RECALL/IMPEACH JUDGE William A. "Bill" Morvant, Republican

This is unacceptable.

Someone PLEASE show me where to sign to recall this piece of garbage!

1 posted on 10/05/2004 10:04:20 PM PDT by Yosemitest

Any sign of him changing sides to get elected judge?

David Duke ran as a Democrat and as an independent before he ran as a Republican.

RINOs aren't hard to spot.

2 posted on 10/05/2004 10:11:07 PM PDT by weegee (What's the provenance, Kenneth? Where did the forged SeeBS memo come from?)

Welcome to judicial tyranny. It happens all the time in California. There should be a law against this kind of stuff.

3 posted on 10/05/2004 10:11:38 PM PDT by John Lenin

An amendment to the US constitution would put an end to all this crap and prohibit 50 such measures being tossed out under judicial tyranny.

Also, if there is no constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, you can fully expect to see an amendment to include sexual preference along with protections of race and religion within the next 20 years (possibly 5). Politics will never be afforded the same protection (i.e. it will still be okay to discriminate against conservatives and vandalism of our property will not be classified as a hate crime).

If same sex marriage becomes the law of the land, how long do you reckon churches will be able to prohibit the granting of memberships to same sex couples, let alone prohibiting same sex ceremonies at churches? They seek to make a mockery of institutionalized religion. Other sinners do not take pride in their flaws.

4 posted on 10/05/2004 10:18:43 PM PDT by weegee (What's the provenance, Kenneth? Where did the forged SeeBS memo come from?)

This is why - in addition to re-electing President Bush - people need to give him a clear majority in the Senate. The first four years were blocked(Senate) when it came to getting "good" judges in place -

Too bad this guy is in until 2008 - !

Hope for a stay - until someone higher - and with common sense - can undo the harm he has done -

just my thoughts -

5 posted on 10/05/2004 10:20:53 PM PDT by Pastnowfuturealpha

For everyone who is just coming to this thread allow me, a good Louisiana Republican, to suggest to all of you that Yosemitest has started this new thread because he is enraged at the legitimate discussion that occurred in an earlier thread which you can "pop up" and view here:

Earlier Louisiana Amendment Thread

Yosemitest also posted an earlier version of this thread that contained personal information about the judge, read his "CENSORED" text above, which caused the moderators of this site to pull it, and for good reason.

For those of you who may not know it, Judge William Morvant is one of the "good guys" here in Louisiana, a Republican, we're still vastly outnumbered here. He overturned this amendment to our state constitution, which a judge is permitted to do here in Louisiana, following its success in a recent election where it passed overwhelmingly, because it addresses two issues; Marriage and Civil Unions. The Louisiana state constitution forbids any amendment from violating the "Object" rule, which means that it must address only one issue and this one addressed two. Most informed observers knew this was coming and the fault really devolves upon our state legislature for its failure to put up separate amendments for Marriage and Civil Unions, something they refused to do because the "hard liners" on this issue feared that a Civil Unions amendment might be struck down in court. This was a mistake and most of us expected it.

I am posting here to state my absolute disgust with Yosemitest for calling Judge Morvant a "homosexual," which is flat-out false. He and his family are good Republicans and they do not deserve this kind of bashing. I hope the rest of you will agree that, whether or not you disagree with Judge Morvant's decision, it is unseemly to post this kind of disgusting attack on this web site.

I think Yosemitest is also hoping that others will get to join him in his bashing insults without learning what I posted on the earlier thread, which I now include as an excerpt:

"Yosemite, I must take umbrage at your remarks here because they disparage a good Republican family that has done a lot to further our cause in this state. Let me tell you what it has been like to be a Republican in southwest Louisiana, as I am (I live in Lafayette).

For years we Louisiana Republicans got our butts kicked by the Edwin Edwards Democratic Party machine, whose power base within the Louisiana Democratic Party was in Southwest Louisiana's "Cajun Country," which we generally describe as "Acadiana." Edwards, who is now in the Federal Penitentiary in Fort Worth, Texas (we were right about him all along), made a name for himself by touting his "Cajun" credentials with great style. Since so many Cajuns had felt like outsiders for their accent, their reliance on French (I am 1/4 Cajun myself), and their plain style of life, this tactic worked to great effect for Edwards and his machine. We Republicans decried the open corruption of the Edwards machine and we worked diligently to try to convince many of the prominent Cajun families, some of whom would admit in private that they found his corrupt lifestyle embarrasing, to leave Edwards and the Democratic Party and join us to clean up the state.

After years of fighting this struggle with little success, things began to change in our favor in the late 1980's, when younger members of these families, many of whom were now college graduates and beginning to assert themselves independently of their families' political traditions, began to join us. I can call that roll right now; the Blanchets, the Meauxs, the Thibodeauxs, and, yes, the Morvants. Once these prominent Cajun families joined our cause the playing field changed in our favor. Edwards was only able to win another term as Governor in 1991 because of David Duke and did not bother running for reelection because he knew he couldn't win on his home turf.

So for that reason I must disagree with anyone who attempts to tarnish the name of the Morvant family, who I remember were among the first of the prominent Cajun families to come over to our side and who have made Louisiana a very hospitable place for Republicans indeed. Remember, you don't have to worry about whether Kerry might win in Louisiana because it is a solid Bush state. One of the main reasons why that is so is that Republicans rule in Cajun country. You have families like the Morvants to thank for that."

Judge Morvant and his family do not deserve the kind of abuse Yosemitest has just reaped upon them and I hope the rest of you will join in to tell him so.

The 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republicans." Ronald W. Reagan

6 posted on 10/05/2004 10:25:08 PM PDT by StJacques

To: Bogey78O; Dudoight; Clintonfatigued; Sola Veritas; Strategerist; pollywog; Texican72

To: Yosemitest

DubyaTeeEFFF?

2 posted on 10/05/2004 10:41:34 PM CDT by Bogey78O (John Kerry: Better than Ted Kennedy!)

To: Yosemitest

Is he a bad judge? Do you want him out just because he is gay? Does he broadcast his sexual identity? I am sorry, but the fact that he is gay does not disqualify him for me. If he flaunts it...then I would have reservations.

3 posted on 10/05/2004 10:42:44 PM CDT by Dudoight

To: Yosemitest

I'm too mad to think straight. Amendment Banning La. Gay Marriage Tossed is the reason for my anger with this unacceptable judge.

4 posted on 10/05/2004 10:42:58 PM CDT by Yosemitest

To: Yosemitest

What action has this judge taken (in his official capacity) that is offensive to you?

5 posted on 10/05/2004 10:43:13 PM CDT by Clintonfatigued

To: Yosemitest

'I want to go to his home at CENSORED and hang him in effigy to demonstrate how offensive his actions against the will of the people are.'

That's over the top. You lost me there.

6 posted on 10/05/2004 10:44:07 PM CDT by Bogey78O (John Kerry: Better than Ted Kennedy!)

To: Yosemitest

" hang him in effigy to demonstrate how offensive his actions against the will of the people are" unacceptable.

7 posted on 10/05/2004 10:44:55 PM CDT by Yosemitest

To: Yosemitest

Oh...I see. Maybe the bill was badly written, needs to be rewritten.

8 posted on 10/05/2004 10:45:24 PM CDT by Dudoight

To: Dudoight

"Is he a bad judge? Do you want him out just because he is gay? Does he broadcast his sexual identity? I am sorry, but the fact that he is gay does not disqualify him for me. If he flaunts it...then I would have reservations."

I think he is a judge on the La Supreme Court that called banning homosexual marriage unconstitutional.

9 posted on 10/05/2004 10:45:35 PM CDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)

To: Dudoight

This unacceptable judge needs aborting!

10 posted on 10/05/2004 10:47:26 PM CDT by Yosemitest

To: Sola Veritas

I think he is a judge on the La Supreme Court that called banning homosexual marriage unconstitutional.

He was simply enforcing a fairly clearly written provision of the Louisiana Constitution, actually.

11 posted on 10/05/2004 10:47:30 PM CDT by Strategerist

To: Yosemitest

do you have to be a resident of the State of LA to sign a petition??

12 posted on 10/05/2004 10:48:09 PM CDT by pollywog (Psalm 121;1 I Lift my eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)

To: Sola Veritas

Actually, the judge declared a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage unconstitutional. With that logic, I'm sure the US Supreme Court can overturn the Bill of Rights as unconstitutional.

13 posted on 10/05/2004 10:48:59 PM CDT by Texican72

To: pollywog

do you have to be a resident of the State of LA to sign a petition??

Why do you oppose judges enforcing the Constitution of their states?

14 posted on 10/05/2004 10:49:20 PM CDT by Strategerist

To: Yosemitest

I keep waiting for the day that some tough state governor will say "enough" over some of these types of judges and declare martial law and have the judge arrested and incarcerated. Fat chance that will ever happen though.

15 posted on 10/05/2004 10:50:07 PM CDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)

To: Strategerist

I disagree. The standard he used would throw out almost every amendment placed on the ballot. In fact next month we vote to have trqapping and hunting a constitutionally protected right. Same exact set-up.

16 posted on 10/05/2004 10:50:12 PM CDT by Bogey78O (John Kerry: Better than Ted Kennedy!)

To: pollywog

I don't know. I would think so. I am a resident of Lousy-anna, and would gladly sign a petition for his recall.

17 posted on 10/05/2004 10:50:34 PM CDT by Yosemitest

7 posted on 10/05/2004 10:26:22 PM PDT by Yosemitest

I'm not interested in insults. I'm interested in justice. I want to recall this excuse for a judge. He is unacceptable as a Republican, and I'm willing to sign a recall petition saying so.

8 posted on 10/05/2004 10:31:28 PM PDT by Yosemitest

To: Pastnowfuturealpha

I agree!!!!

Too bad this guy is in until 2008 - !

That's why I want him either recalled, or impeached.

9 posted on 10/05/2004 10:34:05 PM PDT by Yosemitest

There are several problems with the way this piece of legislation was written and presented to the voters that make it liable to be thrown out in court. The law could have bee overturned for other reasons than the one chosen by the judge. It is a simple matter to rewrite the legislation and have it voted on again.

Don't get your panties in a wad.

10 posted on 10/05/2004 10:34:50 PM PDT by ArmedNReady (Hide your Money and Your Guns if Kerry is Elected)

I disagree! I'm not a lawyer, or a judge. But I've had it with this slime that stinks up our courts. I'm ready for God to return and throw them into the Lake of Fire!!!

11 posted on 10/05/2004 10:40:15 PM PDT by Yosemitest

I'm not commenting on your call for a recall or an impeachment. Though I disagree strongly on both counts, that is your right as a citizen.

What bothers me is that you pointedly called him a "homosexual judge," which is false. That is an outrage.

And the overturning of the law is what happens whenever sound and rational minds cannot appreciate the need to write a constitutional amendment so that it passes constitutional muster. It was widely spoken of during the legislative session and many people, like myself, wanted two amendments so that we could pass them and then see them stand up in court. But no, the hard-liners were afraid that the civil unions amendment could be legitimately challenged, I personally think it would have held up, so they insisted on lumping it together with the Marriage Protection amendment. And now we have neither.

The hard liners succeeded in part because the ACLU told Democrats who could not oppose the measures that, if they had to vote for one approach or the other, then vote for the single amendment because they knew they could strike it down in court. A fat lot of good that did us!

So what happens now? Well, the hard liners get to raise a whole new batch of money from angered voters who thought it should become law because they voted for it. And it could have become law if it was put on the ballot as two separate amendments. But that did not suit unreasoning minds and we're right back where we started.

12 posted on 10/05/2004 10:42:39 PM PDT by StJacques

To: StJacques; Admin Moderator

I still think this post of his is hardly acceptable even after censoring. If judicial activism on behalf of the gay community bugs you, know that it bugs me too. But this post is offensive in too many ways to even begin a reasonble convrsation on the merits.

13 posted on 10/05/2004 10:45:28 PM PDT by Cosmo (I'm the pajamahadeen, and I vote!)

I'm just now reading (both) threads and trying to understand this too.

You stated:

"The Louisiana state constitution forbids any amendment from violating the "Object" rule, which means that it must address only one issue and this one addressed two"

With that in mind, how could the writers of this legislation POSSIBLY think that it would stand up in court?
I still don't understand the reason why they wouldn't make two separate issues. I know you said that they thought the civil unions would not stand up in court, but according to the above laws of the constitution, NEITHER would this amendment!!

So what gives?? I just don't at all see the reasoning of this. You mention the "hardliners," but I can't believe the hardliners would be so stupid to ignore this part of the constitution. This makes no sense at all!!

It's just too hard to believe that legal minds in the legislature, who know the constitution, would deliberately write an amendment that would be unconstitutional....no matter who was pressuring them.

I am against gay "marriages" and also against gay "civil unions." And I just can't imagine anyone with these same beliefs willing to write an unconstitutional amendment, knowing it would be thrown out.

Can't believe they would try it.... Please, there must be another explanation.

14 posted on 10/05/2004 10:47:18 PM PDT by Cedar

Agreed cosmo. This thread crosses the line.

And a reasonable discussion of the merits of the case should be had, because the judge may have had it right.

Not that the law matters here.

15 posted on 10/05/2004 10:48:22 PM PDT by StJacques

Cedar, you are obviously a reasoning individual, so before I start, please accept my compliments on that score.

Taken on its face, the legislation obviously addresses two issues, but the legal argument advanced in court is that it really only addresses marriage, it just goes into fine detail about what constitutes marriage. It didn't fly for obvious reasons.

I'm going to guess that you had not read my previous post before you wrote your own response. So I'll leave it here unless I've left something unexplained.

16 posted on 10/05/2004 10:52:46 PM PDT by StJacques

This thread should be pulled. No one should be physically threatened on FR.

17 posted on 10/05/2004 10:54:07 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")

To: StJacques; Admin Moderator; Lead Moderator; Jim Robinson

The censored text isn't censored, it's linked. Just click on the word and you will get his address. This is not good and again I appeal to the moderators to pull this thread. It is a violation of the FR rules on two counts: no personal attacks and no violence.

18 posted on 10/05/2004 10:59:21 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")

Yes, I guess I was writing my post while you were posting yours.

You said:

"And the overturning of the law is what happens whenever sound and rational minds cannot appreciate the need to write a constitutional amendment so that it passes constitutional muster."

Guess this is what baffles me. I just can't believe legislators would risk writing a (possibly) unconstitutional law.

19 posted on 10/05/2004 11:03:30 PM PDT by Cedar

And it could have become law if it was put on the ballot as two separate amendments.

We don't want or need two amendments. One is enough.

Where am I coming from? "So shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things..."

Why? Because IT MATTERS! Let me say this clearly. Homosexuals (since you find this adjective offensive when applied to a judge) are unacceptable. Period.

I'm tired of compromise. I'm NOT luke-warm on this issue. And any judge who, so clearly goes against the voice of the citizens of Louisiana on an amendment to the State Constitution, should be thrown out and fined for waisting the peoples' money and time. He has earned much contempt. The amendment to the constitution has passed, and he has no jurisdiction, except to uphold the constitution.

20 posted on 10/05/2004 11:03:52 PM PDT by Yosemitest

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794