You can be right and wrong at the same time, as a recent flareup at the Louisiana Supreme Court proves.

No-party Chief Justice John Weimer keeps getting on the wrong side of his colleagues. In 2023, upset at how they thought Weimer ran the Court – the senior-most justice legally becomes chief regardless of the desires of the others – his colleagues formed a committee to administer the Court, leaving only ceremonial duties for Weimer. Republican then-Assoc. Justice Scott Crichton was appointed to lead it.

He almost found himself out of a job years early (he will surpass the age limitation disallowing reelection in 2032) when, in 2024, almost all of those then on the Court backed a reapportionment plan that would have changed his district residency. He survived when a subsequent plan kept him in place.

At the time, he had only one supporter against the sidelined plan, Crichton, who was due to retire after hitting the age limit before the 2024 elections were decided. The eventual plan rejiggered Crichton’s northwest Louisiana district so that Republican Assoc. Justice Jay McCallum gobbled up a chunk of it and the rest went to an unopposed rookie that year, Assoc. Justice Cade Cole, for whom the new district seemed drawn.

Weimer also previously had engaged in another spat involving Crichton. For years, he has criticized the Court for its management of the Judges’ Supplemental Compensation Fund. He long has contended that his colleagues take advantage of an erroneous legal interpretation of distributing the fund to pad judicial salaries without first paying its expenses that instead come from the state’s general fund. He also claims that colleagues, including Crichton, illegally took judicial stipends in upfront lump sums to increase their retirement pay, and he has accused Crichton of taking per diem payments for meals in addition to the stipends judges receive for expenses.

He’s not wrong on the fund issue, according to the Louisiana Legislative Auditor, whose office has cited this practice as a recurring questionable theme. Presently, $31.50 is collected on civil cases to fund it, which is run by a five-member board that includes the chief justice and four other lower-level judges. The board consistently has allowed the practice to continue. Whether the other practices he identified break the law seems murkier, but from an ethics standpoint, they appear to be taking advantage of the letter of the law rather than its spirit.

This carping came to a head last month when Weimer penned notes laying out his accusations. These accruals didn’t sit well with the six other current Court members, who in response issued a document that suggested he played fast and loose with rules when it suited his interests. That document went even further by forcing Weimer’s recusal in a case in which Crichton served as a lawyer, though it did not impose a blanket recusal, while pointing out that he broke the Court’s procedural rules by engaging in what it characterized as a vendetta.

Weimer is reaping what he has sown through his entirely unprofessional behavior. But that doesn’t mean the fund issue he raises isn’t legitimate, and it’s incumbent on the Legislature to provide absolute clarity here (as of May, the board declared it would begin taking expenses out of the fund) as well as on the other questions, including whether a per diem can be paid in addition to the set-aside and whether any special disbursements can be sped up to have the effect of boosting retirement stipends (there was an attempt in 2023 to accomplish some of this that would have abolished the Board, but it went nowhere). Resolving these issues at least might calm matters somewhat.

Thank you for reading The Hayride!