middleagedgamer
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,363
- Reaction score
- 72
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Judges are legally required to obey binding precedent. To disobey binding precedent is a offense sanctionable by a variety of punishments, including fines and suspensions. To repeatedly disregard binding precedent is grounds for impeachment. It has never happened before, in American history, but largely because judges who blatantly disregard binding precedent typically clean up their act, after the lesser sanctions, before it reaches that point.
Should the same apply to judges who blatantly disregard unambiguous statute?
Let me give you a few examples of the kinds of "blatantly disregarding unambiguous statute" that I'm talking about.
In the 2nd Circuit, a series of New York restaurants had discriminated against a blind girl by refusing to read the menus for her, since they lacked braille menus, and reading them to her was the only way for her to know what the menus said. The district judge threw the case out because he said that there was no requirement to provide these accommodations. Here is proof of that case:
The Fast Food Menu And A Restaurant's Duty To A Legally Blind Patron Under The ADA
No requirement to accommodate? THE HELL, THERE ISN'T?! What the F*CK do you think Section 302 of the Americans with Disabilities Act says? It specifically defines "discrimination" as, among other things, "a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations;"
How can you POSSIBLY misinterpret that paragraph? There is no excuse for that! That should be a sanctionable offense, the likes of blatantly disregarding binding precedent. Short of the law being unconstitutional, there is no excuse for a judge being aware of it, and not adhering to it, to the letter. Judges can interpret vague statute however they see fit, but only up to the point that it is actually ambiguous.
That's just one example. I can provide more, but it's late, and I'm tired.
Anyway, do you think blatantly ignoring unambiguous statute like that should be a sanctionable - and even impeachable - offense?
Should the same apply to judges who blatantly disregard unambiguous statute?
Let me give you a few examples of the kinds of "blatantly disregarding unambiguous statute" that I'm talking about.
In the 2nd Circuit, a series of New York restaurants had discriminated against a blind girl by refusing to read the menus for her, since they lacked braille menus, and reading them to her was the only way for her to know what the menus said. The district judge threw the case out because he said that there was no requirement to provide these accommodations. Here is proof of that case:
The Fast Food Menu And A Restaurant's Duty To A Legally Blind Patron Under The ADA
No requirement to accommodate? THE HELL, THERE ISN'T?! What the F*CK do you think Section 302 of the Americans with Disabilities Act says? It specifically defines "discrimination" as, among other things, "a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations;"
How can you POSSIBLY misinterpret that paragraph? There is no excuse for that! That should be a sanctionable offense, the likes of blatantly disregarding binding precedent. Short of the law being unconstitutional, there is no excuse for a judge being aware of it, and not adhering to it, to the letter. Judges can interpret vague statute however they see fit, but only up to the point that it is actually ambiguous.
That's just one example. I can provide more, but it's late, and I'm tired.
Anyway, do you think blatantly ignoring unambiguous statute like that should be a sanctionable - and even impeachable - offense?