Since judges and courthouses are generally barred by governmental immunity, does that give them a right to treat you different in the same situation as another person because of your race?
205352
Nope that is called discrimination honey
234241
I am not sure your exact situation but I know its not your job to do anything other then what the judge says (interperating fact and then applying fact to legal principles) even if it turns to a crappy result... Dont feel bad about it its not your fault or your job to worry about why someone has the better side... You can only see what you see (and its this design that makes the system work)
275055
Actually, the previous answer missed the mark.  Medicaid indicates that the facility is receiving government assistance and because of this, they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, or color.  If they were a completely self-sufficient facility, he would be correct.  \nReporting them to medicaid could threaten their financial well-being by threatening their ability to receive medicaid funds.
96613
If a judge renders an opinion on an issue that does not directly relate to the issue before him or her, the opinion on that issue is called dicta. While that opinion is not binding, it could be pursuasive to other judges. Should judges be allowed to express their opinions? Sure.\n\nGenerally, judges can do whatever they want.
540449
Yes sadly with alot of liberal judges all they have to do is use the gay card or a race card and judges feel they have been treated wrong.\n\nEvidence, specialists to testify about her behavor,  and try to get her to testify as to what he says.
154668
We are definately NOT treated equal. And it it goes far beyond race or religion. Everyone has predujices, and their own agenda's, even judges and police.\n\nI lived in the rural South amongst the "Good'ol boys". But I'm from California. So if I was in a car accident or anything similar where I could be blamed and the "Good'ol boy" go free, I would be the one charged. The reality of it SUCKS!\n\nNothings fair anywhere, that's why we all have to fight for our rights every single day! If we don't, likely we'll elect a president that steps all over them, (Oh! we did that already) along with others that can get away with it for their own personal gain.
167472
Race and Color are self identifiable and not challengable by your employer.  To challenge someone who claims African American or White is in itself racial discrimination and harassment.
385774
Welcome to America!!!!!  Where someone else is to blame and you never have to accept responsibility for your own actions.  Not to say that Racial Injustice doesn't  exist.  But if you run from the cops...........expect and ass whooping, or worse.
473807
Sometimes judges had personal experiences in the past with similar situations in cases that they try.  Thus, they decide in such a manner the way they experienced the case which should not be the case.  Appeal your case by a petition for review by the higher court citing the bias of the judge.
325642
No, it is the same.  The only time, it is different if there is a relationship between them.  The defendant is treated harder if they are related or live together.  This would also apply to men on men, women on men, men on women violence.
547779
I am of the opinion that the presiding judge is well within his right to record a fiding exparte and it is not in violation of the principle of natural justice, so long as the respondent was given due notice of the proceedings according him an opportunity to be heard. The principle of natural justice does not mean that no order can be passed without hearing the parties concerned. It only requires that the parties before the forum should be given an opportunity to being heard. If the respondent had any difficulty in appearing before the judicial forum, like paucity of funds or threat to life, that is an entirely different matter. There were several options before him to meet such situations. Paucity of funds cannot be a valid ground for non-appearance. It is upto him to fend for himself to protect his own interests. I am sure there are provisions in the law prevailing in the USA, as it is in many other countries, for free legal aid for the indigent citizens. He could have availed of free legal aid. As regards the intimidation, which purportedlty detained him from appearance, it was open to him to lodge a criminal complaint against the petitioner and a copy of the complaint, if produced before the judge, would have weighed in his favour, for further adjournemetnt of his case. \n\nNow, that the matter has come to an end, before the learned judge, he has got two options. One is that he file a petition for review before the very same judge who passed the order and the second one is preferring an appeal before the appeallate authoruity. You may do this through a legal aid forum, if any available.
52544
I am not sure about speech but I do know that when you are convicted of a crime you basically give up all rights that the constitution gives you. You do not have the right to denie them searching your house. You do not have the right to go anyplace you want. You do not have the right to vote. I don't see how they can take your right to free speech away but if they can they will. Once your debt to society is paid all rights are restored with the exception of the right to bare arms. However they can not take away what is known as your basic human rights.
194744
It matters the level of immunity that you have, and that usually depends on your status (ie royalty -vs- diplomat -vs- head of state).  Yes, there are some people with such a high level of diplomatic immunity that they could actually murder someone and the worse thing that our legal system could do would be to deport them.  Which would be difficult as they can't even be detained.
194155
You could be arrested and charged with the one or more of following offenses:\n\n1. Trespassing\n2. Defiant Trespassing\n3. Disorderly Conduct\n\nIf the person you're Ding-Dong Ditching is another race you could be charged with Ethic intimidation.
538404
Greg's answer is a good one. :) \n\nI would also add that since judges are put into place by the president and the legislature, they are (unlike politicians) not beholden to special interest groups or lobbyists, and they are not dependant on the people for their job. Because they are free of restrictions, they can uphold the constitution and rule of law without worrying for the safety of their jobs. This helps to further assure "liberty and justice for all". \n\nBTW, the president and legislature only put into place SUPREME COURT justices... Lower courts ARE sometimes elected by the people, depending on the state in which you live.
429306
No it will violate the United States Constitution and Civil Rights thats a big no no.You can separate race and gender.And I think what they are doing is illegal and out of bounds this not 1955 its 2006.
123434
Re-read the 5th amendment, it only provides protection against SELF incrimination.  This means you can be compeled to give information against someone else, you just can't be compeled if the information could be used against you.  \n\nAlso if they give you immunity from being prosecuted then you can't be incriminated and thus can be compeled to give information.