WorldWatcher
Gold Member
Judges have all sorts of discretionary activities. They can swear in new attorneys instead of having the newbies wait for the mass swearing in at the Bar. If a judge said that he did not believe black people should be lawyers and therefore was choosing not to perform any private swearings at all everyone would understand immediately that this judge should not be on the bench. Even though there is no requirement that these ceremonies are part of judicial duties.
Wrong analogy as you are making a negative case and the judges actions are based on a positive case. A better representation would be:
"If the State of Texas barred black people from being lawyers and therefore the Judge was choosing not to perform ANY private swearings at all because private swearing in of lawyers is not a job requirement."
>>>>