Judges Gone Wild!

Is it just me, or are conservative justices going insane? I know, I know--some of you think they've always been insane. And for some judges, I'd be inclined to agree. But seriously, there have been a few judicial moves recently that are off-the-charts nuts.

First, we had Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker assaulting his colleagues for not ignoring Supreme Court precedent in Roper v. Simmons. I noted then that Parker's unrepentant call for inferior court judges to just ignore the Supreme Court was wrong and dangerous. But at least it was confined to one guy (in a case he'd recused himself from, no less).

But now, we have an even more extreme case. Talk Left directs us to a Michigan judge who is refusing to give poor defendants attorneys during the appellate process. What should have been a slam-dunk anyway under the 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright was nonetheless decided explicitly by the Supreme Court last June in Halbert v. Michigan, striking down as unconstitutional a Michigan law that...barred judges from giving poor defendants attorneys during the appellate process. The judge has expressed the opinion that the Court's decision was wrong, so he won't follow it. How simple.

Now, these cases are bad enough from a rule of law perspective. But look at where conservatives are picking this battle. Roper, on execution of juveniles. Gideon, on giving people the right to counsel, for Christ's sake. What's next? A judge eliminating the jury trial?

You cannot be a serious legal commentator and not tell me that these moves are not infinitely more dangerous than whatever "activism" is going on in the federal courts.