Wow! Okay by me - - Tom Parker for US Supreme Court.
Excellent Judge!
I suspect this was taken out of context, as the good judge probably wouldn't say anything so stupid.
Our law is still largely based on English common law.
English laws passed since 1776 are irrelevant, of course.
I know that many -- even on this forum -- who abhor the decision on juvenile executions based on law and the constitution, nonetheless are strongly supportive of the 18-year-old rule.
IMO, it is imprudent and morally fastidious, without being morally wise, to flatly ban these executions.
It is imprudent because it encourages 14/15/16/17-year-olds with guns in their pockets to believe that that have a license to use them in the very adult crime of murder without facing adult juctice.
I frequently see accounts of very vicious murders by underage defendants who have been gangbanging and terrorizing their neighborhoods since they were twelve. The worst of these are incorrigle practicioners of grownup evil and, in my moral calculus, need to pay the full price for these crimes.
Alternatively, we can spend a million dollars of tax money warehousing them for life. Does anyone think these incorrigible monsters can be rehabilitated? A joke.
This is in no way to suggest that all, or even most, underage defendants should face the ultimate punishment. I only argue that it should be a possibility available to the citizens of the jury -- American citizens of the community, not Europeans.
A Roy Moore light.
No, the Constitution says that.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I don't see why a state supreme court justice has to follow the lead of the federal supreme court in the first place. It's two different constitutions. But then, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know?
"The book Parker refers to the most, however, is a small one he pulls out of his pocket frequently during the conversation with a visiting reporter. It contains the texts of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and is signed by his hero, Justice Clarence Thomas, who swore him into office a year ago."
We can't have someone with this level of responsibility following an outmoded document like the constitution. He has to go.
BTTT
But even before he says a word, his desk offers hints. Prominently displayed are Mark Levin's conservative attack on the U.S. Supreme Court, "Men in Black," and Phyllis Schlafly's "The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It."
Ping-a-ling!
Alabama's got some good judges but somehow I got the feeling this guy might be tossed like Moore was.
I'm told that this is true at all law schools. Students study case law and precedent, not the intent of the Constitution itself.
As the postings to this thread show, it is no wonder we are so confused as to the intended function and jurisdiction of the courts.
Sedition. We're not allowed to stop justices from waving their regal hands over the land and forcing us unwashed, ignorant peasants to be civil. The justices have decreed it.
Seriously, I always like the Walter Williams quote: "There is no moral or constitutional duty to obey unconstitutional laws. Just be prepared for the consequences when you get caught."
I voted for him. :) He is very passionate about constitutional law and he was good in the Atty. General's office. We've had alot of good conservatives come out of the Alabama AG's office; Jeff Sessions and Pryor are only 2 of them.
"In the afterglow of the Moore episode, Parker decided to run for the state Supreme Court against an incumbent who had been critical of Moore's efforts."
Glad he lose.
Unfortunately he is an anomaly in the judiciary. We could use more like him!