[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.