AlabamaElections

Insight into the always fascinating world of Alabama elections...




Alabama Elections Directory 2006

Got a Tip?(Anonymity Guaranteed) Complaints, Compliments, Corrections? Interested in Guest Blogging? E-mail me.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Parker Blasts Fellow GOP Justices

Tom Parker recently compared his Republican colleagues on the all GOP Alabama Supreme Court to "liberal activists".

In a New Years Day op-ed in the Birmingham News, Parker lambasted the other 8 members of the unanimously Republican Alabama Supreme Court for following precedent on an US Supreme Court ruling that outlaws the execution of individuals who committed crimes as minors.

While serving in the AG's office, Parker helped prosecute such a criminal. Renaldo Adams, who was convicted of a rape and murder committed when he was 17, was recently taken off death row after the Alabama Supreme Court followed the lead of the US Supreme Court on the issue of executing minors. The Alabama Supreme Court followed the precedent by an unanimous 8-0 verdict as Parker was forced to recuse himself due to his previous involvement in the case.

Parker's op-ed not only lays out the legal reasoning behind his disagreement with his colleagues, but also takes them to task on a not-so-subtle personal level.

I am not surprised that the liberal activists on the U.S. Supreme Court go to such lengths to usurp more political power. I am also not surprised they use such ridiculous reasoning to try and force foreign legal fads on America. After all, this is the same Court that has declared state displays of the Ten Commandments to be unconstitutional.

But I am surprised, and dismayed, that my colleagues on the Alabama Supreme Court not only gave in to this unconstitutional activism without a word of protest but also became accomplices to it by citing Roper as the basis for their decision to free Adams from death row.
It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see Parker labeling the other GOP justices as "accomplices" to "liberal activists".

And Parker's final touch:
Conservative judges today are on the front lines of the war against political correctness and judicial tyranny. Happily, Alabama's Supreme Court has a reputation of being one of the most conservative in the nation. However, it does no good to possess conservative credentials if you surrender them before joining the battle.
Whether or not you agree with Parker's interpretationn of the law, the potency of a 30 second ad revolving around this issue is obvious. Parker obviously feels strongly about the ruling and is using it to send a shot across the bow of the rest of the court.

I don't know if Parker and his movement have the strength to fundamentally shift the balance of the court further to the right, but I do know that the temperature on the third floor of the State Judicial Building is a few degrees lower this week.

79 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Zac, Thanks for posting about this very interesting commentary by Justice Parker. The photo you chose -- of Justice Parker being sworn into office by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas -- is particularly on point.

As Justice Thomas reportedly emphasized to Justice Parker before swearing him into judicial office, the oath of office to support the constitution is made to God, not man, and is therefore all the more weighty.

It's too bad the other Alabama Supreme Court Justices forgot their oaths were to God, not men, and were to uphold the constitution, not blindly follow five black-robed activists, when they chose to go along with the infamous Roper majority.

5:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Alabama Supreme Court should be ashamed of itself!

"I was just following orders" is never an excuse when the "order" is for an American judge to follow a United Nations treaty that the United States has refused to ratify.

6:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've noticed the Roy Moore campaign is the first out of the box almost every day to comment on your blog. They follow a formula: post a comment early. Then wait a few minutes and post a second comment making the same points as the first. Both from the same staffer. (See above.) It's become really quite transparent.

7:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The first two posters really have no concept what it means to live in a nation of laws. Parker does know what it means, and has consciously chosen to attack fundamental tenets of our system for his own political purposes.

This is so reminiscient of Alabama's response to Brown v. Board, and its progeny, requiring our society to de-segregate. A furor ensued here as people denounced the "ultra liberal" U.S. Supreme Court. A movement arose to embrace a concept of nullification -- much as that movement embodied by John Calhoun in the early nineteenth century -- by which the states had some inchoate ability to disregard federal laws with which they disagreed.

And of course the deamagogues appeared. George Wallace and his ilk saw the political advantage of attacking the federal courts and gained great mileage whipping up the locals into a frenzy on this issue.

Roy Moore and Tom Parker are no different than George Wallace and John Patterson were in the 1950s-1960s. They portray themselves as men of great principle, whereas their only real aim is to further their own political careers.

To those ignorant few who agree with these charlatans, let me remind you what the rule of law means. Ever since Marbury v. Madison (1803), we as a society have recognized that it is the U.S. Supreme Court that determines what the constitution requires. Sometimes the Supreme Court does get it wrong -- such as the Dred Scott decision -- but we are nevertheless obligated to follow. If any citizen has the ability to decide that the Court got it wrong so we don't have to follow it, then what good is the law at all?

7:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

You advocate the "rule of the pecking order" not the rule of law. The rule of law means that even if the Supreme Court says that Jews are no longer citizens and can be gassed, any judge, governor, legislator, or Sheriff can tell the court to pound sand-- and should.

You'd probably turn on the gas if a federal judge ordered you to. Rule of law indeed!-- your reasoning has been the excuse of every tyrant that ever lived.

7:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

Oh, and by the way, Roy Moore and Tom Parker are not regular "citizens." They are (or were in the case of Moore) constitutionally, oath-bound, elected officials (like all public officials) who have the right (the obligation) to resist unlawful acts by fellow officials. I, as a regular citizen, do not have that right unless I'm defending my own family from attack. So, your "slippery slope" argument towards anarchy is unfounded.

The American Revolution was a lawful resistance to tyranny because it was orchestrated by elected officials of the people.

The French Revolution was another matter. It was a case where any authority was targeted for destruction. It was a revolt against authority. Americans, on the other hand, revolted from tyranny by using their elected authorities. A big difference.

You are advocating nothing more than might-makes-right.

8:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Don said...

I stand corrected in advance if I'm wrong with this, but isn't Parker incorrect when he says that the US Supreme court "has declared state displays of the Ten Commandments to be unconstitutional."? I seem to recall that the supremes have ruled that the Ten Commandments may be displayed by governments and/or their officials if done in certain ways that are considered constitutional.

9:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The court has declared Ten Commandments displays unconstitutional. You have to display the Ten Commandments with other documents like the Declaration if Independence or the Magna Carta. When you do that, they are no longer Ten Commandments displays. They are called something else-- like "Our Legal Heritage." If you call it a Ten Commandments display, the federal courts will probably order its removal.

It's stupid and arbitrary, but that's our federal courts for you.

9:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To those ignorant few who agree with these charlatans, let me remind you what the rule of law means. Ever since Marbury v. Madison (1803), we as a society have recognized that it is the U.S. Supreme Court that determines what the constitution requires.

Actually, Marbury v. Madison states that the judicial branch of government is under the constitution no less than the other branches: "...a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

It wasn't until Cooper v. Aaron, about 50 years ago, that the U.S. Supreme Court claimed the exclusive right to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

Thus, the true rule of law is every branch submitting to the constutition, not one branch placing itself above the constitution.

9:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thomas Jefferson explained the error of the belief that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final authority for interpreting the Constitution for everyone else:

"[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

History has proven Jefferson's view to be prescient, and we live today under a despotism of shifting majorities of U.S. Supreme Court justices who write their own political preferences into the constitution and justify their usurpation with fig leaves of foreign law.

This is judicial despotism, as Jefferson stated. True statemen will resist such despotism. Tom Parker is presently the only Alabama Supreme Court justice with the character and the courage to resist such tyranny.

That may change with this year's elections. We'll see. Meanwhile, Justice Parker should be honored rather than attacked for taking a strong stand in defense of the Constitution and in defense of the people of Alabama.

9:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've noticed the Roy Moore campaign is the first out of the box almost every day to comment on your blog.

I guess the Riley people need to wake up earlier, then. =) But early or late, attacking the messenger and ignoring the message is the classic sign that the attacker has no answer for the argument.

Parker has made a strong case that his colleagues are conservatives in word only; when put to the test, they would rather be accomplices to judicial tyranny than take action to resist such tyranny.

This is the bottom line, and no amount of name-calling will change that.

10:25:00 AM  
Anonymous ella b. said...

is parker and moore part of the covenant movement that is killing alabama baptists? these are very scary people. I noticed it started in elba and that cretin rich hobson is from elba. just wondering?

10:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe Colonel Tom should spend more time writing opinons -- WHICH HE'S PAID TO DO -- and less time writing newspaper letters blasting his colleagues.

10:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From a prior poster:

"Parker has made a strong case that his colleagues are conservatives in word only; when put to the test, they would rather be accomplices to judicial tyranny than take action to resist such tyranny."

Funny, I thought being a conservative was to follow the law despite any personal differences one might have with it. Judicial activism, on the other hand, involves letting one's personal preference guide decisions even if in conflict with governing precedent.

Parker and Moore are the activists here. They want to use their postions to foment some kind of theocratic revolution instead of following the law.

11:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A prior poster cites Thomas Jefferson's criticism of the federal judiciary. Some context is important here. Jefferson, as president, was on the receiving end of John Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison, in which the Supreme Court made clear to the President that it decides what the Constitution says, not the presidency.

History has in fact confirmed and validated Marshall's position. Would we really want a Richard Nixon, or a George Bush (or for you neo-cons, a Bill Clinton) deciding what the Constitution means?

11:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Turkeyneck, I guess you were one of those ready to storm the U.S. Surpeme Court building when it came out with Brown v. Board, mandating that the southern states de-segregate. Your noise is exactly what the bigots said back then.

11:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem I have with Parker is that he seems to be picking a fight with his own fellow justices. I've never heard of a judge writing a newspaper column attacking those with whom he works.

I'm sure justices disagree with each other all the time, but they do so privately and in an efort to convince each other. Why this public attack? What end does it serve to do something like that?

11:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

What law says that Supreme Court opinions are the Supreme Law of the land?

Don't cite me supreme court opinions. Opinions are just that-- opinions. I want to see the code citation. I want to see the specific article in the Constitution that says Supreme Court opinions trump the plain text of the Constitution.

It ain't there. You know it's not there.

Why do we bother with legislatures and governors? Why not let the federal courts run everything?

Hey! That's a great idea. Some activist federal judge should simply write an opinion that the executive and legislative branches of government are no longer needed. We'll save a lot of money that can be put into education and we won't need a lottery!

The response of the Alabama Supreme Court would probably be "well, the court got it wrong, but the law is the law..."

11:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

Turkeyneck, I guess you were one of those ready to storm the U.S. Surpeme Court building when it came out with Brown v. Board, mandating that the southern states de-segregate. Your noise is exactly what the bigots said back then.

Oh, let's see. I would assume you go to church? Well, Hitler did, too. That means you must agree with Hitler!

Do you like chocolate? Well, Lenin probably did too. YOU'RE A COMMUNIST!

You probably drive a car. Well, Pol Pot did too. You're must agree with the Cambodian holocaust! SHAME ON YOU!

But seriously, my views on the Constitution (and the judiciary) are no different from George Washington, Jefferson, et. al. Were they bigots? Hmmmm?

11:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sure justices disagree with each other all the time, but they do so privately and in an efort to convince each other. Why this public attack? What end does it serve to do something like that?

I'm sure that Justice Parker would prefer to have had a private conversation with his colleagues on this important case -- as he has done before in other important cases. This time, however, he had to recuse from the case.

Under the judicial ethics requirements, that means no discussion with his colleagues at all until after the case is over -- when it's too late to have any impact on the outcome. It also means Justice Parker could not communicate his views in a dissenting opinion.

So the only option left was a public communication after the case was decided.

11:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Dan said...

The American Revolution wasn't lawful-- it was an illegal insurrection (is there any other kind). "Lawful" is whatever the establishment says is lawful. In this case, the US Supreme Court says it's unlawful to execute someone who committed a crime as a minor. If you think that's a big enough deal for the Alabama Supreme Court to break with precedent, then vote and try to move the court farther to the right. But as long as the Supreme Court says so, it's illegal to execute someone who committed a crime as a minor. It IS illegal, but there's nothing stopping the Alabama Supreme Court from breaking the law. If it gets enough public support, then maybe the establishment will crumble and we'll have a new one that you like a little more. Maybe we could cede from the Union again. I don't think Renaldo is worth it, but that's me.

11:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Turkeyneck, I assume that you never attended law school. The issue here though really involves lessons learned in our high school civic classes.

Remember that there are three branches of government. What is your idea of what the judicial branch is supposed to do?

Lets start with an uncontroversial aspect of this: your run-of-the- mill trial court judge. He or she normally does not consider big constitutional issues. How do these judges do their job?

I'm sure you would agree that their job is not to make law but to follow and apply the law, right? If judges make law, then they are activists, right?

But those questions beg the additional question, what is the law? Its not-- as you suggest - simply statutes in the code books. For hundreds of years, our legal traditon has been based on the governing authority of the common law. The common law is judge-made law, handed down from generation to generation. It is premised on following and applying established precedent to decide new issues that come up.

Even Roy Moore has written on the importance of observing precedent, which is really nothing other than judicial opinions.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, as another poster has referred, our legal tradition for 200 years or so is that the Supreme Court interprets what citizens' constitutional rights are as well as the parameters of the constitutional powers given to the branches of goevernment. Under that tradion, no one -- not President Nixon, not Roy Moore, not me or you -- can simply disagree and choose not to follow those court decisions that we think are wrong.

Where does your world view take us? Can anyone who disagrees with a court decision choose to disregard it? Or, as your prior post suggests, lets limit this to office holders who have taken oaths -- does each one of them get to pick and choose which decisions they may follow? Let's use the Nixon example again -- the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that he had to hand over the White House tapes to congressional investigators -- could he have deemed that opinion invalid and chosen to ignore it? What about Alabama's political representatives in the 1950s after the Brown decision came down -- could they have ignored such a piece of judicial activism?

11:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HEY PARKER -- I'M NOT SENDING YOU MY TAX MONEY SO YOU CAN WRITE NEWSPAPER COLUMNS. HOW ABOUT GETTING TO WORK FOR A CHANGE!

12:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

Dan,

That's the problem with you liberals. You believe our founding fathers were bigots and law-breakers. You would have stood with George III out of your stubborn commitment to "the rule of law" i.e. the rule of whoever has the biggest guns, instead of the "inalienable rights" our founding fathers were defending.

Your views scare me...

12:04:00 PM  
Anonymous KissinJim said...

Well said T-nek.

12:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HEY TURKEY BOY, YOUR IGNORANCE IS WHAT'S SCARY HERE!

12:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would one of Tom Parker's supporters here (and he appears to have some) explain why Parker has been on the job for nearly a year and has yet to publish an opinion writing on behalf of the Court? What in the world is the man doing?

12:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An earlier post attempted to rationalize Parker's actions as follows:

I'm sure that Justice Parker would prefer to have had a private conversation with his colleagues on this important case -- as he has done before in other important cases. This time, however, he had to recuse from the case.

Under the judicial ethics requirements, that means no discussion with his colleagues at all until after the case is over -- when it's too late to have any impact on the outcome. It also means Justice Parker could not communicate his views in a dissenting opinion.

So the only option left was a public communication after the case was decided.


What a buncha hooey! There's NO excuse for a judge publicly attacking his fellow justices they way Parker has done. He had other "options" -- like to raise his views in the next such case before the Court. Such "public communication" is completely beyond the bounds of what any judge should do, and the only purpose is obvious -- to further Parker's own political ends.

12:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

Turkeyneck, I assume that you never attended law school. The issue here though really involves lessons learned in our high school civic classes.

Thank God I never attended law school!

Actually, poster, you're wrong. This isn't a high school civics lesson. This is more like pre-school.

First of all, we learn in pre-school that there is such a thing as right and wrong. If you hit little Jimmy because you want his toy, it's wrong. It's not wrong because a federal judge says it's wrong.

But that brings up a good point. Would you say it's okay to hit Jimmy if the U.S. Supreme Court said it was okay? Of course not. But the difference between you and me is that you would rule that, “although I personally disagree with the decision of the court, the defendant did nothing wrong by punching little Jimmy in the nose.”

Might-makes-right. If you were a German, you would believe that the only thing that made Hilter’s acts illegal was that he was unsuccessful. But if he had been successful in WWII, you would have said the gas chambers were “legal.”

Common law is not “judge-made law.” Common law is a judge applying legal principles from the statute. For instance, if the law says “thou shalt not kill” a judge could rule against a person for negligently driving his car that resulted in the death of a pedestrian. That’s where the common law came from. Judges didn’t make law, they simply applied the general equity principles of the written law to specific cases.

What judges are doing, for instance, in the Roper case, is not applying the general equity principles of American written law, but simply making it up as they go along— citing foreign laws no less!

That's not common-law, but "Commun-ist."

But since judges are doing it, you’re okay with that. Why don't you just cut to the chase and deify the judiciary?

12:32:00 PM  
Anonymous SouthernLawyer said...

Justice Parker's commentary is receiving national attention in the legal blogsphere. Just one example:

http://WWW.crescatsententia.org/
cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/3398

[Note: combine the above two lines in your browser's address bar to see the post. Sorry that I don't know enough HTML to make a direct link.]

12:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's NO excuse for a judge publicly attacking his fellow justices they way Parker has done. He had other "options" -- like to raise his views in the next such case before the Court.

First of all, just what has Parker done wrong? Who said a judge may not criticize other judges in public?

Second, you reveal your ignorance of the judicial process if you think this issue is likely to come before the Alabama Supreme Court again any time soon. The reality is that now that the court has ruled, 8-0, the lower courts will follow along, and the issue will not be appealed again anytime soon.

So Justice Parker doesn't really have another option besides public comment.

1:01:00 PM  
Anonymous colonelrebel said...

How is Parker supposed to issue any opinions when he is outvoted 8-1 by the liberal bloc? They hate him because he isn't part of their little club of insiders who tried to give us the Amendment One tax hike so we could be more like New York, California, Massachusetts and the other places they idolize.

1:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Dan said...

Turkeyhead,

First off, I'm no liberal. Also, I wasn't criticizing the American Revolution, just pointing out that it was a violation of the established order. I actually highly respect the Revolutionists for their ability to break with the established order. I also think that kind of an attitude is sadly lacking in today's world. There are many things that Americans shouldn't stand for, but they are letting it happen because the establishment says it's okay (illegal wiretaps, the EPA, etc etc). If you're that dead set on executing Renaldo, then demand that your elected judges break with precedent. I just don't care enough about a convicted rapist and murderer who's going to spend the rest of his life in prison. There are things that I'll break out my gun for (illegal wiretaps, Kelo), but this isn't one of them. Go vote for Roy Moore and have a nice life.

1:23:00 PM  
Anonymous YouCan'tHandleTheTruth said...

I know that I'm wasting my time, but here goes: Let's pretend that we are limited solely to the words of the Constitution in deciding this issue. Article VI states that the U.S. Constitution is "the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby." Article III, section 1 states that "the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court...". Article III, section 2 states that this judicial power "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity arising under this Constitution." In other words, the judicial power to decide cases involving the interpretation and construction of the Constitution is vested in the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Cooper v. Aaron, in which the Supreme Court struck down Arkansas officials' efforts to ignore the Brown v. Bd. of Education decision, the Court quoted Chief Justice John Marshall's admonition that if state officials can ignore decisions of the federal courts, "the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery." Pretty basic stuff. Parker's just another politician hoping to fool the voters into thinking that he's something other than what he really is.

1:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

Wow. You mean it took the Supreme Court over 160 years (from the Constitution to Cooper) to figure out that it had the sole jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation?).

The "wheels of justice" move pretty slowly I guess...

A better explanation is that the Court simply decided to make itself the "Rule of Law" 50 years ago.

1:41:00 PM  
Anonymous YouCan't Handle The Truth said...

You know, I promised myself never to get into an argument with anyone named after poultry pieces, but you are just wrong. Marbury v. Madison, decided while most of the Founding Fathers were still alive, established the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that principle in Cooper, it did not create it. Sorry, but maybe a little bit of schooling might have helped you with that one.

2:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

Marbury did nothing of what you suggested. Read the opinion. Marshall clearly held that the court is UNDER the Constitution, not OVER it.

Marbury was used by the Court in Cooper, like a heritic uses a Bible passage out of context to justify his heresy.

This is the sequence of how an opinion becomes the “Supreme Law of the Land” under the modern principle of judicial review:

1. A federal judge says that Jews are inferior humans and deserve no rights.

2. Another federal judge cites the previous judge’s opinion.

3. Another federal judge cites the federal judge who cited the previous judge’s opinion.

4. Another federal judge cites the federal judge, who cited the federal judge, who cited the previous judge’s opinion.

5. Another federal judge cites the federal judge, who cited the federal judge, who cited the federal judge who cited the previous judge’s opinion.

6. Supreme Law of the Land: Jews have no constitutional rights.

Then, some upstart judge actually reads the constitution and realizes that Jews do, in fact, have constitutional rights. So, he rules against the precedent and is attacked as violating the “rule of law.” Convenient…

2:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I give up -- its impossible to talk sense to a Moore-on like Turkey Giblets.

2:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now I know that we've reached the depths of absurdity with this comment:

How is Parker supposed to issue any opinions when he is outvoted 8-1 by the liberal bloc?

You have got to be kidding me! The entire Alabama Supreme Court is made up of some of the most conservative judges around. All nine members are Republicans. They are the bane of trial lawyers throughout this state. They have been cutting back on plaintiffs' rights for several years now. They are pawns of Alabama big business. They have never met a tort that they liked.

Parker's cronies are simply out of touch completely.

2:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Turkey-Lurkey sez: "Common law is not “judge-made law.” Common law is a judge applying legal principles from the statute." Wrong. Common law is indeed derived from judical decisions as opposed to what statutes are in the books.

Examples: when is a contract formed? Offer, acceptance, consideration, and an objective that is not contrary to public policy. What statute says that? None. It's derived from judicial cases handed down through the centuries.

Why is assumption of risk a defense to a negligence claim? Is there some statute that proclaims it? No, it's a judicially- established defense from the common law.

Turk, ol' buddy, you professed to not having gone to law school. Don't try to talk like you did.

2:52:00 PM  
Blogger Scipio Sphinx said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In case anyone is interested, here is, in its entirety, the Alabama Supreme Court opinion that Tom Parker thought was good grounds to attack his colleagues:

We hereby suspend the provisions of Rule 39(g) and (h), Ala. R.App. P., allowing the petitioner and the respondent to file briefs and request oral argument, and we summarily grant the writ solely to address the propriety of Renaldo Chante Adams's sentence.

Adams was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering Melissa Mills during the course of a robbery, rape, and burglary. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Adams's conviction and his sentence of death. Adams v. State, [Ms. CR-98-0496, August 29, 2003] --- So.2d ---- (Ala.Crim.App.2003).

In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), decided after the Court of Criminal Appeals issued its decision in this case, the United States Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to execute an offender who was under the age of 18 when he or she committed the offense. The opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals states that Adams was 17 years old at the time of the offense. --- So.2d at ----. Nothing filed in this Court disputes that fact. Thus, it would appear that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Roper applies to Adams's sentence; therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals as to Adams's sentence and remand the cause for a determination of the impact of Roper on Adams's sentence. As to all other issues raised in Adams's petition, certiorari review is denied.

WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED.

3:01:00 PM  
Anonymous George Taylor said...

i hope you churlish punks are not on state time at your day care clerk jobs, wasting my tax dollars by posting on this toy. I could have the state webmaster provide a dump of computer activity in the judicial branch. Please, shut up and go to work!

3:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

I guess my critic is saying only lawyers are smart enough to understand legal principles. It must be nice to always have a “wild card” you can throw into any debate: “You wouldn’t know anything about this subject anyway. You’re not a lawyer.” – bunch of stuck-up snobs.

Contract law is a legal principle that fundamentally comes from written law. Namely this: "Thou Shalt Not Steal." Every legal precedent that deals with the subject of theft, be it statutes that deal with specific things being stolen (like cars) or court opinions dealing with people stealing from each other by violating contracts.

I seem to remember reading a lot about contract law from Blackstone (that’s the guy who knew a little about Common law). Blackstone, of course, began all his legal assumptions with the ultimate "Supremacy Clause." The Supreme law was the "Revealed law" found "only in Holy Scripture."

So, the Common law you presume to know something about traces its roots to the Holy Scripture, which teaches us that theft is wrong. Judges merely deal with varying degrees of theft in their cases. But they don’t make 'new law'…God beat ‘em to it.

3:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, Turkey Neck, now we're getting to the real crux of your position: you ascribe to the Roy Moore view that all our laws are derived from the Ten Commandments.

I note that you do not really refute the prior poster's explanation of the common law. It is indeed based on centuries of court desisions that have nothing to do with statutes.

You've shifted the argument now to bring God into the picture. The trouble is that at a certain level, the Ten Commandments (and all the other laws of Leviticus) don't guide us on the myriad issues that courts deal with.

Take the prior poster's example: how can we use the Ten Commandments to decide whether there exists an enforceable contractin a given case? What does God say about whether the facts of a certain case justify recognizing assumption of risk as a defense to a negligence claim? These are mundane little legal points that fall beneath God's Big Picture message to us, but judges deal with them, and have developed them, over many centuries.

Oh, and about the "stuck up snobs" part: I would never presume to debate arcane points of medicine with a doctor, nor esoteric engineering issues with a rocket scientist. Like those professions, the legal practice is very complex and detailed, and a formal legal trianing is vital to be able to understand and apply them knowledgeably.

4:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Turkey, a prior poster posed this question to you:

Where does your world view take us? Can anyone who disagrees with a court decision choose to disregard it? Or, as your prior post suggests, lets limit this to office holders who have taken oaths -- does each one of them get to pick and choose which decisions they may follow? Let's use the Nixon example again -- the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that he had to hand over the White House tapes to congressional investigators -- could he have deemed that opinion invalid and chosen to ignore it? What about Alabama's political representatives in the 1950s after the Brown decision came down -- could they have ignored such a piece of judicial activism?

Response?

4:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, while we are at it, another poster asked the following:

Would one of Tom Parker's supporters here (and he appears to have some) explain why Parker has been on the job for nearly a year and has yet to publish an opinion writing on behalf of the Court? What in the world is the man doing?

The silence is response to these questions is deafening. Can anyone comment?

4:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

Since I am obviously unqualified to answer legal questions posed to me, I’m surprised you even asked!!

So, to avoid offending you “experts” allow me answer you by quoting from an attorney, yea, even a federal judge. This is from St. George Tucker, one of our founding fathers, who wrote the American version of Blackstone’s Commentaries. Regarding this whole subject of judicial supremacy he commented:

“Acts of Congress to be binding, must be made in pursuant to the Constitution; otherwise they are not laws; but mere nullity; or what is worse, acts of usurpation. The people are not only not bound to obey them, but the several departments and officers of the governments, both federal, and state, are bound by oath to oppose them; for, being bound by oath to support the constitution, they must violate that oath, whenever they give their sanction, by obedience, or otherwise, to an unconstitutional act of any department of the government.”

I’m not a lawyer, but “any department” of the federal government would seem to me to imply the judicial department.

Your response? Was Tucker wrong?

5:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Turkey, you didn't really answer the question. You used a Roy Moore tactic of quoting someone else. I'd like to hear your answer in your own words.

Plus, your quote doesn't really answer the question. Basically, Mr. Tucker seems to say that laws based on the Constitution must be followed while those that are not supported by the Constitution may be disregarded. That begs the question: WHO decides whether a law or ruling is supported by the Constitution?

5:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

Again, why do you want to hear from a non-lawyer?

My opinion corresponds with Tucker's. I also like Andrew Jackson, who stated:

"It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to
them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.

The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both."

That should answer your question about "who gets to decide."

Jackson said a lot of other good stuff and you can read on this subject at www.parkerforjustice.com

:-)

6:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

Forgot to add this one:

"The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands
it, and not as it is understood by others."

So, the answer to your question about "who decides?" is simple. Every official who takes an oath to defend the constitution has the right (and obligation) to defend it if he thinks it's being violated.

At least that's what Andy Jackson thought... and many others, including yours truly.

7:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, Turkey, but you and Andy are both wrong. The Constitution is clear and the common law of this country for more than 200 years is also clear. The thoughts of a few misguided souls (including you) don't change that. By the way, if every elected official gets to decide for themselves what the law is, how do we resolve who's right? Armed conflict? Seems we tried that.

Oh, the St. George Tucker you quote was 8 years old when the Constitution was drafted. A little young for a Founding Father.

8:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Turkey's idolation of Andrew Jackson seems appropriate. Jackson made the famous comment of the Supreme Court,"they have made their ruling -- now let them enforce it."

The context? the Supreme Court had ruled that the United States was obligated by treaty to cease efforts to kick out the Seminole tribe from their Florida lands. Jackson thumbed his nose at the Court and forced the Seminoles to abandon their homelands. Great example of the Rule of Law, isn't it, Turkey-Lurkey?

8:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

St. George Tucker served at the battle of Yorktown. If you're right, he would be the first fetus with war honors.

I read the guy's book. Check your cites, lawyer.

8:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

I'll stand with Andy Jackson any day vs. Judge David Hamilton. Amazing that you liberals attack Jackson, but defend judicial supremacy! Under your system, judges can kick the Seminoles, the Creeks, the Cherokees, the Siouxs, the Crips, the Bloods, whites, blacks, yo mamma, and spotted owls off their property to make way for Wal-Mart.

…Checkmate

9:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Turkster, you're showing your ignorance again. Here's a summary of the Supreme Court opinion that you refer to (from Wash. Post, 6/24/05):

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling.

Opponents, including property-rights activists and advocates for elderly and low-income urban residents, argued that forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for "public use."

But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited cases in which the court has interpreted "public use" to include not only such traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment.

The court should not "second-guess" local governments, Stevens added, noting that "[p]romoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government."


You and your fellow right wing nut jobs have seized on this decision -- with which I also disagree -- for the exaggerated claim that the federal judiciary can now seize our property.

Read the decision closely. The Court said that local governments can exercise eminent domain -- a legal proceeding in which a forced sale is effectuated -- without Fifth Amendment implications.

But here's the good thing, Giblets. Since we do live in a nation of laws, there is a way around the decision. State legislatures can prohibit such takings, and several have the wheels turning now to accomplish just that result. Nothing the Supreme Court decided prevents such legislative action.

Quite a contrast to Andrew Jackson's genocidal death march of the Indians, isn't it?

9:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HEY PARKER, QUIT WASTING YOUR TIME ON THIS BLOG AND START EARNING YOUR PAY!

9:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Turkeyneck said...

Why do you think I was referring to the eminent domain case? I was simply pointing out that the doctrine of judicial supremacy gives judges the power to do whatever they want. They can rule that there is a constitutional right for 12 year olds to vote. They can rule that men can marry their dogs. They can rule that Santa Clause is real and must pay income tax.

They can do whatever they want because the buck stops with them. You and I can criticize them, hate them, and call them names. But you will never rebel against them because you think they are under no legal restraint other than their own views of the constitution.

Let me ask you a question, if the Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment of a federal judge was unconstitutional, would you support the justice’s return to the bench?

10:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

T-Neck, is your problem with judges in general,or are you specifically concerned with the U.S. Supreme Court?

6:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I’m certainly not qualified to opine about whom or what is the final arbiter of what is law or what is constitutional, but at least I think I can pose a question. Which, if either, takes precedence over the other: the Constitution of the United States, or the Declaration of Independence? Is this a “which came first, the chicken or the egg” sort of question? The reason I ask it is because there are those in this country who feel that the judiciary has become too activist, and is writing law rather than interpreting law in light of the boundaries of the Constitution. If that is indeed the case, what is there to do about it? The Declaration of Independence may provide some guidance. What follows are excerpts from it: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness......it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security -" Does this mean that if the citizenry thinks the judiciary has overstepped its bounds and is acting in ways that are destructive to our safety and happiness, we, the people, have a duty to alter or abolish the judiciary as we know it now, and institute a different form of the judiciary for the future?

9:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nope, sorry, the Declaration of Independence -- while vitally important in our struggle to win independence from England -- is of no value in determining rights and obligations under the U. S. Constitution. The two are separated by 13 years,and the Declaration has not been used in our legal system to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

9:54:00 AM  
Anonymous TurkeyNeck said...

I have no problem with judges or the Supreme Court. My problem is with this idea of judicial supremacy-- where judges are the final word on all issues dealing with the constitution.

My impeachment question is to the point. Let's say Congress decides to impeach a federal judge for "bad behavior" -- which is permitted under the constitution.

So, they impeach the judge. Now, let's say this judge goes to the Supreme Court to have his impeachment overturned. If you believe that the Supreme Court is the FINAL word on what is constitutional (they "say what the law is"), then you would have to side with the Court if they arbitrarily declared the impeachment proceedings to have been unconstitutional.

If the judiciary is the final arbiter in all constitutional questions, federal judges could literally serve for life whether they were "impeached" or not. That’s why I say that advocates of judicial supremacy are advocates for dictatorship or oligarchy.

10:03:00 AM  
Anonymous YouCan'tHandleTheTruth said...

Lost in all of the hyperbole about judicial tyranny is the fact that Parker's article was just plain wrong concerning the cases he is complaining about. First, the Alabama Supreme Court's opinion in Adams did not "free Adams from Death Row." To the contrary, the decision merely remanded the case back to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a determination of whether Roper applied to his case. Granted, the Court of Criminal Appeals (composed of 4 conservative Republicans and 1 Democrat) have already reversed about a half dozen death sentences based on Roper. Interestingly, in most of those cases, the Attorney General (another conservative Republican) has conceded that Roper requires that the death sentences be reduced to life without parole.
Second, Parker's argument that his fellow justices should have temporarily refused to follow Roper so that the new Roberts/Alito Court could overrule Roper, is silly. Both Chief Justice Rehnquist (replaced by Roberts) and Justice O'Connor (to be replaced by Alito) were in the minority in Roper. Their appointments obviously will not affect the vote on future challenges to Roper.

11:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This question has been asked twice before, and no one has attempted to come to Tom Parker's defense. Perhaps the third time is the charm?

Would one of Tom Parker's supporters here (and he appears to have some) explain why Parker has been on the job for nearly a year and has yet to publish an opinion writing on behalf of the Court? What in the world is the man doing?

We can debate philosophy 'till the cows come home, but what use does anyone have with a public official who's not doing his work?

12:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Parker4ChiefJustice said...

Word on the street is that, after only a year in office, Ol' Tom is finally submitting an opinion on one of his assigned cases in the next few weeks. Assuming that the rest of the Court can swallow their resentment for the cowardly manner in which he falsely attacked them in the press, Parker's workless streak may be coming to an end. Let's see, at the rate of one case a year, he should have that nasty backlog cleared out in no time.

1:11:00 PM  
Anonymous VRWC said...

It makes no difference what you think. You are the same people who all sat in a room with each other conspiring to shove Amendment One down our throats. No one cares what you think. You are in the minority. Your money means nothing. The people are with us, not you, and everyone knows it. The old order is collapsing as taxpayers demand justice and justice it will be. Join us or be relegated to the ash heap of history. Time is running out.

Please consider Jim Morrison's immortal words:

"The old get older. The young get stronger.

May take a week and it may take longer.

They've got the guns but we've got the numbers.

Gonna win. Yeah, we're taking over."

1:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

vrwc, thanks for clearing everything up. who could argue with that logic?

2:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, vrwc, since you have provided the necessary guidance for us ignorant boobs, let me prevail upon you to share a tad more of your wisdom. You seem to be opposed to taxes -- as you put it, "the taxpayers demand justice." What is your opinion of the fact that Tom Parker has taken over $150,000 of our taxpayer dollars during the past year while refusing to do any meaningful work?

2:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was Jim Morrison one of the Founding Fathers, too?

2:51:00 PM  
Anonymous VRWC said...

So tell me, what have the other "justices" done besides free a rapist/murderer?

2:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

vrwc, now you are showing your ignorance. No one has been freed. The conviction of the defendant in question was affirmed, you knucklehead. The Supreme Court did not even order that his death sentence be commuted. The Court instead ordered the following:

Thus, it would appear that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Roper applies to Adams's sentence; therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals as to Adams's sentence and remand the cause for a determination of the impact of Roper on Adams's sentence.

In other words, the Ala. Supreme Court sent the case back to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to consider how the Roper decision affects the death sentence in question.

So you are wrong on your point. Now get back to my question: how do you feel about Parker wasting our tax dollars?

3:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Fight the Power said...

Actually, if he is going to write the kind of unadulterated tripe that he spewed out in the newspaper and in that grandparents rights case in which he dissented, I personally would prefer if the ignorant little racist never wrote anything again.

3:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perusing these comments from unidentified sources, there are some that sound like what someone I know of might say, such as those of vrwc. It makes me wonder if vrwc is a partial identification, only reversed from cwrv.

8:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep, boys and girls, another Friday is here, which means that the Alabama Supreme Court has issued some opinions. How many did our buddy, Colonel Tom Parker, write?

You are absolutely right. Colonel Tom has written NONE!

We have solved the mystery, however, of where Colonel Tom has been keeping himself. He's been lurking in the Op-Ed pages of The Birmingham News. As you may have seen, Colonel Tom took the opportunity last Sunday to write an article that blasted his colleagues for daring to follow a holding by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Let's put aside the fact that Colonel Tom's article has several factual inaccuracies. Let's also overlook the fact that ol' Tom has committed an outrage in attacking his fellow justices in a newspaper column, which is without precedent. Lets even disregard the fact that Tom has likely violated several Canons of Judicial Ethics, which could subject him to disciplinary proceedings. I'm sure you will join me in congratulating Tom Parker for having done SOMETHING in the year since he started taking our taxpayer dollars!

4:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Parker's article, which disparaged his fellow justices on the state Supreme Court, focused on their decision to abide by a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Roper v. Simmons) that reinforced an earlier decision which had struck down state laws allowing for the execution of minors.

The decision of the Alabama justices was 8 - 0, Parker recused himself, in favor of instructing the Alabama Criminal Court of Appeals to decide whether the Roper decision requires the court to change the death sentence of a minor, Renaldo Adams, to life without parole for the gruesome murder of a pregnant Alabama woman.

Justice Parker recused himself from the Adams case because he had been involved in the prosecution of the case as an assistant to Attorney General Bill Pryor, not Jeff Sessions as he mistakenly claims in his article.

Parker regards his fellow justices' decision to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's precedent "…as a failure to defend our U.S. Constitution and laws against activist federal judges." Moreover, Parker accuses them of passively accommodating rather than actively resisting the unconstitutional majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.

While Parker is correct that Roper is another example of judicial activism, the decision by his colleagues to abide by the higher court's ruling does not constitute a failure to defend the U.S. Constitution nor is it passive accommodation of judicial activism. The other eight justices were in fact upholding the rule of law because all judges are bound by precedent.

Conservative judicial activism is no more acceptable than liberal judicial activism because in the end both lead to an undermining of the public respect and trust of the law. Consequently, by advocating that conservative judges engage in judicial activism by refusing to uphold the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, Parker himself fails the test of judicial restraint.

This does not mean that precedents cannot be challenged.

Parker is correct in advocating that precedents such as Roper may be challenged in order to have them reviewed. But the proper venue for challenging precedents is outside a judge's chambers. The most suitable officials for challenging precedents are state attorney generals or governors. Because every lower court judge is bound by precedent, it is up to the attorney general or governor to appeal their case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which is the only judicial body that can change a precedent.

Unfortunately, Parker appears to have also misinterpreted the Roper majority's attitude toward the failure of lower courts to uphold precedent.

He apparently concluded that because the majority in the Roper decision did not reprimand the Missouri Supreme Court for failing to follow precedent in a previous ruling (Stanford), that they were somehow sending a message to other state courts that they were also free to ignore precedent. However, in his dissent on Roper, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, took strong exception to the fact that the majority failed to admonish the Missouri court "…for its flagrant disregard of our precedent in Stanford."

Furthermore, Scalia, arguably the most conservative justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, reinforced the idea that lower courts are bound by precedent stating that "it is this Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents." He concluded his dissent with the perspective that allowing lower courts to ignore precedent and leave the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions without any force "…destroys stability and makes our case law an unreliable basis for the designing of laws by citizens and their representatives, and for action by public officials. The result will be to crown arbitrariness with chaos."

Given Scalia's strong affirmation of precedent in his Roper dissent, would Parker now paint Scalia with the same brush he has applied to his fellow justices on the Alabama Supreme Court? Would he also disparage Scalia as he has his fellow justices by claiming that his defense of upholding precedent is tantamount to surrendering his conservative credentials? Yet what the other eight justices on the Alabama Supreme Court did in the Adams case is exactly what Justice Scalia said they should do-they followed the precedent.

It is distressing to see a member of the Alabama Supreme Court undermine the decorum of the court by attacking the credibility of his fellow justices, all of whom can legitimately lay claim to solid credentials as conservatives and constructionists when it comes to abiding by and upholding the U.S. Constitution.

By writing the article, Parker himself demonstrated a lack of judicial restraint and that is no way for a member of the state's highest court to conduct himself. Furthermore, advocating that state courts should refuse to uphold the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court is, as Associate Justice Scalia wrote in his Roper dissent, no way to run our legal system either.

6:27:00 PM  
Anonymous TruthSeeker said...

Wow, some of the comments are very impressive and well informed. Others less so. Coming from someone who just read through this without prior exposure to it, I'd have to say that TurkeyNeck failed to convince me that his arguments were the correct ones.

One point I'd like to make in Turkeyneck's defense is that he is certainly entitled to have and express an opinion on a legal issue, even if he is not a lawyer. And saying or implying "I am a lawyer, so I know what I am talking about" is not really a convincing argument. After all, I'm pretty sure that Tom Parker is a lawyer too, and he'd probably agree with TurkeyNeck, so just being a lawyer obviously doesn't mean you're always going to be right on legal issues.

As to what Tom's purpose is in lambasting his fellow justices, I have heard rumors that he is trying to get himself in trouble with the Judicial Inquiry Commission. Why he would want to do such a thing is hard for me to imagine, but Roy Moore certainly had no qulms in doing the same.

But how might Parker be getting himself into trouble? I am pretty sure that there is a judicial canon of ethics that says that a judge should act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system and that does not bring the judicial system into disrepute. Arguealby, Parker's attacks put him into at least in the grey zone in that area.

I think there is also an admonshipment that judges are not supposed to be overly political, which arguably his statements were. However, I am pretty sure that judges do have a right to speak and write, etc. on legal topics and the legal system, so perhaps his comments fit into that category.

5:16:00 PM  
Blogger answer-man said...

ps I'm having a little trouble sending comments so if I do it twice please excuse me and I apologize.

9:50:00 AM  
Blogger 风骚达哥 said...

20151005 junda
Michael Kors Handbags Huge Off
Coach Factory Handbags Outlet Store
Louis Vuitton Luxury Official Website
michael kors outlet
Ugg Boots,Ugg Boots Outlet,Ugg Outlet,Cheap Uggs,Uggs On Sale,Ugg Boots Clearance,Uggs For Women
Louis Vuitton Bags On Sale
michael kors handbags
toms outlet
michael kors handbag
Hollister Clothes for Girls Website
ugg boots
timberland boots for women
ray ban sunglasses uk
Coach Outlet Store Online Handbags Clearance
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
canada goose outlet online
louis vuitton outlet
nike trainers
oakley sunglasses,oakley vault,prescription sunglasses,polarized sunglasses,aviator sunglasses,spy sunglasses,oakleys,oakley canada,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley frogskins,oakley holbrook,cheap sunglasses,wayfarer sunglasses,oakley standard issue,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley.com,oakley prescription glasses,oakley goggles,sunglasses for men,oakley gascan,oakley store,oakleys sunglasses
coach factory outlet
ugg boots clearance
hollister clothing store
Michael Kors Outlet Sale Clearance
ugg boots
michael kors
cheap jordan shoes
Mont Blanc Legend And Mountain Pen Discount
Discount Ray Ban Polarized Sunglasses
louis vuitton

10:11:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Blogarama - The Blog Directory Politics Blog Top Sites