop out and being second place makes you the "winner" in any metric I understand.....
As to the "Next election" if a contestant dropped out i.e she was then "unchallenged" I suppose you could have allowed a "write in" vote.. but states are always strapped for cash.. anyways it was a decision that was done at the time..

[Nesster]

The seniority of the justices on the Louisiana Supreme Court was disputed in the summer of 2012 after Chief Justice Kimball announced her retirement.[4] The Louisiana Constitution, Art. 5, § 6, provides that "The judge oldest in point of service on the supreme court shall be chief justice."[5] When Justice Bernette Johnson, an African-American, was elected in 1994, she technically filled a seat on a state appeals court but was assigned to serve on the Supreme Court on a full-time basis under the terms of a federal consent decree.

Louisiana Supreme Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia