The End Of The Clone Wars

Between the Links and the new Politics in Alabama have already mentioned that Scotus yesterday rejected Alabama's appeal in Adams v. State. I have a few comments on the whole situation.

Adams was the case about which Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker wrote his now infamous editorial slamming the rest of the Alabama Supreme Court for following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that states cannot execute people for crimes they committed as minors. Parker, aka Mini-Moore, wanted to give Scotus another chance to decide the issue.

Mini-Moore and a few other clones tried to turn this into a campaign issue. His new nullification theory did not have the desired impact. The incumbents stomped them in the Republican primary.

A.G. Troy King did appeal the Adams case, and now Scotus has finally ended the whole issue. Thus, even had the Alabama Supremes ignored Scotus, the result would still be no death penalty for Adams.

That is the story. Here are my concluding thoughts.

First, I agree with King and Mini-Moore that the Scotus case at issue was a bad decision. If Alabama can execute someone who was 18 at the time they committed the crime I see no constitutional reason why Alabama cannot also execute someone who was 17 at the time they committed the crime. (Read more on this point here).

Second, as we have all heard ad nauseum over the last few years, a judge's job is to apply the law. That is sometimes much easier said than done, but on this occasion it could not be easier. Scotus said no executing people who were under 18 at the time of the crime. Adams was under 18 at the time of the crime. Therefore, there is no execution for Adams. Whether or not the judge agrees with the result is irrelevant, the job is to apply the law.

Third, the Moore-on's arguments about nullification are perfectly reasonable arguments. There is nothing illogical about saying Scotus rulings are not 'law' like statutes are law, or like the Constitution is law. The problems are practical. Accepting them would mean a different Constitution for every judge in the country. If we want unity, then someone has to have the final word on the meaning of the Constitution.

Fourth, Troy King acted unprofessionally in filing this appeal. His rationale:

King said he owed it to the relatives of [the victim] to appeal. He denied the challenge was rooted in politics.

"I appealed it before it became an issue in anybody's political campaign," said King.

I will take him at his word that the appeal was not motivated by a desire to look good for his ravenous constituency. Even so, the appeal was still improper. The victim's family, important though they be, are NOT his clients. His client is the State of Alabama. He is spending Alabama's resources when he files appeals. So he ought to do so with caution and only when the appeal will benefit Alabama. This appeal had absolutely no chance of success. No one ever thought otherwise. King, therefore, wasted his client's resources and knew he was wasting his client's resources. That is unprofessional, to say the least.

Fifth, and finally, there is nothing conservative about asking Scotus to reverse a year old decision. Particularly not when the reason for the request is new members on the court. Cases cannot be re-argued over and over and over again. If we want stability in society, the losing side is going to have to accept the loss and move on. And asking the court to revisit unpopular decisions every time the membership changes is inviting the type of acrimony over judicial elections and appointments that has poisoned our political discourse for the last decade. Letting the decision stand provides stability in the law and reduces the politicization of the judiciary, both of which are conservative values.

Explore posts in the same categories: Capital Punishment, Corrupt Politicians, Roy and the Clones, Scotus