Maybe I’ll find one. Or prevent one.
The Wyoming Supreme Court will decide if Pinedale municipal judge and circuit court magistrate Ruth Neely should be removed from her position.
The Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics began investigating Neely in January 2015. The investigation was prompted by statements made by Neely to a Pinedale Roundup reporter, which were published in a newspaper article. After a federal judge in Casper struck down Wyoming’s gay marriage ban, Neely told the reporter that she would not be able to perform same-sex marriages.
“When law and religion conflict, choices have to be made,” she was quoted as saying.
Here’s where it gets interesting to me.
Judge Ruth Neely has two jobs. Only one judicial role requires her to marry folks. She is being removed from both. Additionally, in a hearing last March she was given a chance to make the charges go away, but at a price:
During the proceedings, the Commission told Neely it wouldn’t prosecute if she would agree to resign both of her positions and never again seek judicial office in Wyoming, as well as admit wrongdoing, according to a brief by Neely’s attorneys filed with the Supreme Court. Neely declined to do so.
At the risk of going full “Alex Jones,” are we seeing the beginnings of a purge of the judiciary of all those who disagree with individual rulings? Even if those rulings do not affect their court?
This really seems like a litmus test for judges.
We’ll know when they come for the night court judges, the traffic judges and that nice man on TV at 4:30. Then, we’ll sue to protect the rights of judges who have unpopular opinions. We’ll sue. In court.
Oh one more thing. Do you know how many people ever asked Neely to perform a gay wedding, or as they like to call them “wedding?” Zero.
She hasn’t denied anybodies right to get married. Technically, all she did was speak to a reporter and tell the truth as she saw it.