Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The Supreme Court has ruled that 10 Commandments in a courtroom is unconstitutional. A judge asking people to leave the courtroom, after the session had concluded, to engage in a private conversation with defendants is not.
|
BUT, we have established by some on here IF a WHITE judge were to do this, they would find it wrong.
This argument goes completely down the toilet if you say, "It's ok the black judge did it, but the white/male/female/jew/hispanic judge that may do it would be wrong.
It's either wrong or right for ALL groups. To say it's ok for one group but not another, in and of itself is prejudicial. There is no in between here. To say there is, is in fact showing favoritism to one group over another.
Quote:
|
To satisfy what IMO, is your unreasonable interpretation, perhaps the judge should have asked the defendants (and their families) to meet him in his private chambers...same public building, same court...but maybe it was too small to accommodate them all.
|
That is not "my interpretation" either. In his chambers, he would still be effectively wearing the robe, esp. if giving the lecture he gave in the courtroom. Sorry, but I would still find that an abuse of power and wrong. The ONLY way I would find any public justification for this would be: if this judge (or any judge) were to give speeches of this type off the property and in the community he serves, without having race/sex/ethnicity/etc be a prerequisite of hearing that speech.
Quote:
|
The concept of equal justice under the law (race, religion, sex, ethnic background) applies to judicial decisions, not informal conversations in a non-official capacity.
|
But this was not an informal conversation. This was a judge that threw out a specific people, so that he could address a select group that had no choice to be there. He did this in his official capacity as evidenced by throwing that specific group of people out.
Quote:
I am honestly not clear in my own mind if the OP is a display of sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity.
but IMO, the more you post, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.
In any case, as you correctly noted, we are each entitled to express our own opinion.
And opinions that reject your premise, harsh as they may sound to you, are not personal attacks.
|
A difference of opinion and sharing of differing views is not personal, nor do I take it personally.
This last quote however, is personal and again, makes this thread about something it is not about.
Why was this necessary? I don't need nor want an answer. I simply find it inappropriate because it has NOTHING to do with the OP and the subject.