He is upset for being investigated by disciplinary authorities for disobeying the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court precedent that legitimized same-sex marriage throughout the United States.
The judge calls that precedent a "5-lawyer majority decision".
And, apparently, thinks that such a "5-lawyer majority decision" cannot be binding law upon the judge when such a majority decision clashes with the judge's personal, including religious, views on homosexuality and marriage.
The interesting point in Judge Parker's opposition to "5-lawyer majority decisions" is that Judge Parker is a former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Alabama who regularly sought the death penalty for criminal defendants, according to his own biography on the court's website.
And, as the Assistant AG, Judge Parker had to regularly oppose death penalty appeals and habeas corpuses where defendants routinely raised the issue that the death penalty is unconstitutional.
And, I am sure that Assistant AG Parker argued that there is no "5-lawyer majority opinion" proclaiming that the death penalty is unconstitutional, and therefore, the defendants must be executed.
But, when a "5-lawyer majority opinion" is now being used against Judge Parker, with a potential to bite him in the butt, then Judge Parker got on the white horse and is claiming that U.S. Supreme Court decisions are just a "5-lawyer majority opinion" nonsense.
Judge Parker's yoyo arguments in the death penalty cases and in his own case prove only one things - there is no such thing as the rule of law or independent justice when a long-time prosecutor and judge sends people to death based on authority of the same court that he rejects in his own disciplinary case.
What was good to send people to their deaths should be good to discipline a judge.
Shouldn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment