Post by Anja Nieser on Oct 1, 2006 6:40:53 GMT -5
Alabama's Justice Parker responds to O'Connor's criticism in WSJ
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker drew special mention - albeit
decidedly negative - in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece by retired U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
The article, published in Wednesday's edition, took note of the
increasingly "venomous" tenor of criticism directed at the judiciary from
a number of quarters. O'Connor warned that while criticism of judges
enjoys a long tradition in the United States, "the breadth and intensity
of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary may be unmatched in
American history." She expressed concern that, in some instances, the
intent of the critics is "judicial intimidation."
O'Connor states that "attacks on the judiciary are now being launched by
judges themselves," citing Parker as the example. The Alabama justice
"excoriated his colleagues for faithfully applying the (U.S.) Supreme
Court's precedent" in a case barring imposition of the death penalty for
crimes committed by minors, she said.
She writes in the Wall Street Journal article: "Justice Parker advised
state judges to avoid following Supreme Court opinions 'simply because
they are 'precedents'." O'Connor also quotes the Alabama justice as saying
"the liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court ... look down on the pro-family
policies, Southern heritage, evangelical Christianity, and other blessings
of our great state."
Parker issued a statement Wednesday afternoon in which he characterized
O'Connor's criticism of his "originalist view of the constitution (as)
completely wrongheaded."
Parker's statement reads: "As Justice O'Connor neglected to inform the
readers of the Wall Street Journal, I criticized the opinion ... not
because I didn't like its outcome but because it was based in part on
foreign legal fads and a U.N. treaty our Senate refused to ratify -
neither of which has any place in interpreting the United States
Constitution."
Parker said, too, that the public outcry against judicial activism is
"based on a real problem with the judiciary - and one that will only grow
larger as long as the denial continues."
O'Connor states in her article that criticism of the judiciary is "a
healthy sign of democracy" but cautions that "we must be more vigilant in
making sure that criticism does not cross over into intimidation."
(source: Birmingham Business Journal)
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker drew special mention - albeit
decidedly negative - in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece by retired U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
The article, published in Wednesday's edition, took note of the
increasingly "venomous" tenor of criticism directed at the judiciary from
a number of quarters. O'Connor warned that while criticism of judges
enjoys a long tradition in the United States, "the breadth and intensity
of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary may be unmatched in
American history." She expressed concern that, in some instances, the
intent of the critics is "judicial intimidation."
O'Connor states that "attacks on the judiciary are now being launched by
judges themselves," citing Parker as the example. The Alabama justice
"excoriated his colleagues for faithfully applying the (U.S.) Supreme
Court's precedent" in a case barring imposition of the death penalty for
crimes committed by minors, she said.
She writes in the Wall Street Journal article: "Justice Parker advised
state judges to avoid following Supreme Court opinions 'simply because
they are 'precedents'." O'Connor also quotes the Alabama justice as saying
"the liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court ... look down on the pro-family
policies, Southern heritage, evangelical Christianity, and other blessings
of our great state."
Parker issued a statement Wednesday afternoon in which he characterized
O'Connor's criticism of his "originalist view of the constitution (as)
completely wrongheaded."
Parker's statement reads: "As Justice O'Connor neglected to inform the
readers of the Wall Street Journal, I criticized the opinion ... not
because I didn't like its outcome but because it was based in part on
foreign legal fads and a U.N. treaty our Senate refused to ratify -
neither of which has any place in interpreting the United States
Constitution."
Parker said, too, that the public outcry against judicial activism is
"based on a real problem with the judiciary - and one that will only grow
larger as long as the denial continues."
O'Connor states in her article that criticism of the judiciary is "a
healthy sign of democracy" but cautions that "we must be more vigilant in
making sure that criticism does not cross over into intimidation."
(source: Birmingham Business Journal)