Alabama Judge Declares War on U.S. Supreme Court (Juvenile Death Penalty)

Wow! Okay by me - - Tom Parker for US Supreme Court.

I think he does more important work in Alabama, so I want to keep him here. But Bush could shift the debate his way with some Hegelian jujitsu by nominating Parker, who would rock the Senate during confirmation hearings. I doubt he would be confirmed, but Parker could stun the establishment so much that the left would give in to almost anyone Bush nominated as a replacement.

Somebody has to have the final word. If not judges, who?

The people, of course. Every elected official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, and that responsibility cannot be delegated to the judicial branch or even to the "Supremes." If the black-robed tyrants issue some unconstitutional ruling, the other branches are bound by their oath to refuse to follow that ruling. And, if they don't the people should hold them accountable at the ballot box.

Think about it: If the Supremes are the final authority, rather than the text of the Constitution in its historic meaning, then the other branches would be taking oaths to obey the Supreme Court instead of to uphold the Constitution.

The Constitution itself says very little about who should interpret it.

The Constitution says a great deal about who should interpret it. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Jurisdiction is defined as "the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law."

The reply above is a non sequitor. It's true that the U.S. Supreme Court has the final authority to interpret and apply the law in cases that come before it -- this is the doctrine of "the law of the case" -- but this is a far cry from claiming that judicial opinions written in such cases apply to every subsequent case in other courts or that the U.S. Supreme Court has exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution.

The notion that judicial opinions are binding in other cases -- what we might ironically call "the law of the opinion" -- has no basis in the text of the Constitution or in its historic context.

"Judicial Supremacy," the notion that the judicial branch (ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court) has the final authority to interpret the Constitution, is likewise without any textual or historic support. It is a doctrine invented by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1958 in a case called Cooper v. Aaron, in which the Court writes the bold-faced lie that it has always held that it was Supreme in the exposition of the Constitution.

That's simply not true; the Emperor has no clothes. Thank God Justice Parker isn't afraid to say so.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.