Ted Frank (who BTW we are honored to have visit and comment on our blog) comments on my post quibbling with his post at Point of Law, where he stated:
...
But that doesn't mean that inferior courts get to disregard superior courts. The Alabama Supreme Court is inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court, and doesn't get to pick and choose which Supreme Court opinions to adhere to. That's the way it works under our Constitution.
My co-blogger responded quite well to his comments, so I will simply add a few thoughts.
First of all, I am not sure why Ted had to say "our Constitution" as opposed to just "the Constitution". I am not sure what consitution you believe you are under, but I can assure you that in the South the Constitution is alive and well. In fact, we take the Constitution quite seriously, that when the US Supremes make a mess of things, we actually take notice. We take action. We say take your Yankee, big government-Federal government enabling-states' rights trampling-child killer loving-constitution and shove it.
Second "The Alabama Supreme Court is inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court." I am sure the Alabama Supreme Court would appreciate hearing about their inferiority. Who made them so inferior? Not the constitution as far as I can plainly read it - only the Supremes themselves. So what gave them the right to do that? They just did it.
What happened to the age of reason when these truths are self-evident? What happened to the era of natural law and judges applied the laws of the creator instead of this new nihlistic era of personal whimsical preferences making law? What makes Justice Kennedy so special (he wrote Roper which is what started this discussion)? In fact, when Justice Kennedy engaged in the blatantly unconstitutional use of foreign judgments to justify his personal preferences and his tinkering with the ability of states to protect its citizens, what made his decision so special?
Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with the supremacy of the US Supreme Court over other federal courts and for that matter State Supreme Courts over their inferior courts. That is because those courts are in their own system. But what I object to is the US Supreme Court telling state courts what they can and can't do. Yes, I understand that is how our jurisprudence has evolved - but that doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean that those who dare to think outside the box somehow are violating the Supremacy clause. Their fidelity to the constitution is much more genuine and sincere than any statist's claim of following the Supremacy Clause.
Justice Parker may not have won the election- but had he, he would have been a force to reckon with. He would have been a judicial hero not seen since the days of Chief Justice Spencer Roane. Alas, we can only keep waiting.
Comments