State supreme court judges should not follow obviously wrong decisions simply because they are `precedents,'Repeat after me: AAAAHHHHHRRRRGGGHH!!
"State supreme courts may decline to follow bad U.S. Supreme Court precedents because those decisions bind only the parties to the particular case," he wrote.What the fuck?! That may be true of Bush v. Gore, but generally, no.
Another candidate, Henry P. "Hank" Fowler, a member of Parker's staff, said conservative judges must stop surrendering to liberal Supreme Court opinions "without a word of protest." And lawyer Ben Hand said judges "can't just break the law and then point to the guy down the street in the black robe and say, `He told me to.'"Huh? Are GOP candidates for the Alabama supreme court chosen for their ability to spew utter nonsense and drivel? First, with the Prez's appointments, I doubt we have to worry about "liberal Supreme Court opinions." Second, if "the guy down the street in the black robe" is a US Supreme Court Justice, and has "told you to" by striking down a law, then you are not breaking said law when you follow that precedent.
Fuckwits.
[via Americablog]
