Jackson Jambalaya

Hmmmm.... Let's see how this plays out. This might be or chance to see how veiled the judge and Kenny have remained.

I can't believe this is optional. This decision should be a "no brainer" but we are dealing with people with no brains....

Where is EXHIBIT 1.?
Waide's argument sounds similar to Trump's various speeches.

LOL yeah thats what'll happen... the state will allow her to still preside over the case. idiot.

All the black folk are recusing. Boils down to votes.

Recused because somebody sent her husband a letter. Now how damned stupid is that? At least it wasn't a poem.

She followed the law, gave the parties an opportunity to be heard, and handled the situation correctly. Regardless of people's opinion of her spouse, she is a competent judge who appears to do the right thing.

Judge Skinner recused himself and he is not black.

"Judge Skinner recused himself and he is not black."

Well, there's always a token in every Jacktown story.

But, tell me again why a husband receiving a letter would mandate recusal.

if the husband discussed the contents of the letter with his wife, recusal is appropriate. I take it you are not a lawyer.

For many posters here it appears the meaning of "appearance of impropriety" remains a mystery. Hat lady made the right call.

It's common for all of the judges in a particular jurisdiction to recuse themselves if one of the parties is a lawyer that regularly practices before them. This case will likely end up being assigned to a retired judge from a different part of the state. No big deal.

Lorita might have made the right call but what were the contents of the letter pertaining to and why were they sent to Kenneth of all people

You 'take it' right, 9:47. I'm not a lawyer. If I were among that elite body I prolly wudden need to axe.

But for someone who has ever watched this woman, hatted up, in a council meeting, to suggest she is a bastion of integrity, is laughable.

These people are recusing just to get the hell away from it and to preserve their image amongst the constituency. But, their real reason for recusal should be that they've known of the D.A.'s shenanigans for years and did not out him.

Her husband aside, Judge Cooper-Stokes is actually a pretty good judge who makes reasonably fair rulings. I'd bet if you polled both sides of the bar you'd hear the same thing. She's light years better than some of the circuit judges in Hinds County.

She very clearly did the right thing here, despite what you wannabe lawyers think.

1. Her husband has made inflammatory remarks on the radio about this case. She did the right thing.

2. I've heard good things about her in court. Let's just say the gripe factor among the lawyers and in the court house is much lower than it is for other judges.

3. Their kids got into Harvard Law and Vanderbilt Medical School. Someone raised them and turned them into the successes they are. ;-)

3. Unfortunately, Kingfish, that comment isn't necessarily true. I know nothing of the Stokes children, but inferring that just because they were admitted to Harvard and Vanderbilt does not always correlate to being raised well. Sadly, and being very stereotypical here due to who we are talking about, many gain entry just due to the color of their skin and their willingness to gain advantage just due to the color of their skin.

I'm sure you would say the same thing about them if they were white.

Well, that's a wholly intellectually dishonest and ignorant comment, Kingfish. No, I would not say that if they were white because the whole basis of my remark was because of racial quotas and affirmative action that results in unqualified individuals gaining a job, entrance to school, contract etc due solely on the BLACK color of their skin.

Now, if this story was about the redneck white trash out in hillbilly country and the kids got into school because of the good ole boy network, I would call that as it was. And it wouldn't be based on skin color.

The point was, is that your original comment doesn't hold water. You inferred a direct correlation and then confirmed that correlation not to be accurate with your last comment.

BTW, I'm not a lawyer. I didn't go to college and I'm wh-ack

The stokes are Jackson's equivalent of Bill and Hillary Clinton!!!

@ 8:25 the Stoke's son is a well known well respected heart doctor at St. D.

Kingfish, please give a very short list of the white people who have been given preference because of the color of their skin.

@8:47 - Your remark about racial quotas and affirmative action is racist itself. The spirit of the law was to give blacks who are just as qualified or close the opportunity because of racist hiring or screening processes. What happens is that some of those who are admitted or hired through "quotas" either do not excel or they get some blacks who are nowhere near qualified, setting them up to fail so that people like you can make the argument that the program doesn't work. There is no guarantee that anyone whether they are black or white, qualified or not will excel in school or employment. But with blacks, we have to excel because we are judged on what one of us does. When one black excels at something, they are the exception, but when one messes up, all blacks are like that. Sure is funny how when a cop is crooked, it doesn't represent all cops. Or when Trump spews his hateful rhetoric, he doesn't represent all republicans.

10:19, if the blacks you are talking about are just as qualified as anyone else why do they need a law giving them preference to get into school or get a job? It is already against the law to not hire a person because of their color. Well, that isn't exactly true. It is not against the law for a company or school to disqualify a person because they are white. It is against the law to disqualify a person because they are black.

I think Judge Stokes was wrong to recuse herself. If Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself from voting on the ACA when his shrew of a wife was all over the television and news media attacking the ACA, then there was no reason for Judge Stokes to recuse herself. I doubt anyone on this blog was calling for Justice Thomas to recuse himself, which he should have. There is definitely a double standard expressed by the majority of the posters on this blog.

@ 8:25 the Stoke's son is a well known well respected heart doctor at St. D.

Then why didn't he come to the rescue of BabaChuckster Lubumafoo? Hey, maybe he's even feeding Lubumafoo Lite inside information. Who kilt da mayor?

Kingfish,

EXHIBIT 1. is included in the transcript as the letter in question. However, the letter, although part of the evidence, is not included as an attachment.
Would you please advise us to what the letter says. Thank you.

10:32 Really? It is against the law?! When has that stop people from discriminating. It has been proven that employers discriminate against hiring people just from their name. Haven't looked at qualifications or interviewed them, they see the name and application is tossed aside. But you are right, it's against the law. But here is where we differ, I'm not saying ALL businesses but it still happens more than not.

11:43, some companies do not like the govt. forcing them to hire someone just for their skin color. They would rather look at education, training, dependability, honesty, and skills. It may come as a surprise to some but skin color is not a prerequisite for most jobs.

Can't seem to find a Stokes practicing as a cardiologist in the Jackson area. Does he have another last name? Can someone clarify this.

Da Fat Man,

Employment discrimination laws are, by definition, discriminatory.

We are a country of mixed people. We are not a melting pot designed to create a homogeneous society. This is why there are separate sovereign states who's values and laws differ.

One problem is that it has become acceptable for minorities to discriminate based on the apparent theory that two wrongs make a right.

Another problem is that every time you legislate out personal responsibility by creating protected classes, the next generation becomes less responsible.

If you want to understand, go read various opinions and commentary on the Community Reinvestment Act. It is great in pointing out just how off the rails this culture shift of the Democratic Party has come.

As a business owner who has owned numerous local businesses through the years, I can tell you, my opinion, is that I would be stupid to hire/not hire someone based solely on their name, religion, skin color or gender. I might not hire someone with a Muslim sounding name to make sales calls to gun dealers, but I note that one of the national firearms experts is Massad Ayoob. But to my point, it's even more stupid to legislate that a certain size business or that city or state contracts have a certain percentage. Worse is that we provide incentive to hire or contract with certain protected classes. Some businesses are even subsidized by the federal government for certain employees hired.

Unintended consequences of trying to control others outside of their God given and Constitutional rights will always outweigh the short term benefits legislation attempts to achieve

9:10am

Thanks. I know nothing about the Stokes' kids nor are any of my comments meant to diminish any of their accomplishment, ability, etc. In fact, my comments were not personal in any way. I simply felt compelled to point out a logical fallacy that Kingfish attempted draw a correlation with.

Fat Man - pray tell what you mean by 'just as qualified or close'. Close? The whole point of affirmative action is to establish quotos (but call them something else) and strongarm the entry of 'almost but not qualified' people into education, jobs and housing.

And of course if one disagrees with the AA system, they are automatically racist. And asshats like you will point it out immediately, thinking it will gain favor for your weak argument.

Fat Man is racist. Without having a clue what he's talking about, he asserts that 'more often than not' (that means in more than 50% of hiring decisions) people are hired or not hired according to their last name or some other form of discrimination.

I never did and never will give any credibility to a man who makes such hollow claims.

A lot could be said about her judgment by looking at her choice of a husband.

I see my comments have elicited several responses. First do not label me a racist. Second my claims are not hollow, studies as well as direct and indirect personal experiences have proven what I previously stated. Third, "Discrimination laws are by definition, discriminatory." In a perfect world, that statement would have more merit. However, since the fall of man, (Genesis, Bible) the world is not perfect, so with that being said, let me put it this way, If you are a Christian, then you would know that in the beginning, they were only two humans here on earth and one "law" which was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And you see what the end results are. Although the laws are good in spirit and intent, their execution are left to be administered by a flawed society.

I am a believer of you don't pay evil for evil, so you tell me how will this ever get corrected? You talk about quotas and subsequent laws that have been passed like they are the devil incarnate when they just represent a small proportion of inconvenience to the masses as compared to the atrocities blacks have and in many cases still are enduring.

I am not one who goes around looking for conspiracy theories or trying to find racism under every rock and in every corner. (the Kingfish will confirm this) Reality reveals everyday that there are still discriminatory practices being exercised daily. I try to teach my black brothers and sisters to expect it but not use it as an excuse. Instead, use it as a stepping stone to climb higher. So I implore you all that love to complain about us always playing the race card, how about some solutions and show some love so we won't have to. All the majority of blacks ever asked was the playing field to be level.

Reality reveals that much of what people yell racist about is only fair treatment. How can you expect people to think otherwise when they have to work hard for something only to see others get the same thing, without the effort, just because of their skin color?