After the elections in Alabama recently, I mentioned that Roy Moore had lost in the primaries in his attempt to become governor of the state. But I forgot to mention that the entire slate of Moore candidates lost, not just thim. There were 4 men running for spots on the state Supreme Court who were Moore clones, all of them claiming that state judges and elected officials can ignore Federal court rulings if they disagree with them. All 4 of them lost. Perhaps there is sanity left in Alabama yet.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
A newspaper in Alabama has this report on followers of Roy Moore running for the state Supreme Court in Alabama and loudly advocating his position that the states should be able to ignore any Federal court ruling that they disagree with:
The theme was sounded in an op-ed piece Parker wrote in The…
Judge William Pryor has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal responding to recent arguments from Justice O'Connor concerning attacks on the judiciary (and perhaps to Judge Jones from the Dover trial as well, he has been saying much the same thing O'Connor has in speeches recently). Orin Kerr thinks…
I don't know what the deal is with Alabama judges, but Tom Parker of the Alabama Supreme Court seems to want to follow in Roy Moore's footsteps. After a recent case that he had recused himself from went against what he'd hoped, he wrote an op-ed piece blasting his fellow justices for "surrender[ing…
One of the most frightening trends of the last few years is the alarming increase in anti-judicial rhetoric from the right. The courts, of course, are a convenient whipping boy for politicians who have to manipulate the populace to get elected to office. The courts are often in the position of…
thank you. I had wondered about that. It wouldn't matter of Moore lost of one of those loonies won.
Hold everything -- Supreme Court judges in Alabama can be elected? That's the craziest thing I've ever heard! Is it only in that state, or is it a USA thing? If it's the latter, that would certainly explain a lot.
Most states elect their judges rather than have them appointed. The Federal level does not elect them. And yes, I agree that this is a very bad idea for the states.
Yes, most states do elect their judges. The Texas judiciary system has been described as the best that money could buy.
If the electorate is to have a direct involvement in selection of their judiciary, probably California's is the best way of doing that. A judge is appointed, but can be recalled by the electorate after something like five years in office. To get a recall on the ballot requires sufficient numbers of petition signatures, which is not easy to do, but it is possible. If memory serves, Rose Bird (or was it "Byrd"?) was removed from the state Supreme Court using that mechanism, but few others have been.
They made it very convenient for me to figure out who they were - they placed an ad in the paper with the Moore slate.
Very amusing was the ad linking one of them (Tom Parker, candidate for Chief Justice) to "liberals".
Rose Bird was not recalled; California Supreme Court judges are not elected, but appointed to twelve-year terms, at the end of which they must stand for re-election. Up until Chief Justice Bird was ejected, along with Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin, re-election was pretty much a slam-dunk.