Bill Pryor takes on Sandra Day O'Conner re "The Threat to Judicial Independence"

In this Wall Street Journal op-ed , Judge William Pryor responds to a recent piece by former Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, in which O'Conner argued that the current level of criticism aimed at the judiciary constitutes a "grave threat" to judicial independence.

Pryor answers by making the case that 1) contemporary criticism of judicial decisionmaking is neither grave nor unprecedented, 2) much of the criticism that Justice O'Conner frets about is fair, just, and healthy for democracy, and 3) judges must inquire as to whether they deserve to be criticized at times, in light of their obligation to act within constitutional restraints.

Overall, it's a very effective rebuttal.

Those who followed the Republican race for Alabama Supreme Court Justice last spring may appreciate Pryor's response to one of the examples Justice O'Conner cites as a "grave threat."

Here's Justice O'Conner:

Troublingly, attacks on the judiciary are now being launched by judges themselves. Earlier this year, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker excoriated his colleagues for faithfully applying the Supreme Court's precedent in Roper v. Simmons, which prohibited imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by minors. Offering a bold reinterpretation of the Constitution's supremacy clause, Justice Parker advised state judges to avoid following Supreme Court opinions "simply because they are 'precedents.'" Justice Parker supported his criticism of "activist federal judges" by asserting that "the liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court . . . look down on the pro-family policies, Southern heritage, evangelical Christianity, and other blessings of our great state."

Now, here's Judge Pryor, telling the part of the story that O'Conner left out:

Some who complain about the current climate of criticism point to the bizarre example of Justice Tom Parker of the Alabama Supreme Court, who recently
castigated his colleagues for following the ruling of the Supreme Court in Roper, which prohibited use of the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-old murderers, but there is a good ending to this story from my home state. Not only did the other members of the Alabama court faithfully apply Roper, with which many of them disagreed, but Justice Parker's political gambit failed miserably. He ran for chief justice of Alabama, aligned with his mentor, former Chief Justice Roy Moore, who ran for governor; both were trounced in the Republican primary. Their twisted ideas of opposing activist decisions by defying judicial decrees went nowhere, even in a state with a shameful history of defiance of federal authority. The Alabama justices who did their duty all prevailed in their primary contests. Alabama has come a long way since the days of Governor Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door.

(Hat tip: How Appealing via Southern Appeal.)