re: LA SC won’t revisit law merging New Orleans court clerks; city to seek SCOTUS review

quote:

---

We are a Republic. Not a democracy.

---

We're both.

The legislators who voted to change this system were....elected by the people.

You know what I mean. Come on man! I’m supporting you on this one.

quote:

---

So you want us to ignore the reality (which is if the state has the authority to dissolve an office it created 150 years ago) and then pretend the alternative focus is the actual "reality" that we're now ignoring.

---

No. I want BOTH issues to be addressed. One has been so let’s address the other.

quote:

---

Allowing the state to undermine the outcome of a legitimate local election is absolutely worthy of review.

---

Please cite the federal statutes, or US constitutional provisions, that were violated.

quote:

---

Thanks for explaining that. But I reject your explanation because I hate it and it isn’t fair.

---

If there's one thing I love, it's brutally honest self-examination.

quote:

---

Considering New Orleans is economic driver of the entire state, it is reasonable to request that the SC

---

The short version is that the courts aren't there to take into account economic drivers as inputs on how the law is applied. Their job is "yes or no, did this violate any laws?" If the answer is "yes" then the follow-up is "which specific laws did it violate and specifically how did it do so?"

Throwing things in like "fair" or economics are to muddy the waters tremendously in an environment where clear waters are the goal. Yes, there are some things in which "fairness" or "equability" are taken into account (divorce, inheritance, child relocation, etc) but this isn't one of those things. It's an elected office and its existence is solely defined by the will of the State, only the desire for who fills it is up to the constituency. This means the person running is there for the office, not that the office is there for the person.

If this is a big enough issue, the legal remedy is for those willing to change it either run for office or campaign the elected officials until they get it changed. The legal argument of "just because I (or 'some of us') want it" doesn't carry water.

This goes for both sides of the aisle. I would love for Trump to be able to overturn the birthright citizenship aspect, but having read the law I don't see a strong avenue for his success on it. So instead of pinning my hopes on what I think will be an unachievable outcome due to the law's framework, I'm looking toward what needs to happen to change the law to achieve the goal.

If you want to change things, you have to recognize and accept when it's concrete that your goal can't be accomplished through the current framework. Too many see the acceptance as "giving up" instead of just changing vectors of approach, so their ego overrides their common sense and then works against them. That's because not accepting it means you aren't adapting and that lack of adapting means you're just going to continue beating your head against the wall and the wall ain't moving.

If New Orleans is the economic driver of this state then we have serious problems.

quote:

---

Delusional

Petrochemical Industry is a way larger share of Louisiana’s economic engine

---

a. New Orleans MSA has a lot of petrochem

b. New Orleans MSA has the highest GDP of the state (and it isn't particularly close)

quote:

---

It's an elected office and its existence is solely defined by the will of the State, only the desire for who fills it is up to the constituency.

---

It’s all of the context around it. The state held an election, announced the results then passed legislation that nullified the results after the outcome was known. That’s the insane part that keeps being ignored.

quote:

---

If you want to change things, you have to recognize and accept when it's concrete that your goal can't be accomplished through the current framework.

---

Are you trying to incite a revolution?

quote:

---

It’s all of the context around it. The state held an election, announced the results then passed legislation that nullified the results after the outcome was known. That’s the insane part that keeps being ignored.

---

For the courts on this issue, and that's what we're talking about here, the only context is whether or not a law was broken, and if so then which one.

The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can move toward finding a workable solution. Until then, you're just wasting energy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you want to change things, you have to recognize and accept when it's concrete that your goal can't be accomplished through the current framework.

---

Are you trying to incite a revolution?

---

I am neither John, Paul, George nor Ringo. I'm just presenting options more viable than screaming at a mountain, if that makes me a revolutionary then give me a pony and I'll gladly charge through the countryside shouting, "the rational are coming!"