DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on October 06, 2010, 06:49:18 PM
-
Says three months of probation for fighting with a cop is 'ridiculous'
10/6/2010 ? A white judge from western Pennsylvania rejected a plea agreement for a man accused of fighting with police during a traffic stop, saying it was "a ridiculous plea that only goes to blackies."
The plea agreement was for a sentence of three months probation. Allegheny County Judge Joseph Williams said on Tuesday that a white defendant in that situation would not have been treated as leniently.
In court, Williams told Assistant District Attorney Brian Catanzarite that he "for some reason comes up with I think ridiculous pleas whenever it's a young black guy," according to The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "I'm just telling you what my observation is. If this had been a white kid who did the same thing, we wouldn't be talking about three months' probation."
Catanzarite responded that he was standing in for another prosecutor and didn't broker the plea deal.
"Now that the court has essentially called me a racist, I think that's unfair. I don't make offers based on race. I make offers based on facts," Catanzarite said, according to the Tribune-Review.
Williams later recused himself from the case, and a black judge accepted the plea agreement for 24-year-old Jeffery McGowan.
The defendant, who had no criminal record, agreed to plead guilty to disorderly conduct. He had faced charges including aggravated assault.
Williams' secretary on Wednesday told The Associated Press the judge does not give interviews.
The Allegheny County district attorney's office did not immediately return a call for comment Wednesday.
On Tuesday, Mike Manko, a spokesman for the district attorney's office, told the Tribune-Review the plea deal was appropriate and agreed to by the officer, who was not injured.
"Negotiated pleas are never based on the race of a particular defendant but rather on the behavior of the defendant and the facts associated with that behavior," Manko told the newspaper.
"The assistant district attorneys who handled this plea on behalf of the commonwealth have outstanding reputations, and we firmly stand behind their integrity and the integrity of all of our prosecutors."
Outrageous you think? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39536917/ns/us_news/)
-
Since Obama came on the scene I have concluded that black politicians care only about black people, and to some degree minorities, and clearly don't represent whites. And will defend a minority over a white American citizen each and every time.
Eric Holder, Obama, the Black Caucus, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton (and most other blacks with power, with the exception of Clarence Thomas) CLEARLY give preference to Negros (and minorities) and go out of their way to deny whites their Constitutional rights. This racism leads me to conclude (MOST if not all) blacks with power are truly racist, corrupt, dishonest, and bigoted. And for that reason I have no plans to vote for any black people until I see changes. Even so-called black Republicans, like Colon Powell, have shown me their racism and bias towards their race. I can't, nor won't stab myself in the back by supporting black politicians any longer. Every white person that voted for Obama was stabbed in the back, every single one of them.
And I am certain that the feelings I am conveying here are sweeping across this country and I am not alone. I believe MILLIONS of white people see what I see and feel what I feel and will take all this into account at the polls next month. Whites have left Obama and will never return to him. He's done!
-
naaaaaaa. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2010/voters_are_much_less_optimistic_about_black_white_relations) That just can't be so. The "Chosen" is a uniter. And anyone that disagrees is "obviously" a racist
Right?
-
It is sad when a responsible person contracts dementia before they realise that they need to hand off the responsibility.
I object to the very idea that this individuals case outcome should depend on anything other than what this individual himself is accused of and what evidence came with this one case. No judge should be deciding cases as classes of cases or grading on a curve. If the procicutor is showing preference or predjudice based on race or class the procicutor should be upbraided by the judge , but with no prejudice to any individual defendant on the part of the judge.
Politics is diffrent than the rule of law, it is an adaptation of government to human nature , I really think that now that the ceiling has been broken most major races will include more minoritys and that the "ticket" of president and Veep will be "mixed" from now on, more often than not.
-
91% Black Support For Obama Is Racist! (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GregHengler/2010/10/06/91_black_support_for_obama_is_racist!)
Not even the most lefty loon could deny that there would be incredible blow back from the media if 91% of the white population supported (name your white president) and the black support was 36%. Instead, we hear crickets, yawns, and...Lars Larson!
BTW: The "prediction" made by lib Leslie Marshall about the same percentage of Mormons supporting a President Romney is a joke. It doesn't matter though, being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry.
-
If I decide to vote for someone , should I be inhibited from voting for him by somethign about the other people who might be voteing for him?
My vote is my vote it is my individual decision to vote the way I do and the decision I make is as immune to criticism as it can possibly be , it is annonamous untill I decide it isn't.
De gustibus non est disputandum (or don't tell me what I like).
If there is blame to be placed it is on the politicians who use appeals to our evil natures , we all have some and we don't need leaders who exploit our worser angels to aggrandise themselves and leave us at each others throat , rideing the waves of our fear of each other like surfers surfing the waves they are makeing .
I think this applies just the same to racist appeals as it does to appeals to calss warfare.
-
If the officer was not injured, then it was correct not to charge this guy with aggravated assault: whether he was White or Black is irrelevant.
This is a traffic incident, unrelated to the President in any way.
Plane is right. People can vote any way they choose, and they are rather stupid to vote based on someone else's expectations about whom they should vote for.
-
If the officer was not injured, then it was correct not to change this guy with aggravated assault: whether he was White or Black is irrelevant.
So......the "white" judge was wrong. Change him to what, by the way?
This is a traffic incident, unrelated to the President in any way.
And that has what to do with the price of tea in China?? I drove to work, and witnessed a traffic accident. That is unrelated to the President as well. So? Many of the articles and opinions posted here are not directly related to the president. So? Only articles and stories specifically discussing the president are to be posted??
Plane is right.
Plane is ususally right, 95% of the time. More folks from the left, should note that
-
XO comes from a different planet, that is why his mind travels in a zig-zaging direction compared to logical thinking humans.
-
Plane often posts interesting things here. You post crap.
Plane does not find every post an occasion to be an insulting dipwad: you do.
It seems to me that justice was done in this case, even though the judge had to recuse himself.
-
Plane often posts interesting things here. You post crap.
LOL.......pot, meet kettle (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/coons-starting-to-avoid-obama/msg111370/#msg111370). And doesn't negate the fact that the left would be better served in grasping the points and conclusions he so frequently makes
Plane does not find every post an occasion to be an insulting dipwad: you do.
That would be a blatant falsehood, but given the source, not surprising
It seems to me that justice was done in this case, even though the judge had to recuse himself.
Justice was done AFTER this judge recused himself. Prior to that we had an apparent racist-leaning judge presiding and deciding the case on the basis of skin color
-
Since no one was even slightly injured, the charge of assault was unjustified. Only in this case there was a racial element that forced the judge to recuse himself. The judgement was a proper one, and I really do not care about whether the judge was biased or not, since, again, justice was done.
-
Since no one was even slightly injured, the charge of assault was unjustified. Only in this case there was a racial element that forced the judge to recuse himself. The judgement was a proper one, and I really do not care about whether the judge was biased or not, since, again, justice was done.
shut up you idiot moron!
-
Up your giggie with a wah-wah brush!
May you fall through the hole of the outhouse thirty seconds before a battalion of Ukranian Cossacks finishes a feast of cabbage and beans!
"Let a hungry Carpathian long-haired she-wolf blow your dick, fuck" (Gladna Karpatska valchitza s dalag kosam minet da ti prai deeba)
Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_16275_9-most-devastating-insults-from-around-world.html#ixzz11mUHwKFw (http://www.cracked.com/article_16275_9-most-devastating-insults-from-around-world.html#ixzz11mUHwKFw)
-
Since no one was even slightly injured, the charge of assault was unjustified. Only in this case there was a racial element that forced the judge to recuse himself. The judgement was a proper one, and I really do not care about whether the judge was biased or not, since, again, justice was done.
The judgement was thrown out so that a harsher one could be applied, and applied based on race. The "racial element" was instigated by the Judge in question. It was only AFTER the judge recused himself that another judge came in and accepted the lesser plea deal. Are you not paying attention??
-
The Judges point was that he had sensed a pattern of favorable plea deals that applied more to blacks than to other races. Whether that is true or not should be researched. If true, then the judges attempt to force plea arrangements to be more race neutral could be applauded, instead of being derided.
The assumption that he is a t core a racist based on this incident is premature.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of his sentencing to see whether he favored one race over another.
-
The Judges point was that he had sensed a pattern of favorable plea deals that applied more to blacks than to other races. Whether that is true or not should be researched. If true, then the judges attempt to force plea arrangements to be more race neutral could be applauded, instead of being derided.
The assumption that he is a t core a racist based on this incident is premature.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of his sentencing to see whether he favored one race over another.
Question: Are saying for us to treat this black judge different than white judges would be treated if this situation were reversed? Because we all know that if this were reversed the white judge would be called a racist (by Community Activists like Al, Jesse & Obama) in a BLACK case like like this. If this is what you are saying then that is racist in an equal world. Which is all I ask for is we are all treated, judged, and looked at the same. Not make excuses for races.
-
The implication is that this White Judge is a racist. More probably because of his injudicious use of the word "blackie" than the basis for his rejection of the plea. We still don't know if historical data would back up his claims.
And if the situation were reversed I'm sure if a black judge said crackers were getting a better break than persons of color, there would be a cry for sanctions, or more likely an examination of the historical record to see if the charges were true.
On the face of it either judges objections would not be problematic. The way they voiced those objections would be.
-
The Judges point was that he had sensed a pattern of favorable plea deals that applied more to blacks than to other races. Whether that is true or not should be researched.
Irrelevent. Justice is to be blind to race, gender, and so forth. Law is law, and a judge is to judge based on the law at hand. Only in a matter of transparant incopotence and/or gross infairness, should a pre-arranged plea between both parties be thrown out. It's not the judges' place to "make a statement"
But you're right in that the judge's use of a derrogatory, significantly points to the inappropriate racial nature of his judgement
-
The implication is that this White Judge is a racist. More probably because of his injudicious use of the word "blackie" than the basis for his rejection of the plea. We still don't know if historical data would back up his claims.
And if the situation were reversed I'm sure if a black judge said crackers were getting a better break than persons of color, there would be a cry for sanctions, or more likely an examination of the historical record to see if the charges were true.
On the face of it either judges objections would not be problematic. The way they voiced those objections would be.
In cases like these with white people facts never matter, it's just how and what was said (and usually taken totally out of context). I have seen case after case, time after time, when a white persons comments are made out to be racist by hypocritical Community Organizers.
It has happened to thousands of white people, and Conservatives in particular. To name a few Rush Limbaugh,
Trent Lott and Jimmy the Greek.
Yet Jesse Jackson, Obama, Rev Wright, Al Sharpton, Whoopi Goldberg, Eric Holder and the list goes on and on and on get away with REAL RACISM.
-
Law is law, and a judge is to judge based on the law at hand. Only in a matter of transparant incopotence and/or gross infairness, should a pre-arranged plea between both parties be thrown out.
Nonsense. A plea arrangement is not binding until it is accepted by the judge.
-
The Judge must accept the plea unless there is some gross unfairness or injustice being pulled. It's not the job of a Judge to "make a statement"
-
And if the situation were reversed I'm sure if a black judge said crackers were getting a better break than persons of color, there would be a cry for sanctions, or more likely an examination of the historical record to see if the charges were true.
They were (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39536917/ns/us_news/).
I merely flip flopped the colors to see how little or not so little attention this would get. I appreciate all for their assistance in helping to highlight this issue. Especially note the non-cry for any sanctions or historical record examinations
-
I see, so your original post was dishonest.
-
Yea, that has to be it, given the link I provided ::) Weak deflection, btw
-
The Judge must accept the plea unless there is some gross unfairness or injustice being pulled. It's not the job of a Judge to "make a statement"
Since when?
-
Yea, that has to be it, given the link I provided ::) Weak deflection, btw
Do you think changing the text of an article is honest? Half the time i just mouse over links to see where the news came from. I don't always follow the link unless i am looking for links inside the original article.
-
The Judge must accept the plea unless there is some gross unfairness or injustice being pulled. It's not the job of a Judge to "make a statement"
Since when?
Since Judges are supposed to judge the law as is. Show me anywhere, where the function of a Judges is to ignore law to "make a statement"
Yea, that has to be it, given the link I provided ::) Weak deflection, btw
Do you think changing the text of an article is honest?
Absolutely, when one is trying to make a point. You kindly helped in doing so, when you opined precisely the opposite of what did happen. If I wanted to act dishonestly I wouldn't have provided a link....on purpose. If I wanted to act dishonestly I would have altered the events, and again kept the link off. I merely flipped colors, to watch how this judge gets condemned vs defended
Half the time i just mouse over links to see where the news came from. I don't always follow the link unless i am looking for links inside the original article.
And...........?
-
Since Judges are supposed to judge the law as is. Show me anywhere, where the function of a Judges is to ignore law to "make a statement"
First show me where prosecutors get to determine that a felony assault should be downgraded to a misdemeanor.
But the real answer to your question is that judges preside over the trial, including the entering of pleas.
-
Quote from: BT on October 08, 2010, 10:58:04 PM
Half the time i just mouse over links to see where the news came from. I don't always follow the link unless i am looking for links inside the original article.
And...........?
And your practice of changing the text to articles is new behavior as far as i know. I guess i will have to start checking your links, as the trustworthiness of your postings is now suspect.
-
Since Judges are supposed to judge the law as is. Show me anywhere, where the function of a Judges is to ignore law to "make a statement"
First show me where prosecutors get to determine that a felony assault should be downgraded to a misdemeanor.
It's the Prosecution that gets to decide what to charge the defendent with, based on the evidence
But the real answer to your question is that judges preside over the trial, including the entering of pleas.
And the plea has an arrangement made between the defense and the prosecution. Outside of gross misconduct or incompotence, and your lack of providing the pertinent legal mandates by a Judge, a Judge is not there to "make a statement"
Quote from: BT on October 08, 2010, 10:58:04 PM
Half the time i just mouse over links to see where the news came from. I don't always follow the link unless i am looking for links inside the original article.
And...........?
And your practice of changing the text to articles is new behavior as far as i know. I guess i will have to start checking your links, as the trustworthiness of your postings is now suspect.
My "practice" is nothing more than highlighting precisely what you demonstrated. You're just sore that you helped prove my point. By all means though, read the links. Doing so will demonstrate how there's no dishonesty associated with them or me
-
The ultimate verdict was fair: the proposed one was not.
I am not paying attention to you. You always claim to be right, and all arguments end with you spewing incomprehensible rot, and adding some dumb insult.
-
The judge does not have to accept a plea agreement in the state of pennsylvania which is whhere your modified post to place:
PART G. Plea Procedures
Rule 590. Pleas and Plea Agreement.
(A) GENERALLY.
(1) Pleas shall be taken in open court.
(2) A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty, or, with the consent of the judge, nolo contendere. If the defendant refuses to plead, the judge shall enter a plea of not guilty on the defendant?s behalf.
(3) The judge may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and shall not accept it unless the judge determines after inquiry of the defendant that the plea is voluntarily and understandingly tendered. Such inquiry shall appear on the record.
(B) PLEA AGREEMENTS.
(1) When counsel for both sides have arrived at a plea agreement, they shall state on the record in open court, in the presence of the defendant, the terms of the agreement, unless the judge orders, for good cause shown and with the consent of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and the attorney for the Commonwealth, that specific conditions in the agreement be placed on the record in camera and the record sealed.
(2) The judge shall conduct a separate inquiry of the defendant on the record to determine whether the defendant understands and voluntarily accepts the terms of the plea agreement on which the guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere is based.
(C) MURDER CASES.
In cases in which the imposition of a sentence of death is not authorized, when a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a charge of murder generally, the degree of guilt shall be determined by a jury unless the attorney for the Commonwealth elects to have the judge, before whom the plea was entered, alone determine the degree of guilt.
Comment
The purpose of paragraph (A)(2) is to codify the requirement that the judge, on the record, ascertain from the defendant that the guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere is voluntarily and understandingly tendered. On the mandatory nature of this practice, see Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 316 A.2d 77 (1974); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 451 Pa. 198, 304 A.2d 121 (1973); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 450 Pa. 417, 299 A.2d 209 (1973).
It is difficult to formulate a comprehensive list of questions a judge must ask of a defendant in determining whether the judge should accept the plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere. Court decisions may add areas to be encompassed in determining whether the defendant understands the full impact and consequences of the plea, but is nevertheless willing to enter that plea. At a minimum the judge should ask questions to elicit the following information:
(1) Does the defendant understand the nature of the charges to which he or she is pleading guilty or nolo contendere?
(2) Is there a factual basis for the plea?
(3) Does the defendant understand that he or she has the right to trial by jury?
(4) Does the defendant understand that he or she is presumed innocent until found guilty?
(5) Is the defendant aware of the permissible range of sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged?
(6) Is the defendant aware that the judge is not bound by the terms of any plea agreement tendered unless the judge accepts such agreement?
(7) Does the defendant understand that the Commonwealth has a right to have a jury decide the degree of guilt if the defendant pleads guilty to murder generally?
The Court in Commonwealth v. Willis, 471 Pa. 50, 369 A.2d 1189 (1977), and Commonwealth v. Dilbeck, 466 Pa. 543, 353 A.2d 824 (1976), mandated that, during a guilty plea colloquy, judges must elicit the information set forth in paragraphs (1) through (6) above. In 2008, the Court added paragraph (7) to the list of areas of inquiry.
Many, though not all, of the areas to be covered by such questions are set forth in a footnote to the Court?s opinion in Commonwealth v. Martin, 455 Pa. 49, 54-55, 282 A.2d 241, 244-245 (1971), in which the colloquy conducted by the trial judge is cited with approval. See also Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230, 356 A.2d 346 (1976), and Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 316 A.2d 77 (1974). As to the requirement that the judge ascertain that there is a factual basis for the plea, see Commonwealth v. Maddox, 450 Pa. 406, 300 A.2d 503 (1973) and Commonwealth v. Jackson, 450 Pa. 417, 299 A.2d 209 (1973).
It is advisable that the judge conduct the examination of the defendant. However, paragraph (A) does not prevent defense counsel or the attorney for the Commonwealth from conducting part or all of the examination of the defendant, as permitted by the judge. In addition, nothing in the rule would preclude the use of a written colloquy that is read, completed, signed by the defendant, and made part of the record of the plea proceedings. This written colloquy would have to be supplemented by some on-the-record oral examination. Its use would not, of course, change any other requirements of law, including these rules, regarding the prerequisites of a valid guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere.
The ??terms?? of the plea agreement, referred to in paragraph (B)(1), frequently involve the attorney for the Commonwealth?in exchange for the defendant?s plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and perhaps for the defendant?s promise to cooperate with law enforcement officials?promising concessions such as a reduction of a charge to a less serious offense, the dropping of one or more additional charges, a recommendation of a lenient sentence, or a combination of these. In any event, paragraph (B) is intended to insure that all terms of the agreement are openly acknowledged for the judge?s assessment. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wilkins, 442 Pa. 542, 277 A.2d 341 (1971).
The l995 amendment deleting former paragraph (B)(1) eliminates the absolute prohibition against any judicial involvement in plea discussions in order to align the rule with the realities of current practice. For example, the rule now permits a judge to inquire of defense counsel and the attorney for the Commonwealth whether there has been any discussion of a plea agreement, or to give counsel, when requested, a reasonable period of time to conduct such a discussion. Nothing in this rule, however, is intended to permit a judge to suggest to a defendant, defense counsel, or the attorney for the Commonwealth, that a plea agreement should be negotiated or accepted.
Under paragraph (B)(1), upon request and with the consent of the parties, a judge may, as permitted by law, order that the specific conditions of a plea agreement be placed on the record in camera and that portion of the record sealed. Such a procedure does not in any way eliminate the obligation of the attorney for the Commonwealth to comply in a timely manner with Rule 573 and the constitutional mandates of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), and its progeny. Similarly, the attorney for the Commonwealth is responsible for notifying the cooperating defendant that the specific conditions to which the defendant agreed will be disclosed to third parties within a specified time period, and should afford the cooperating defendant an opportunity to object to the unsealing of the record or to any other form of disclosure.
When a guilty plea, or plea of nolo contendere, includes a plea agreement, the 1995 amendment to paragraph (B)(2) requires that the judge conduct a separate inquiry on the record to determine that the defendant understands and accepts the terms of the plea agreement. See Commonwealth v. Porreca, 595 A.2d 23 (Pa. 1991).
Former paragraph (B)(3) was deleted in 1995 for two reasons. The first sentence merely reiterated an earlier provision in the rule. See paragraph (A)(3). The second sentence concerning the withdrawal of a guilty plea was deleted to eliminate the confusion being generated when that provision was read in conjunction with Rule 591. As provided in Rule 591, it is a matter of judicial discretion and case law whether to permit or direct a guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere to be withdrawn. See also Commonwealth v. Porreca, 595 A.2d 23 (Pa. 1991) (the terms of a plea agreement may determine a defendant?s right to withdraw a guilty plea).
For the procedures governing the withdrawal of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, see Rule 591.
Paragraph (C) reflects a change in Pennsylvania practice, which formerly required the judge to convene a panel of three judges to determine the degree of guilt in murder cases in which the imposition of a sentence of death was not statutorily authorized.
Official Note
Rule 319 (a) adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; amended November 18, 1968, effective February 3, 1969; paragraph (b) adopted and title of rule amended October 3, 1972, effective 30 days hence; specific areas of inquiry in Comment deleted in 1972 amendment, reinstated in revised form March 28, 1973, effective immediately; amended June 29, 1977 and November 22, 1977, effective as to cases in which the indictment or information is filed on or after January 1, 1978; paragraph (c) added and Comment revised May 22, 1978, effective July 1, 1978; Comment revised November 9, 1984, effective January 2, 1985; amended December 22, 1995, effective July 1, 1996; amended July 15, 1999, effective January 1, 2000; renumbered Rule 590 and Comment revised March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Final Report explaining the December 22, 1995 amendments published with the Court?s Order at 26 Pa.B. 8 (January 6, 1996).
Final Report explaining the July 15, 1999 changes concerning references to nolo contendere pleas and cross-referencing Rule 320 published with the Court?s Order at 29 Pa.B. 4057 (July 31, 1999).
Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court?s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1477 (March 18, 2000).
Source
The provisions of this Rule 590 amended September 18, 2008, effective November 1, 2008, 38 Pa.B. 5429. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (318661) to (318662) and (303693) to (303694).
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter5/s590.html (http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter5/s590.html)
-
The ultimate verdict was fair: the proposed one was not.
I am not paying attention to you. You always claim to be right, and all arguments end with you spewing incomprehensible rot, and adding some dumb insult.
Were you looking the mirror (at yourself) when you wrote this?
-
The judge does not have to accept a plea agreement in the state of pennsylvania which is whhere your modified post to place
I never said he had to. If you were paying attention, if the Judge noted gross incompotence or injustice, he could absolutely throw it out. Minus such, the Judge has no other reason not to accept a plea deal. It was nice of you to provide the laundry list of definitions and paramenters by which a plea arrangement is derived. None of them however, unless I missed it, and you wish to highlight it specifically, provide the Judge a platform to disregard a perfectly rational plea arrangement to "make a statement"
Validated by the Judge recusing himself, with another judge stepping in, who indeed accepted the plea
So, are you argueing for the sake of.....arguing?
-
The judge can reject the plea because he feels like it.
This judge recused himself because he couched his nonacceptance in racially charged rhetoric.
I realize the distinction is subtle, perhaps that is why you missed it.
-
The judge can reject the plea because he feels like it.
Ahh, that makes things so much better. Skip law, let's go with feelings ::)
This judge recused himself because he couched his nonacceptance in racially charged rhetoric.
Regardless, he removed himself based on inappropriate racially motivated judicial conduct. A different judge came in and conducted himself like a judge. I realize the distinction is subtle, perhaps that is why you missed it.
-
Ahh, that makes things so much better. Skip law, let's go with feelings
It has nothing to do with feelings. If the Judge suspected that the prosecutors office was favoring one group over another, based on race, creed, gender or nation of origin, he is within his rights to not accept the plea bargain. And that action is well within the law, in fact it is enshrined in the constitution.
-
In any case in which the defendant is a member of a race , any prosicutor or Judge who is a member of a race ,whether the same one or a diffrent one ,should recuse himself. How elese can accusations of favoritism or negative bias be avoided?
-
In any case in which the defendant is a member of a race , any prosicutor or Judge who is a member of a race ,whether the same one or a diffrent one ,should recuse himself. How elese can accusations of favoritism or negative bias be avoided?
That would hold true if was suspected that a prosecutor of judge showed a pattern of discrimination.
That is what the PA judged said he suspected.
But to assume because as a white guy if i stand before a white judge i will get a better deal is prejudicial in itself.
-
Ahh, that makes things so much better. Skip law, let's go with feelings
It has nothing to do with feelings.
You just said so. Lemme quote it again.....The judge can reject the plea because he feels like it.
Outside of gross incompotence or injustice, the judge is not to by his "gut". Because he "can" doesn't make it right, and in this case, we at least have a recusal, because of such
If the Judge suspected that the prosecutors office was favoring one group over another, based on race, creed, gender or nation of origin, he is within his rights to not accept the plea bargain.
based on ........ his feeling again?? See the problem here........yet? I look forward to you showing the class precisely where a Judge's feelings come into play "as enshrined in the Constitution", as it relates to judicial rulings
-
You just said so. Lemme quote it again.....The judge can reject the plea because he feels like it.
Absolutely. His rejection can be discretionary. He might have awoke on the wrong side of the bed for all it matters. I'm sure most judges take into consideration whether sirs might disapprove before they act according to their discretion, but never the less they have that authority.
What you aren't addressing is whether this particular judge in this particular case observed a pattern of biased plea bargaining, and whether that observation was true. Lacking that, the recusal was based on the use of intemperate language.
-
You just said so. Lemme quote it again.....The judge can reject the plea because he feels like it.
Absolutely. His rejection can be discretionary. He might have awoke on the wrong side of the bed for all it matters.
Thanks again for helping to make my point ::)
What you aren't addressing is whether this particular judge in this particular case observed a pattern of biased plea bargaining, and whether that observation was true. Lacking that, the recusal was based on the use of intemperate language.
And what you are't acknowledging, is that no such thing has been provided by this judge, to that matter. You have accurately referenced the only thing we do have to go on....his feelings on the matter. And that is NOT how a judge is to rule. At least not by design, as "enshrined in our Constitution"
-
Thanks again for helping to make my point
Your point was that a judge can reject a plea at will?
Good, glad i helped you make your point.
The incident stemmed from a Jan. 16 traffic stop in the North Side by Pittsburgh police Officer Paul Abel. After Abel asked McGowan to step out of his car, the officer said he thought McGowan was going to hit him and failed to comply with commands.
He charged McGowan with aggravated assault, terroristic threats, resisting arrest, obstructing the administration of law and improperly turning without a signal. Those charges were withdrawn, and McGowan pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_702927.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_702927.html)
-
Thanks again for helping to make my point
Your point was that a judge can reject a plea at will?
Close....that Judge shouldn't be making judgements based on feelings. Especially ones that are racially motivated. It should be based on law, and nothing more
-
Close....that Judge shouldn't be making judgements based on feelings.
That's your opinion. Pennsylvania law allows differently.
-
But of course, building a Muslim Center, THAT needs to be based on feelings.
-
Close....that Judge shouldn't be making judgements based on feelings.
That's your opinion. Pennsylvania law allows differently.
Again, you're not paying attention, Bt. I said they SHOULDN'T. I didn't say they can't. I sure as hell don't want a Judge making rulings based on feelings.
But of course, building a Muslim Center, THAT needs to be based on feelings.
What the frell??
-
Again, you're not paying attention, Bt. I said they SHOULDN'T. I didn't say they can't. I sure as hell don't want a Judge making rulings based on feelings.
I'm sure that every judge who is tempted to reject a plea arrangement will take your feelings into consideration.
-
Wow...impressive. Swapping out my goal of a Judge following the law vs his feelings, into a Judge following my feelings in following the law. I need some ice for that sprained neck
-
Swapping out my goal of a Judge following the law
But you know the judge is following the law because i posted the relevant section of the PA. Code.
-
No, as you've rightly opined, he cited nothing in the law to base his judgement. Minus such, all we have is apparently his gut feelings, on the matter
And thus, we have his recusal, punctuated by the fact that the Judge that took his spot, did indeed accept said plea
-
No, as you've rightly opined, he cited nothing in the law to base his judgement. Minus such, all we have is apparently his gut feelings, on the matter
But he did. He stated that he thought the white guy was given a break that black guys wouldn't get. Which is contrary to the 14th amendment.
Plus PA law allows the discretion of a judge to reject a plea.
(6) Is the defendant aware that the judge is not bound by the terms of any plea agreement tendered unless the judge accepts such agreement?
From the PA law. No limiting clauses
He screwed up by calling the defendant a "white boy".
-
One last time....the fact that PA law allows him to use his feelings in judgements & plea deals, a) doesn't make it right, and b) isn't "enshrined in the Constitution"
::)
Taking us back to square 1, where a black judge, facilitated by apparent, and dare I say "obvious" racial overtones, ignored a perfectly reasonable plea arrangement, between the defense & prosecution, for a white defendent. Your "assumptions" of what the Judge may have perceived, is noted. Absense of such, leaves us back at square one, helped validated by the recusal and subsequent judge accepting said plea
The lack of pushing for sanctions, as you opined, being that this was a black Judge, is also duely noted
-
One last time....the fact that PA law allows him to use his feelings in judgements & plea deals, a) doesn't make it right, and b) isn't "enshrined in the Constitution"
I take that to mean that you don't believe in equal protection under the law. Which is enshrined in the constitution.
-
There's no basis for any denying of equal protection, in this case. There's a gut the judge went by. That part is NOT enshrined, and should never be. Rule of law, and all that
-
There's no basis for any denying of equal protection, in this case.
You know this because.... the prosecutors office says so?
-
No, because the Judge used no law to say it wasn't so. That, and the subsequent 2nd Judge's acceptance of the plea.
Law trumps gut....even a Judge's
-
The second judge accepted the plea because the white guy in question had no priors.
That doesn't eliminate the possibility that advertently or inadvertently the Allegheny County prosecutors office doesn't give less punitive pleas to white guys.
I mean all we have to go on is the prosecutors office denials. Not that i would expect anything less.
-
Are Judges required to explain their thinking?
I have the impression that a lot of judges have a coin ready to flip.
-
Bt, you can opine to try and reinforce your original conclusions, based on the circumstances present, all you want. Square 1 still remains undebunked. Law still trumps feelings. At least in the U.S., under this Constitution. And the 2nd judge accepted the plea, regardless of why you think he did so
You were just as wrong in this thread, as you were in trying to opine religious bigotry with the mosque
-
Law still trumps feelings.
Right. Which is why i posted the law.
Not only the rules for the PA courts which clearly states that a judge is under NO obligation to accept a plea, but also referenced the 14th amendment which enshrines equal protection under the law.
The unaltered version of your story or an embedded link also is where it was stated that the second judge allowed the plea based on the clean record of the defendant.
I have sourced my opinion.
You simply have huffed and puffed.
-
Bt, you're posting gibberish, in the sense no one is arguing that the Judge can't take advancate of how PA law is written. A Judge SHOULD rule via the law. THAT's how the Constitution works. THAT's how the judicial system is supposed to work.
Back to square 1
Fact, Judge made a deroggatory racial comment in his ruling
Fact, judge disregarded a plea, mutually arranged between the Defense & Prosecution, with no lawful reason (yes, he can lawfully do that, but that was never the issue, and your continuing to harp on it as if it is, simply undermines your own subsequent conclusions)
Deductive reasoning presents a reason by the Judge that was racially motivated, and not bound in any law, as the judge provided none, your defensive efforts, not withstanding
Fact, judge subsequently recused himself
Fact, a 2nd judge accepted the plea
-
Deductive reasoning presents a reason that was racially motivated, and not bound in any law, as the judge provided none, your defensive efforts, not withstanding
Nonsense. The reason he rejected the plea was because based on personal observation, he saw a preponderance of favorable pleas given to white guys and unfavorable ones given to blacks. You are familiar with the US Constitution? You are familiar with it's various amendments? You do understand that one of them codifies equal treatment under the law? Lawful reason plus some.
How can you claim that he disregarded the plea with no lawful reason, when the law clearly states he doesn't have to accept the plea, period.
-
That's your guess, and it was nothing more than a perception, not founded by any law or even studies. That's NOT the function of a judge. Yes, he "can", but that's not the design of the judicial system, or the Constitution, for Judges to make rulings based on nothing more than some "personal observation" or feelings
VALIDATED again, by the fact that he did recuse himself, and a 2nd judge DID accept the plea.
-
White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'
I'm sure that is why you modified the contents of the story. Because the judge was not following some imagined protocol you made up out of thin air.
No the reason the judge recused himself is because he used a racially charged descriptor that was out of place for a judge.
That was the original point of your modification.
You know the whole reverse the situation thing to point out hypocrisy or something.
Meanwhile you continue to deflect the possibility that the judges observations were correct, that blacks have a tendency to be offered less favorable plea bargains than whites. And if that was correct, that would violate the spirit and the letter of the 14th amendment to the constitution. Which would give plenty of legal justification to reject the deal.
So what have we learned.
We have learned in PA a judge does not have to accept a plea, no matter his reasoning.
We have learned that the second judge allowed the plea because the defendant had no priors.
We have learned that the prosecutors office denies any favoritism, but we haven't learned whether an independent analysis is in the works, as it should be.
And we have learned that clicking through to links on sirs posts is now something those interested in the truth need to do.
-
White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'
I'm sure that is why you modified the contents of the story. Because the judge was not following some imagined protocol you made up out of thin air. No the reason the judge recused himself is because he used a racially charged descriptor that was out of place for a judge.
and.................?
Here's a hint....that it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that said judgements following, especially in this case, were also likely racially inappropriate and out of place for a judge. He didn't make those comments in a bubble. Especially when you consider he provided no other rationale, outside of his gut feelings on the matter, Especially when you consider that the subsequent judge did accept said plea
Are you finished being debunked yet?
Meanwhile you continue to deflect the possibility ....
I'm not going by your defense of possiblity. I'm going by events as they stand. IF, your judge made no such racial slur, THEN you might have a defensive leg to stand on. IF the judge cited some specific research backing up his feelings, THEN you might have a leg to stand on. IF the 2nd judge also didn't accept the plea, THEN, you might have yet another defensive leg to stand on.
So what have we learned. We have learned in PA a judge does not have to accept a plea, no matter his reasoning.
Never in question, but why stop a good strawman arguement
And we have learned that clicking through to links on sirs posts is now something those interested in the truth need to do.
Close, but no cigar. That would be a good deflection arguement
-
Are you finished being debunked yet?
Let me know when you start with a valid debunking.
But in the meantime, perhaps you should go through your links and see if there is any reason given by the second judge to accept the plea.
Then perhaps you should look at other pronouncements by the first judge that deal with race and see whether there is a pattern to his favoritism of members of his race.
Thirdly The bad choice of phrasing by judge #1 does not negate the possibility that what he saw as a pattern favoritism towards whites didn't exist. And those are the facts as they stand.
Quote from: BT on Today at 11:03:20 AM
So what have we learned. We have learned in PA a judge does not have to accept a plea, no matter his reasoning.
Never in question, but why stop a good strawman arguement
Sure it was. Half this thread is devoted to your claim that the judges rejection of the plea was unlawful. Are you now abandoning that argument?
Quote from: BT on Today at 11:03:20 AM
And we have learned that clicking through to links on sirs posts is now something those interested in the truth need to do.
Close, but no cigar. That would be a good deflection arguement
Well, i can't speak for others, but i certainly plan to verify that what you copy and paste from an article is in fact what was written originally.
-
IF, you had been paying attention, vs trying to pigeon hole me in this thread, like you tried in the whole mosque debacle, "half of this thread" was in demonstrating that despite having the legal right to do X, doesn't make doing X the right thing to do
The other half was in demonstrating how this Judge's comments were not made in some bubble of accidental innocence. So despite the "possibility" that he is a perfectly rational, God fearing, bible thumping member of the tea party, his rhetoric combined with all those legs you have no standing with, clearly debunks much of your opinion, on this matter
But by all means, continue to whittle what toothpicks you still have left. And please, read the links. That's why they're posted
-
IF, you had been paying attention, vs trying to pigeon hole me in this thread, like you tried in the whole mosque debacle, "half of this thread" was in demonstrating that despite having the legal right to do X, doesn't make doing X the right thing to do
I'm sure that is why you used terms like lawful, legal and other such terminology to indicate that the judge did not have the authority to reject the plea.
The other half was in demonstrating how this Judge's comments were not made in some bubble of accidental innocence. So despite the "possibility" that he is a perfectly rational, God fearing, bible thumping member of the tea party, his rhetoric combined with all those legs you have no standing with, clearly debunks much of your opinion, on this matter
Oh. You can give examples of other racist pronouncements he has made from the bench? Why haven't you shared this with us before?
-
I'm sure you'll be able to find where I posted that the Judge didn't have the legal authority. NOT where i referenced that he provided no lawful reason, NOT where I referenced what the lawful, and more so Constitutional parameters of a Judge are SUPPOSED to be. No, show us were I claimed the judge had no legal authority to deny the plea. That's your claim, let's see it, minus the 6 steps to Kevin Bacon tact
And as far as your other "request", since this was the only current story reported on this Judge, we're gonna have to go by it, in full context, minus your "possibility bubble". Your legs remain missing, btw
-
Please explain the difference between lawful and legal.
And as far as your other "request", since this was the only current story reported on this Judge, we're gonna have to go by it, in full context, minus your "possibility bubble". Your legs remain missing, btw
Another race issue arose last week before Williams when Freedom Bey, a black man from Larimer convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, asked for a new trial because the jury was all white.
Williams denied the request, saying that he agreed jurors probably didn't understand Bey's rough upbringing, but that some issues transcend cultural differences.
"Things are not perfect, but some of us manage to get through it without killing people, without dealing drugs, without hurting other people," the judge said last week.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_702927.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_702927.html)
This was referenced by the link to your unaltered MSNBC story.
-
Please explain the difference between lawful and legal.
There is no real difference. If anything, legal has a more technical component, I suppose. The issue is in how I applied the terms, and where. I'll still wait patienty for your presenting where I opined that the Judge had no legal/lawful authority to deny the plea agreement
-
Fact, judge disregarded a plea, mutually arranged between the Defense & Prosecution, with no lawful reason (yes, he can lawfully do that, but that was never the issue, and your continuing to harp on it as if it is, simply undermines your own subsequent conclusions)
If the law says the judge can reject a plea,with no conditions set forth in that law, why continue to harp on the fact that he gave no lawful reason, when a) he did, unless you are saying the constitution and it's amendments are not the law of the land and b) he doesn't have to give a reason, no matter your feelings on the issue.
-
Fact, judge disregarded a plea, mutually arranged between the Defense & Prosecution, with no lawful reason (yes, he can lawfully do that, but that was never the issue, and your continuing to harp on it as if it is, simply undermines your own subsequent conclusions)
[/color]
-
Once again, please explain how something can be unlawful and lawful at the same time.
-
My reference is that the Judge never provided a lawful reason. That doesn't equate to what he did was unlawful. If you're not going to pay attention to what I've posted (yes, he can lawfully do that, but that was never the issue), I can't help you Bt.
-
Once again, please explain how something can be unlawful and lawful at the same time.
This would be the case at any time that there was an ambiguity or contradiction in the law.
-
My reference is that the Judge never provided a lawful reason.
Sure he did. He said white boys were treated better than black boys. Which is unconstitutional.
-
This would be the case at any time that there was an ambiguity or contradiction in the law.
Is the 14th amendment ambiguous or contradictory?
-
Once again, please explain how something can be unlawful and lawful at the same time.
This would be the case at any time that there was an ambiguity or contradiction in the law.
I've never provided a legal status of my being an american citizen, to anyone here in the saloon. According to Bt I must be illegally in this country??
My reference is that the Judge never provided a lawful reason.
Sure he did. He said white boys were treated better than black boys. Which is unconstitutional.
Based on..........?
You see, there's your missing leg, yet again. Made all the more so when the subsequent judge accepted the apparent "unconstitutional" act, via plea acceptance
-
Based on..........?
His observations. Also in the unaltered article you posted.
I've never provided a legal status of my being an american citizen, to anyone here in the saloon. According to Bt I must be illegally in this country??
I'm sure that is relevant to the discussion .............somehow. ::)
-
Based on..........?
His observations.
As you have already opined....yea, his feelings. And the circle is complete
I've never provided a legal status of my being an american citizen, to anyone here in the saloon. According to Bt I must be illegally in this country??
I'm sure that is relevant to the discussion .............somehow.
If anyone's been paying attention to the thread, I'm sure they've figured it out
-
Should i start requiring proof of citizenship before allowing you to post?
-
As you have already opined....yea, his feelings. And the circle is complete
No it was an opinion. He did state that as his reason for denying the plea. I'm not sure why you would accuse him of lying, without the data to back it up.
-
Should i start requiring proof of citizenship before allowing you to post?
You tell me. According to your parameters, I must be illegal, since I have not provided any lawful support to my being here. Just my perceptions
As you have already opined....yea, his feelings. And the circle is complete
No it was an opinion. He did state that as his reason for denying the plea. I'm not sure why you would accuse him of lying, without the data to back it up.
Not accusing him of lying oy Are you accusing the 2nd judge now of lying, by covering up the unconstitutional act, by accepting the plea?? Please pay attention. I'm accusing him of using his feelings, racially motivated as they were, in denying a perfectly reasonable plea arrangement. Made more so the fact by a 2nd judge accepting said plea AFTER this judge recused himself, for such inappropriate judicial behavior
So, since you're trying to dive down yet another non-existant hole I supposedly made, best stop now
-
Are you accusing the 2nd judge now of lying, by covering up the unconstitutional act, by accepting the plea??
The second judge accepted the plea because the defendant had a clean record. That is what he said for the record.
Williams later recused himself from the case, and a county court administrator reassigned the case to Judge Randal B. Todd. Todd, who is white, approved the plea agreement and sentenced McGowan to three months of probation. Prosecutors said McGowan had not been in trouble before.
"Since it's your first time in the system, I'll approve the plea agreement," Todd said.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_702927.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_702927.html)
-
So, you are saying the 2nd judge lied, for covering up this obviously unconstitutional act, that was uncovered by the original judge. Wow, quite the scandal you're uncovering there Bt. Best alert the media
-
So, you are saying the 2nd judge lied, for covering up this obviously unconstitutional act, that was uncovered by the original judge. Wow, quite the scandal you're uncovering there Bt. Best alert the media
No i am saying the second judge granted the plea because the defendant had a clean record. Which is what the second judge said.
-
But...but...the 1st Judge denied it based on an apparent unconstitional act of unequal treatement...."he said white boys are treated better than black boys. Which is unconstitutional" So, obviously the 2nd judge is lying, per Bt's defensive parameters of the 1st judge
-
So, obviously the 2nd judge is lying, per Bt's defensive parameters of the 1st judge
Why would the second judge lie?
Remember accepting or rejecting pleas is up to the discretion of the judge.
-
Never said otherwise. For folks that have paid attention, they will have known precisly what was said by me, which would NOT include that the 1st judge was lying, or that he unlawfully denied a prearranged plea deal
-
According to you the judge was reacting on a gut feeling.
Not so.
Tom Ridge while Governor of PA commissioned a study to evaluate Racial and Gender bias in the judicial system. Their findings:
At the same time, the Committee?s findings demonstrate that racial, ethnic, and gender bias does exist and that it infects the justice system at many key points in both overt and subtle ways.
Even when controlling for other factors such as economic status, familial status, and geographic diversity, the studies demonstrate that racial, ethnic, and gender bias still emerge as significantly affecting the way an individual (be it a party, witness, litigant, lawyer, court employee, or potential juror) is treated.
http://www.friendsfw.org/PA_Courts/Race_Gender_Link.pdf (http://www.friendsfw.org/PA_Courts/Race_Gender_Link.pdf)
-
lol....which again has been addressed by the fact that a subsequent judge accepted said plea. Noting bias, is not what this Judge said. He was very specific, and used very specific rhetoric, minus the needed support to his "perception". NOT that he was required to show support (just in case you were going to pull that again)
Sorry Bt, still no legs.
Oh, you may have not known this, racism still exists in this country.
-
What part of the 2nd judge accepted the plea based on the defendants clean record do you not understand?
The second judge said nothing about the first judges claims, in essence, neither confirming them or denying them.
However the Report on Race and Gender Bias does agree with the first judge.
-
More on Judge Williams:
Common Pleas Judge Joseph K. Williams III, 57, of Penn Hills, will appear on both ballots. Judge Williams, who had a private law practice in Manchester, has served in the court's criminal division since November, when Gov. Ed Rendell appointed him to fill a vacancy. He was rated "highly recommended" by the bar association and endorsed by the county Democratic Party.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09095/960736-455.stm#ixzz126Lyekrs (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09095/960736-455.stm#ixzz126Lyekrs)
-
Meanwhile:
Race's role in county courts to be reviewed (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_703122.html)
-
Quote from: BT on Today at 02:47:26 PM
Once again, please explain how something can be unlawful and lawful at the same time.
This would be the case at any time that there was an ambiguity or contradiction in the law.
This would be the case at any time that there was an ambiguity or contradiction in the law.
Is the 14th amendment ambiguous or contradictory?
Both ,
What is the unambiguous definition of a person?
How does the 14th admendmendment apply to perceived statistical diffrences in enforcement?
Is a Judge useing due process if he perceives a trend in plea bargans and refuses to accept one or another on a stitistical basis(especially if he is not relying on evidence presented by the due process)?
During the entire "Jim Crow" era laws contradictory to the 14th admendment were passed and enforced. At present huge laws contradictory to the 9th and 10th admendment are enacted or being proposed.Laws contradictory to the second admendment are in flux.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)