Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker offers an unusual view of the value of precedent (at least precedent he disagrees with) in an op-ed published in the Birmingham News. Here is a portion:
State supreme courts may decline to follow bad U.S. Supreme Court precedents because those decisions bind only the parties to the particular case. Judges around the country normally follow precedents in similar cases because they know that if those cases go before the Court again they are likely to receive the same verdict. But state supreme court judges should not follow obviously wrong decisions simply because they are "precedents."
After all, a judge takes an oath to support the constitution -- not to automatically follow activist justices who believe their own devolving standards of decency trump the text of the constitution. Thus, faithful adherence to the judicial oath requires resistance to such activism, and a changing U.S. Supreme Court membership makes such resistance more likely to bear good fruit.
While lower courts have been known to “tee-up” issues for appeal, one can only wonder what chaos would follow if all judges applied this rule all the time. The opinion should also help refine the definition of "judicial activism" by holding up a mirror to all who use the term, no matter what their political or judicial philosophy. The whole op-ed is at: http://www.alliancealert.org/2006/20060106.htm
Thanks to Howard Bashman for pointing this opinion out on his blog, HowAppealing
Comments