Louisiana Supreme Court in turmoil

Currently the members of the Louisiana Supreme Court are fighting like school children. This all stems from the announcement by Chief Justice Kitty Kimball that she intends to retire in January 2013.

In a very rare event, the justices have essentially aired their dirty laundry and disagreements publicly. Associate Justice Bernette Joshua Johnson by all practical accounts, who has been on the court since 1994, would ascend to the post vacated by Chief Justice Kimball upon her retirement. Right?

Not so fast, Associate Justice Jeffrey Victory has asserted that he is next in line to serve as Chief Justice, having been elected to the court in 1995. You would think it's a no brainer with Johnson being elected in 1994 and Victory in 1995, right? Wrong!

Justice Victory is arguing that when Justice Johnson ascended to the court, she was essentially a Court of Appeals judge, on loan or sitting "ad-hoc" to the Supreme Court, to be in compliance with a federal consent decree. The argument now is whether Justice Johnson's appointment afforded her the same privileges that the other "elected" justices received. The Louisiana Legislature addressed this question in 1997 in which they stated, "Any tenure on the Supreme Court gained by such judge while so assigned shall be credited to such judge". This would lead us to believe that there is no question to the validity of Justice Johnson's argument. Unfortunately, that's not the case here as Justice Victory is arguing that this violated the Louisiana Constitution and therefore the consent decree and subsequent actions were illegal.

Now I'll go into what's at stake, if determined to be the longest serving member of the Supreme Court, Justice Johnson will face a very tough time, as she has been pitted against all six of her current colleagues as they have met without her to discuss the problem, causing her to file an injunction in the Federal Courts to prevent arguments on the subject. Also at stake is history. Prior to Justice Johnson taking office, Justice Revius Ortique was the appointed the "Ad-hoc Justice". Justice Ortique went down in history as the first African American Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court. Ironically, Justice Ortique was never elected to the post and was only appointed to comply with the consent decree.

So I ask, if the courts decide that Justice Johnson's assertion that she is next in line to become Chief Justice is invalid because the consent decree violated the Louisiana Constitution, does that also negate Justice Ortique's standing as the first African American Justice? If so, that would make Justice Johnson, in addition to being the first African American Female Justice, the first African American Justice since she was elected to the bench in 2000.

Personally I can't wait to see how the courts rule. However, I believe that either way, there will be severe consequences and bad blood for years to come on the Louisiana Supreme Court.