Eos Wrote:If that one person has sole discretionary power to refuse to enforce state law it's the state itself that's showing prejudice by allowing it to continue/happen.
If the president declares war on a country that means America is at war with that country, regardless of whether or not the majority of the population agree with it.
When a single pimento with extreme power decides to arbitrarily disregard the law because he doesn't feel it belongs to a certain class of people, or a certain situation, the entirety of the government he represents is culpable. In this case, the state of Louisiana. You may feel otherwise if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the fact the victim here is unable to bring his suit against his aggressors by the state, at the whimsy of one man acting on behalf of the state.
This is why the separation of personal beliefs from functional roles is so critically important. His job isn't to enforce just the rules he believes in and agrees with, but because he is doing so the entire state of Louisiana is responsible and complicit because that is on who's behalf he is charged with acting.
I was just lamenting the reality in my 2nd post; I know it's how it works. At least, I realized after your first reply.
EDIT : Oops, I mean 3rd post and 2nd reply! Basically, I'm agreeing with you. @_@.