Alabama Justices Surrender to Judicial Activism

Birmingham News ^ | January 1, 2006 | Tom Parker

[Law]

Remarkable. I've never heard of a state supreme court justice taking such a strong public stand on an issue.

[TheBigB]

Does the name "Roy Moore" ring a bell? : )

[Law]

I stand corrected, of course. I meant I haven't heard of such a stand in an op-ed, drafted in criticism of one's colleagues.

[Law]

It's too bad more conservatives judges don't take such a stand.

[Dahoser]

It's too bad more conservatives judges don't take such a stand.

It's even more bad that only a conservative judge would take such a stand.

[Brian Allen]

<< Remarkable. I've never heard of a state supreme court justice taking such a strong public stand on an issue. >>

Wow.

Strong stuff.

God bless him!

[Dog Gone]

State supreme courts may decline to follow bad U.S. Supreme Court precedents because those decisions bind only the parties to the particular case.

Wow, so the Miranda Warning only applies to Ernesto Miranda?

Roe vs. Wade only applies to Jane Roe?

Alabama grows some interesting judges.

[inquest]

[State supreme courts may decline to follow bad U.S. Supreme Court precedents because those decisions bind only the parties to the particular case.]

Wow, so the Miranda Warning only applies to Ernesto Miranda?

The decision in Miranda applied only to Miranda. The precedent stemming from that decision applies only as far as courts continue to apply it.

[Dog Gone]

Yeah, there's those little things called stare decisis and res judicata that they teach in all law schools, except in Alabama it seems.

[inquest]

As for stare decisis, read the article more closely:

"After all, Roper itself was established as new U.S. Supreme Court 'precedent' only because the Missouri Supreme Court refused to follow prior precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court used the appeal resulting from the Missouri decision to overturn its previous precedent and declined to rebuke the state court for disregarding the prior precedent."

And as for res judicata, you obviously have no idea what that is.

[ExpandNATO]

Yeah, there's those little things called stare decisis and res judicata that they teach in all law schools, except in Alabama it seems.

And in Missourri and whatever law schools turned out the US Supreme Court. From the article:

After all, Roper itself was established as new U.S. Supreme Court "precedent" only because the Missouri Supreme Court refused to follow prior precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court used the appeal resulting from the Missouri decision to overturn its previous precedent and declined to rebuke the state court for disregarding the prior precedent.

So apparently some precedents are less subject to stare decisis, particularly if it provides the opportunity to drag the United States in a more liberal and/or libertine direction.

What this Alabama judge is stating is that that the composition of the US Supreme Court has changed, therefore it is time to test if a precedent can be overturned and a bloody murderer executed.

[Celtman]

Forget Alito.  Tom Parker for US Supreme Court.

[Law]

Forget Alito. Tom Parker for US Supreme Court.

Great idea. Too bad federal judges aren't elected...

[bjc]

Imagine the debate in the Judiciary Committee about this little piece of jurisprudence. As long as Judge Parker was prepared to "Borked", we could all learn a lot.

[the final gentleman]

_________________________________________________________

"ALABAMA SOME INTERESTING JUDGES"
________________________________________________________

Hmm, Dog Gone, you seem to misunderstand the nature of a legal "precedent". A "precedent" isn't a law, a "precedent" is merely a guide, a tradition, a nod of the head to other judges who have ruled on sundry aspects of statute laws in the past without having their rulings overturned by a higher court.

Justice is not served by blind allegiance to precedence.
Neither is justice served by off-the-wall voo-doo semantics.

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker speaks clearly.
A most welcome trait in a lawyer or a judge.

[Dog Gone]

A judge is obligated to follow the law taking into account precedents and direction, especially from higher courts.

Perhaps "obligated" is too strong a word, because they can rule any way they choose. In this case, they could have ignored the US Supreme Court ruling, but since the ruling is recent, they should expect quick and decisive reversal by the US Supreme Court, along with a rebuke.

Alabama, of all places, ought to be familiar with what happens when the Alabama Supreme Court and the Federal Courts collide.

[AndrewC]

Perhaps "obligated" is too strong a word, because they can rule any way they choose. In this case, they could have ignored the US Supreme Court ruling, but since the ruling is recent, they should expect quick and decisive reversal by the US Supreme Court, along with a rebuke.

Recent? Well, I suppose we have to accept the recent land-grabbing decision by the SOOpreeem court using the "recent" rule.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (taking it for private use is okay now)

[Dog Gone]

No, we don't have to accept it and the Supreme Court told us how. Have your state legislature pass a law prohibiting the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. Many states have now done that.

[AndrewC]

Have your state legislature pass a law prohibiting the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.

Let me get this straight. By default a political entity is prohibited from taking your land for public use, but can take it for private use? Get real.

[Dog Gone]

That's not even close to what I said.