Is there any limit on Judges power to impose their will under threat of prison ?
I am too upset to summarize the facts of the case or even choose a link from this google search, but I think that Judge Randall Rogers has just launched an assault not only on the US Constitution but on any limit on his power whatsoever. I think it is vitally important that we resist his declaration of absolute power by all legal means.
I am not a lawyer, but I think that the sentence is not merely stupid. I think it is a direct assault on the US constitution including the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and, of course 14th amendments. Angry bears who are actual lawyers are authorized to delete this post if it is an embarrassment to the blog.
First it seems to me to be obvious that if a judge is allowed to sentence someone to copy from the Bible, then Christinity has been established as a state religion (or Judaism if copying only from the old testament is allowed). I think that, if this sentence is allowed to stand, that there is no logical basis for any limit of the power of judges to impose the practice of the judges preferred religion on penalty of incarceration.
Second, imposing marriage is plainly a violation of the 4th amendment right to privacy as currently interpreted. Notably there is no basis for limiting this power to cases in which the alternative sentence is 15 days in jail not say life without parole. Nor does the judge have any authority to decide who should marry whom. In this case, he kindly ordered boyfriend and girlfriend to marry, but I see no logical basis to limit judges powers to compel marriage to such cases. He could have told the defendant to marry a woman chosen at random or to, gasp, compel the defendant (under threat of incarceration) to marry another man. I think that if the sentence is allowed to stand, forced gay marriage will no longer be a joke. I see no reason why the precedent if allowed to stand, doesn’t give a judge to order one man to marry another on the grounds that he, the judge, thinks it would be good for them.
But finally, the sentence is imposed on Elizabeth Jaynes as well as Josten Bundy — if he must marry her she is compelled to marry him. Jaynes was not a defendent and not accused or suspected of any misdeed. The judge presumes to have authority over her life choices. He threatened to lock up her boyfriend. The gross assault on the constitution would be achieved even if the judge had not specifically expressed his intention to cause Bundy to be fired if he didn’t obey (by not granting him permission to inform his employer that his absense from work was due to the outrageous misconduct of a judge).
I think that Jaynes can sue to have the sentence overturned on the grounds that she is being punished without any trace of anything like an indictment (amendment 5) without a trial (5) assistance of an attorney (6) and is deprived of something worth more than $20 dollars without a trial (7th).
I can’t imagine that even a Texas court (other than the one in question) could find a way to reject that appeal.
here I note that the bit in the 5th about grand juries has not, until now, been considered to apply to state courts. However, extreme cases make bad law. I do not think the relevant precedents must be overturned as the current case is so utterly outrageously extreme that it can be assumed that it was not imagined in the worst nightmares of the Supreme Court justices who decided that that clause (alone in the bill of rights) was not imposed on state courts too via the 14th amendment.
I think that it would be good for the Constitution and the country if Bundy and Jaynes seperately sought relief (if they don’t get it in Texas, I can’t imagine how even the Roberts court could deny it).
The alternative is to abandon not only the bill or rights but all limits whatsoever on the absulute tyrannical power of judges. If a judge can do this, what can’t a judge do ? Would there be any logical basis for any limit at all on judges other than their judgement of what is good ?
I also think the judge Rogers should be impeached for gross misconduct (I don’t know about Texas judges but federal judges can be impeached for misconduct short of a crime unlike all other federal employees). I also think he should be disbarred.
Finally I think all those not ready to bow down to the absolute power of each and every judge should contribute to two separate legal defence funds one for Bundy and one for Jaynes.
When I read this, I expected that he got his underage girlfriend pregnant, not that he hit his girlfriends former beau.
Not only does the “punishment” not fit the “crime”, this should not have even been in court in the first place.
I fully agree with everything Robert says. With one caveat.
It is far from clear that either Bundy or Jaynes is particularly upset about the actual outcome. For all we know they spent the evening immediately before he punched out her old boyfriend discussing the question of whether September or December was the right time to set the date.
No judge can legally order me to spend a Sunday in November eating wings and drinking beer while watching an NFL game at a sports bar. But if it happened the only fundraising I would be doing is to find a way to pay for the tab. “Throw ME in that briar patch”.
That said this judge should not be on the bench. (I mean what if I wanted a hamburger instead of wings?)
From the Think Progress link:
(looks like I was more on point than I knew with the hamburger jibe)
““It just felt like we weren’t going to be able to have the wedding we wanted,” Jaynes said in an interview with KLTV. “It was just going to be kind of pieced together, I didn’t even have a white dress.”
“We were strung over each other and really were in love,” Bundy said. “[At our wedding] I would have worn a black tux with some yellow under it because I’m a Steelers fan.”
So yes the whole thing is a legal travesty. On the other hand the world was spared this guy wearing a black tux with a Terrible Towel/Yellow Cumberbun combo.
In many states, marriages are void (or voidable) if one or both parties were forced or coerced to undergo a marriage ceremony/record the marriage. Seems to this ole bureaucrat that telling the defendant he’d go to jail if they didn’t get hitched ASAP is coercive. And, it is not a sentence the judge can impose in criminal law.
It’s certainly possible that they were willing to get married, but it doesn’t matter. It’s very likely that they aren’t married at all or if they are, one or both of them could go to family court to have the marriage annulled or voided. Meanwhile, I wonder why anyone puts up with this kinda stuff. I agree with RobertW. that there is an argument to be made for the judge’s having abused his judicial discretion and/or is guilty of some sort of tort/violation of Constitutional rights.
You know, people in Texas need to do something about the dumb stuff public servants there get up to. Really, people. Get it together! NancyO
This judge is an elected local official who can be put out of office during the next election. His ruling will not set a precedent. In short he can do no harm to the vast majority of US citizens.
He is a piker when compared to the unelected members of the US Supreme Court. (AKA the Ministry of Truth.)
As Judge Rogers is a trial judge not an appeals court, the precedent is not binding precedent for any court. However (still not being a lawyer) I think it is a precedent. It is jurisprudence. It can be cited, not as authoritative, but cited as an example.
If the sentence were overturned on appeal, that would be a useful precedent. I think necessary to keep the establishment clause from being a joke — here we have a christian act imposed on threat of jail. We have a sentence which demands something from Jaynes who is not a party to the case.
If a judge does this and doesn’t suffer serious consequences we are in danger.
I mean look if someone embezzles it makes no sense to say let him keep the money it is small compared to the national debt. Horrible criminal acts which are met with acquiescence are a threat to the rule of law.
Hows about if this minor elected official said he would lock bundy up if Jaynes didn’t suck his cock ? How would that be morally or legally different ? Who knows she might have been sitting there longing to give him a blow job.
Touche
All this constitutional angst is really out of place. We’re talking about Texas, not the United States. “When in Rome. . . ” etc.
Remember the statement of the head of the state police in Texas; if your cause us to chase you expect a beating.
Since in America being poor is becoming a crime. Some communities are using punitive measures in the criminalization of poverty. Who owns our congress, senate and judiciary? Its all part of the corrupted plutocrat political process. Extreme concentrations of wealth -power is not compatible with democracy. P. Krugman . As they ate their cake, the French got fed up with this model and started lopping off heads. The land of opportunity where social critiques are almost always directed downward. “Smart people will soon figure out a way to make debt inheritable if we let them. Society grows great when old men plant trees for the shade they shall never sit. old Greek proverb…
Let me add to What Jack D has said as one of the few here who has participated in every court up to SCOTUS. When judges and justices don those black robes, they have infinite amounts of power and they will use it to their advantage. Your individualism and willingness to stand for what you believe is true and legally justified fails in their presence as they can do what they want to do. Court justice is not about the true.
I listened to a Federal Judge discuss how she could be over turned while driving along at 70 mph. I could not write the phone number accurately while driving and I could not remember the number in which to call-in. By the time you as a commoner get to another court (COA) to overturn the judge, years could pass as you file your appeal and wait to get on the docket. It is a one chance shot as you will never get to SCOTUS.
Argue all you want to; but, I strongly urge you never to go to court.
No doubt Trump will end up appointing Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court.
The rate of America’s decomposition is picking up , Robert , so don’t despair. It will soon be over , and we’ll have new things to think about – like how to survive , or whether it’s even worth the effort.
Why? Because I hear Judge Judy is champing at the bit for a slot. And more likely to at long last get the cameras turned on. Pretty sure Jerry Springer has a law degree so a good choice for Solicitor General. Good times ahead!
Since neither side of the one percenters like Trump he may be the best choice; considering that over past 50 years we gone from a creditor nation to a debtor nation.
Though Bernie is my first choice.
When my American relations ask of me why I decline to return from Canada to my native land, the Best Country In The World, I have a whole encyclopedic album of clippings like this to refer to.
Why do Americans not recognize this sort of thing as functionally identical to the most brutal of fundamentalist laws as followed in the least free nations of the world? Dear God, I keep thinking that they cannot get worse, and the following day in the news I find something worse again.
Noni
@William Ryan:
Montgomery County, Maryland cops (and several judges) also believe beatings are SOP after chases. It’s literally as far from Texas as you can get. Bethesda and Potomac and Rockville. Not Ted Cruz country, Chris Van Hollen country. Fucking cops.
@Beene not WmRyan
Ever been to Mineola, Tyler or Jefferson? If you had you are probably not too surprised that this sentencing choice was handed down by a good God-fearin’ judge. Robert I am not a lawyer either but if “community standards” are considered in local jurisprudence then this judge may be reelected for some time to come, no matter what people in Italy or Canada think.
Obviously, Robert, you don’t understand the meaning of Freedom. You need to read more Supreme Court opinions. Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Scalia, and the current chief justice, expound eloquently on how the Constitution’s design is such that, in order to preserve the sovereign dignity of states, state courts are entirely free, in the name of Freedom, to ignore the Constitution’s ostensible protections for individuals.
The answer to the question you ask in the title of your post is: No. A huge goal of the Conservative Legal Movement has been the rendering of state courts Constitutional-rights-free zones. They’ve thoroughly accomplished that goal, in civil cases such as adult-guardianship and family-law and licensure and prison-conditions cases as well as in criminal-law cases.
I can’t say this strongly enough: State courts are Constitution-free zones, by design not of the post-Civil War Constitution, of course, but by the pathological design of the Federalist Society-coopted Supreme Court. The Bundy case is just an Onion-like parody of business as usual in state courts.
But it’s all done in the service of Freedom, so there’s no reason to be upset about it.
In other words, it was just plain stupid on the face of it.