Nersciguy raises an interesting issue regarding my post on Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker.

Roper (finding as unconstitutional the death penalty for under 18 convicts) & Kelo (finding as constitutional the use of eminent domain for the support of private development) were two of the worst non-Constitutional recent decisions by the Supreme Court; that said, state supreme courts should follow these rulings in order to uphold the rule of law until a future Supreme Court reverses the bad decision.

Waiting for the Supreme Court to correct itself is the proper path in the vast majority of cases. Public confidence in the judiciary is a vital part of a properly functioning legal system and suggestions of judicial sedition are not to be taken lightly. However, why swear an oath to defend the Constitution if there are no circumstances under which you might be called upon to do so?

There is certainly leeway for interpreting the Constitution, but this does not give the Court absolute discretion to incorporate foreign law or rewrite sections of the document as they see fit. In some respects, waiting for the Court to correct itself gives them legislative power and diminishes the Constitutional role of the Congress. I would argue that upholding the law means upholding the Constitution and may conflict with what the Court says it means. Having said all of that though, it would have to be a truly landmark decision changing the fundamental nature of the Constitution for me to support such measures, but it does make for interesting debate.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Archived in: Congress, Constitution, Death Penalty, Eminent Domain, Supreme Court