Skip to comments.
Alabama Justices Surrender to Judicial Activism
Birmingham News ^
| January 1, 2006
| Tom Parker
Posted on 01/16/2006 8:49:28 AM PST by Law
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Remarkable. I've never heard of a state supreme court justice taking such a strong public stand on an issue.
1
posted on
01/16/2006 8:49:30 AM PST
by
Law
To: Law
Does the name "Roy Moore" ring a bell? : )
2
posted on
01/16/2006 8:50:54 AM PST
by
TheBigB
("Pitts. has no chance indoors against Indy. NONE."~~maineman)
To: TheBigB
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.
3
posted on
01/16/2006 8:52:35 AM PST
by
Law
("...all who hate me love death" Proverbs 8:36b)
To: Jeff Head
It's too bad more conservatives judges don't take such a stand.
4
posted on
01/16/2006 9:09:21 AM PST
by
Law
("...all who hate me love death" Proverbs 8:36b)
To: Law
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.
5
posted on
01/16/2006 9:22:01 AM PST
by
Dahoser
(Time to condense the nonsense: Terry Tate for Congressional Linebacker.)
To: Law
<< 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!
6
posted on
01/16/2006 10:12:42 AM PST
by
Brian Allen
(How arrogant are we to believe our career political-power-lusting lumpen somehow superior to theirs?)
To: Law
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.
7
posted on
01/16/2006 10:30:39 AM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: 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?
The decision in Miranda applied only to Miranda. The precedent stemming from that decision applies only as far as courts continue to apply it.
8
posted on
01/16/2006 10:43:52 AM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
Yeah, there's those little things called stare decisis and res judicata that they teach in all law schools, except in Alabama it seems.
9
posted on
01/16/2006 10:50:47 AM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: Dog Gone
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.
10
posted on
01/16/2006 10:58:44 AM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: 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. 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.
To: Law
Forget Alito. Tom Parker for US Supreme Court.
12
posted on
01/16/2006 11:28:35 AM PST
by
Celtman
(It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
To: Celtman
Forget Alito. Tom Parker for US Supreme Court. Great idea. Too bad federal judges aren't elected...
13
posted on
01/16/2006 11:47:09 AM PST
by
Law
("...all who hate me love death" Proverbs 8:36b)
To: Celtman
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.
14
posted on
01/16/2006 12:17:44 PM PST
by
bjc
(Check the data!!)
To: Dog Gone
_________________________________________________________
"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.
To: the final gentleman
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.
16
posted on
01/16/2006 12:59:32 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: Dog Gone
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)
17
posted on
01/16/2006 1:16:46 PM PST
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: AndrewC
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.
18
posted on
01/16/2006 1:27:37 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: Dog Gone
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.
19
posted on
01/16/2006 1:36:09 PM PST
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: AndrewC
That's not even close to what I said.
20
posted on
01/16/2006 1:40:31 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson