Parsons said Tuesday in Montgomery that Parker issued less than 5 percent of the decisions by the nine-member court last year and that was the fewest of any justice. Parsons said if someone asked him how to spell lazy, he would say, "P-A-R-K-E-R."
During her intensive two-day campaign swing, Chambers will attend a lunch meeting of the Madison County Bar Association, hold an event with supporters, attend BBQ and Bluegrass, hold a fundraiser and speak to the Madison County Executive Committee Meeting. Wednesday, July 7th:
Rhonda Chambers will attend the lunch meeting of the Madison County Bar Association
12:15PM Madison County Law Library
205 East Side Square Huntsville, AL 35801
Thursday, July 8th:
Rhonda Chambers will attend the BBQ and BLUEGRASS event.
5:00PM Huntsville Museum of Art
300 Church Street Southwest Huntsville, AL 35801-4910
Rhonda Chambers will hold a fundraiser at Cotton Row Restaurant.
5:30PM - 7:00PM Cotton Row Restaurant
100 Southside Square Huntsville, AL 35801
Rhonda Chambers speaks at Madison County Executive Committee Meeting
7:00PM Optimist Park Rec Center
703 Oakwood Avenue Northeast
Huntsville, AL 35811
Rhonda Chambers is running for the Place 1 seat being vacated by Patti Smith. She will face Republican Kelli Wise in November. At present, Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb is the only Democrat on the Court -- let's send her some company next year!
Judge Mac Parsons is running for the Alabama Supreme Court, Place 3. From everything I've seen, he's a genuine, dyed in the wool, good government, progressive Democrat. Couple the controversial Exxon verdict a few years ago with the current carnage on the Gulf Coast and I think he's found an excellent issue to run on. Supreme Court races are often dry as dust (gold dust, to judge by their cost); the oil debacle looks to liven things up this year.
Judge Parsons hopes to raise enough money to put this ad on TV -- please send him some help at http://www.macparsons2010.com. Remember, progressive candidates can't win if we don't support them.
The power struggle before the high court stems from lawsuits filed by five district attorneys, who accuse some large pharmacy companies of violating state law by filling prescriptions with generic drugs when a doctor prescribed a name brand. Some of the state's top plaintiff lawyers helped the district attorneys file the suits and would share in any winnings.
Attorney General Troy King wants to take over the suits as the state's chief law officer and have them thrown out. He has asked the Supreme Court for an order that would let him do that.
The DAs aren't taking this lying down:
The Alabama District Attorneys Association, the statewide organization for Alabama's DAs, argues that King has the authority to take over criminal cases, but not civil cases like the drug lawsuits.
In court papers, they accuse King of seeking "superpowers" that would make all district attorneys subordinate to him.
Superpowers? That's one trait that I never, ever associated with Troy King.
The undercurrent in this whole case is, of course, gambling:
The lawyers argue the drug case could determine whether King could assume control of a future gambling case brought by the task force or district attorneys, like the current task force commander, Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson.
But the real issue is much bigger, I think. King is supposed to be Alabama's top law enforcement official, but he seems to do nothing but antagonize sheriffs, DAs, police officers, and anyone else who comes into contact with him.
Remember when Parker Griffith, Mooncat, and I attended the Twickenham Republican Women's meeting? AG candidate Luther Strange was the main speaker and he had absolutely nothing good to say about Troy King.
In fact, the meeting turned into somewhat of an anti-Troy king revival meeting as Madison County Sheriff Blake Dorning and Madison County DA Robert Broussard took the opportunity to "testify" about how AG King had never supported them in anything, never called them, and was more an impediment to law enforcement officials than a help.
I have video but don't have time to put it up right now. Have to get ready to drive over to Scottsboro for the Scottsboro Boys Museum Grand Opening. I'll try to upload some clips this afternoon and put them in the comments.
It was pretty strong stuff and Mooncat and I left the meeting thinking that Troy King seems to be toast in the primary - at least in Madison County. However, this gambling issue seems to be one that could split the Republican party along geographic lines and officials from the Northern and Southern parts of the state square off for and against.
It's going to be a really interesting primary to watch.
Some of the discussion about the possibility of Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb leaving the court to run for governor has gone like this:
"Hey, so what? Sure, she's the only Democrat on the court, but face it: she's just one vote out of nine."
It's an argument that makes sense - at least it does until you look at how many other duties the Chief Justice has. Specifically, the Alabama Chief Justice is in charge of the Administrative Office of Courts (AOC) and administers the entire Alabama court system. It's a hugely important administrative position that requires someone competent.
The AOC was created in 1977 to oversee the administration of daily operations resulting in a unified judiciary which is one of the oldest and most efficient in the nation.
I first heard of it when we were working on the Judiciary Article at the mock constitutional convention. Follow me to the next page to learn more about the structure of the Alabama court system.
Lt. Governor, Jim Folsom, threw them for a loop when he decided to run for re-election, and we've been treated to the sight of various potential candidates being wooed, then discarded. At least by the "conventional wisdom" whatever that's worth.
The lastest gossip pertains to Justice Cobb. Will she leave the court to run for governor? Even though she's not up for re-election in 2010, as a sitting justice, she can't run for another office without resigning.
Will we be treated to not one, not two, but three up-and-coming Alabama Democrats slugging it out for the nomination? A party insider I talked with this weekend hopes not, noting a Cobb candidacy would pit two rising stars in the party against each other and "would be like using two bullets for your game of Russian roulette." This source was speaking of Davis and Cobb, almost (but not quite) writing off even the possibility of a Ron Sparks victory.
I'm not sure I agree with such a pessimistic assessment of his chances, but the Decatur Daily agrees that Cobb would be taking a huge chance, and downplays the possibility of a run:
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb isn’t apt to find many Democrats wanting her to run for governor next year. She’s too valuable as the only Democrat on the state’s top appellate court, and reclaiming the seat was too much of a fight for her supporters to see her walk away.
Speaking only for myself: "Justice Bell, stay where you are! There are plenty of other opportunities coming up and we need you on the court! Please! "
Despite Gov. Bob Riley's effort to shop the White Hall gambling case around to get it before a different -- and presumably friendlier -- judge, Judge Mark Kennedy says he will rule soon on whether the electronic machines seized by the Governor's task force on gambling are bingo machines or slot machines. The distinction is an important one since slot machines are clearly illegal but electronic bingo machines are not.
The White Hall bingo operation was employing a lot of folks in Lowndes County and supposedly benefitting some local charities (note: there needs to be more oversight of these charity bingo operations to make sure the charities are getting something) so what's the point of all this fuss? To get an electronic bingo case before the Alabama Supreme Court, according to the Birmingham News, emphasis mine:
Nobody was arrested, but that's not really the point. The task force's leader, retired Jefferson County District Attorney David Barber, wants to get the issue of electronic bingo before the Alabama Supreme Court much in the way he did the now-defunct Internet Sweepstakes operation at the Birmingham Race Course.
Obviously, the governor hopes Barber will achieve the same results, and electronic bingo will go the way of the sweepstakes. Which is to say, it will go away.
The BN goes on to speculate that this case has the potential to shut down electronic bingo across Alabama, including at Victoryland. That's tinkering with a seriously big sacred cow.
We know the Alabama Supreme Court is dominated by business friendly Republican justices, and apparently Gov. Riley thinks they will also be bingo unfriendly justices. Seeing as how there is a bit of a bingo rift in the Alabama Republican party at the moment, the outcome should be interesting.
They're still counting votes in Minnesota, Alaska and a few other places, but the election is now over in Alabama.
Judge Deborah Bell Paseur conceded the race for the Alabama Supreme Court this afternoon after county canvass boards across the state completed counting the remaining outstanding ballots.
“I am deeply humbled by the overwhelming amount of support that I have received from Alabamians from all walks of life and all parts of the state,” said Judge Paseur. “It has truly been a blessing to have this opportunity to run for the state’s highest court. But, the votes have now been counted and this campaign has come to an end. And, I congratulate Judge Greg Shaw on becoming Alabama’s next Associate Justice on the Alabama Supreme Court and wish him the best.”
The provisional ballots were examined, those that were valid were counted, and it didn't bring Paseur within the 0.5% margin that would have triggered an automatic recount. Statewide, reporting on this race has been rather sloppy -- just yesterday my hometown paper ran an article that speculated on a "runoff" in this race. There was never any possibility of a runoff, just an automatic recount as provided for by state law when the margin of victory is very small.
The money spent on this race was obscene. I'm sure Deborah Bell Paseur would have been an excellent addition to the Alabama Supreme Court and I'm glad she stuck to her guns to make sure every valid vote was counted before the winner was declared. That's an important democratic principle. I hope Greg Shaw will also make all Alabamians proud of his service on the Court.
The Deborah Bell Paseur/Greg Shaw recount is on, as a matter of state law. No choice.
Following is a message from Marion Seinfels, Deborah Bell's campaign manager, updating the current recount situation in the Alabama Supreme Court race:
"As of right now, there are still several thousand ballots across the state that have yet to be tallied and reported. And, until every last one of those votes is counted, we will not bend to those trying to bring this race to an early conclusion. There is simply no reason to rush. In addition, as these votes are counted and the final precincts come in, it appears that an automatic statewide recount might be triggered. According to state law, when the results of a race fall within one-half of 1 percent, a statewide recount is triggered. This happens automatically and not at the discretion of the candidates. As this process unfolds, we will keep you updated. Thank you for your continuing support. Marion"
I went to the Madison County Courthouse today to find out how many votes had not been counted in our county. The answer: only the provisional ballots (cast both absentee and at the polls), which total "approximately 500." Given that there are 62 counties in the state, and we're not the biggest, looks to me like a difference of less than a thousand votes could be easily overcome. Please keep your ears open as to why Shelby County withheld its votes on this race until the middle of the night.
Yesterday the Birmingham News published a well-researched article by Eric Velasco -- "PACs Shield Donations in Alabama Supreme Court Race" -- that follows the money from corporate donors through a maze of PACs and into Greg Shaw's campaign coffers. INTERESTINGLY: $215,000 (60%) of Shaw's campaign money has come from one PAC -- the so-called "Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee" (ACJRC) -- run by two lobbyists, Tom Dart and Larry Vinson. Dart is president of and lobbyist for the Automobile Dealers Assn of Alabama, and Vinson is a lobbyist for ACJRC and the Alabama Self-Insurers Association. The article lays out how Dart and Vinson have used the ACJRC PAC and four other PACs started by Vinson to launder corporate money on its way to Shaw. (By the way, ACJRC has given @ 90% of its money to Shaw). As you would expect, it's a complicated trail from PAC to PAC to PAC to Shaw, but Velasco has exposed it beautifully.
We have GOT to get this word out so voters can choose whose interests they want to support. Please read and get the word out about this article. What do we do to get major media coverage? It's COMPLICATED so not prone to soundbites.
.... that Judge Greg Shaw is the beneficiary of half a million corporate/oil dollars from something called “The Center for Individual Freedom.”(What a GREAT name! Reminds me of the “Christian Coalition” that whored for Big Timber during the last election cycle in the name of Christ!) This so-called “Center for Individual Freedom” (CFIF) is yet another store-front operation through which Washington lobbyists and political operatives launder $$$ from “undisclosed” corporate donors trying - and often succeeding - to buy our judges.
Now Shaw’s campaign has taken a cue from McSame, claiming it was a “sad day” for Alabama when Deborah Bell Paseur pointed out Shaw’s links to Big Oil and the half-million-dollar infusion of CFIF money into his.According to Shaw, Judge Paseur should be “asking for forgiveness” for bringing such things to light.!!!
Simultaneously, “someone” mysteriously started an unusually ugly push-poll telephone campaign suggesting that the Alabama State Bar had given Judge Paseur an “F” rating. Interesting, given that the Alabama State Bar doesn’t rate judges.I wonder what the Individual Freedom folk will be asking their voter victims next?“Would it change your vote to find out that Judge Paseur's Mama was lip-synching the commercial?”
But why am I surprised?I actually kind of like Greg Shaw.He strikes me as a nice guy who wouldn’t pull this kind of crap on his own.But the $$$$$ people who control most of our campaigns – especially Alabama Supreme Court campaigns – are scum, pure and simple, who will go to any lengths to advance their self-interest at the cost of- well – everything and everyone, America included. And apparently they're writing Shaw's press releases, too. If he lets them, nice guy or not, he deserves to lose BIG.
When this race is over, I will tell every one on this site just who I actually am and the reasons I came here. I am not a right winger, nor am I a left winger. I am actually very apolitical. I have voted for both and have no allegiance to any party. I have a specific reason for my feeling about this race and I will reveal that. And when I do, the decent people on this site will understand.
Actually, I have voted Democrat more than Republican over the years. I voted for Clinton twice and have an extreme dislike for Bush and company, especially Cheney..who is the most dangerous politician in US history.
I will stay off of your site until Nov. 5th and regardless of who wins, you will understand and the story will make sense. The ones who have patronized me will, if they are decent people, apologize. And, of course the shrill will not care.
I guess the reason I come here is the fact that I identify myself more with Democrats and thought that, in Alabama, the decency level would be a little higher..I have learned otherwise. You actually have proven quite the opposite and that’s a shame. It’s hard to live in the middle and lean to the left as I have done for years when the left seems to be moving further and further away from me.. But I will always be more liberal/progressive then I will be conservative.
It’s just about this individual race.. I have a very good reason for trying to get people to be truthful. And another shocker for you here.. I will have to split my vote this year to vote for Judge Shaw. Even though the shrill level of the people on this site is almost enough to make me actually pull a straight Republican ticket, there is no way I can actually do that. I know that there are decent people who are Democrat or lean progressive so I know you are not an accurate cross section of the core of this party.
The Professional Firefighters of Alabama think Judge Deborah Bell Paseur has the experience and judgement needed for the Alabama Supreme Court.
Hoover- The Professional Firefighters of Alabama (PFFAL) have announced their endorsement of Judge Deborah Bell Paseur, a candidate for the Alabama Supreme Court. The group’s membership includes approximately 2,000 professional firefighters throughout the state of Alabama.
"We are proud to join members of law enforcement in pledging our support to Judge Deborah Bell Paseur. Judge Paseur has a 27-year record as a judge who is tough but fair, is the only candidate who has actually put criminals away and has worked extensively outside the courtroom to ensure children and young adults stay out of trouble and the legal system,” said Dale Wyatt, President of PFFAL. “These are the reasons why Judge Paseur is the choice of firefighters and law enforcement across the state.”
"Judge Deborah Bell Paseur is not only the clear choice for the Alabama Supreme Court but the only choice. Since being elected here in Florence, her number one priority has been to keep our community safe and keep our kids out of trouble and she has done a great job,” said Battalion Chief Terry Willett of the Florence Firefighters. “There is no better friend to firefighters, law enforcement or the people of Alabama than Judge Deborah Bell Paseur.”
"I am extremely honored to have received the endorsement of these brave men and women," said Judge Paseur. "I have a great appreciation for the dangers they place themselves in everyday while serving our communities and am incredibly grateful to have their support and that of law enforcement across the state.”
According to an email from her campaign, Judge Deborah Bell Paseur has her first TV spot up for her campaign for the Alabama Supreme Court.
And not a moment too soon. A lot of the statewide races get very little attention from voters and it's important for a candidate to have the money to introduce him/herself to the voters and build crucial name recognition before November.
This spot reminds me a bit of Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb's campaign spots with their "this little light of mine" song.
"MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Montgomery judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the election of four powerful Democrats in the Alabama Senate."
Do not get your hopes up that the Court suddenly has transformed itself. Their decision is based on their opinion they do not have jurisdiction in the case.
"The largely Republican Supreme Court said the suit was not decided by the general election, and the courts lost jurisdiction after the general election, when Montiel did not file an election challenge."
And what senators had to spend the money to defend the charge?
"In addition to targeting Bedford, who's chairman of the Senate Finance and Taxation-General Fund Committee, the suit challenged the election of Senate Rules Committee Chairman Lowell Barron of Fyffe, Senate Majority Leader Zeb Little of Cullman, and Hank Sanders of Selma, the chairman of the Finance and Taxation-Education Committee."
Read it all at http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-34/1203714547310190.xml&storylist=alabamanews
Or at least rewrite the part that deals with taxes on oil and natural gas production. Late last year the Republican heavy Alabama Supreme Court overturned a $3.6 billion judgement against Exxon Mobil in a dispute over taxes they owed Alabama for natural gas extracted here. Now, Lt. Gov. Jim Folsom advocates simplifying the tax code to avoid any future rannygazoo over how much Big Oil owes in taxes.
"Alabama is blessed with wonderful natural resources, but we must require powerful corporations to pay a fair price if they are going to take advantage of our natural resources - like our oil and gas," Folsom said Wednesday.
...
Alabama's tax on natural gas is currently a percentage of the value of the gas after it has been processed. Folsom said the Legislature should look at changing it in the upcoming session to a volume-based tax levied when the natural gas comes out of the ground.
Folsom said that would erase issues that came up in the Exxon Mobil dispute about what costs of production the company could charge off.
"That way Exxon will have to pay the same way you do - based on what they pump," Folsom said.
Not surprisingly, the petroleum industry spokesman quoted in the story thinks this is a very bad idea. He trots out some veiled threats to just stop pumping oil and natural gas in Alabama. Don't hold your breath, environmentalists.
If you recall, the dispute was over natural gas royalties Exxon-Mobil owed the state of Alabama. Simple, non-legal jargon version is: they underpaid. The state argued Exxon-Mobil knew they owed more, underpaid on purpose and were guilty of fraud. Exxon-Mobil argued that Alabama knew or should have known they were being underpaid and didn't squeal at the time, so it was just an honest mistake. Two juries found fraud and awarded multi-billion dollar damages. The Republican dominated Alabama Supreme Court found a way to nullify both those jury awards.
In light of this history, Folsom's plan to simplify the tax accounting makes a lot of sense. Eliminate the fine print, just charge a fee based on how much corporations extract and you eliminate the potential for fraud (or book keeping errors, if you're a Republican Supreme Court Justice) and the ensuing lawsuits and legal bills.
Is this genius, or what? Republicans who oppose Folsom's plan will be arguing in favor of a complex tax code that requires beaucoup accountants to enforce and still results in expensive lawsuits and big bills to those evil trial lawyers. Look out for the exploding heads.
Contrary to what the media has told you, Judge Deborah Bell Paseur did not kick off her campaign for the Alabama Supreme Court last week standing in front of an "8-1" sign referring to the court's recent Exxon/Mobil ruling. Here's a photo. This is like the old "telephone" game -- the distortion grows with every re-telling. As far as I can find, the incorrect information first appeared in this story by Phillip Rawls:
Democratic Supreme Court candidate Deborah Bell Paseur kicked off her campaign Tuesday standing in front of a supporter holding an "8-1" sign criticizing the Supreme Court's Exxon Mobil decision.
Today an editorial in the Anniston Star repeated and embellished upon that claim. Now she was not only in front of the sign, but it was a secret signal of how she would vote if elected to the Supreme Court:
...reform would only force candidates to come out from behind party labels and announce in advance how they would vote on issues before the court.
Like Democratic Supreme Court candidate Deborah Bell Passeur [sic] did when she made a public appearance with a supporter behind her holding up a big sign that read '8-1.'
'8-1' was the Supreme Court vote in which eight Republican justices voted to deny the state's claim that Exxon Mobile purposely underpaid natural gas royalties, a verdict that saved the oil company more than $3.5 billion in damages. Candidate Passeur's message was clear. Vote for her in the next election and if another case like this comes up, the vote will be 7-2.
While a supporter showed up to the announcement with the sign in tow, Judge Paseur asked her to put it away before James Anderson began his introduction, as the message would seem to conflict with her signed pledge to conduct her campaign with appropriate decorum and dignity. As such, Judge Paseur never stood in front of the sign in question.
I contacted the Paseur campaign this morning and was told that a supporter was there with an 8-1 sign, was asked to put it away and did so -- Judge Paseur did not stand in front of the sign for her announcement. They told me the sign was out for a very short time, but apparently long enough to make it into Rawls' story.
This is ironic because at that press conference, Deborah Bell Paseur signed a pledge (photo) to conduct herself appropriately during the campaign. Among other things, she pledged to:
DECLINE TO announce positions on matters that might come before the court for which I am seeking election or lead voters to believe that I will decide any issues or cases in a predetermined manner;
NOT ALLOW any person speaking on my behalf to announce positions on issues that might come before the court on which I am seeking election or make false or misleading statements;
So the "8-1 sign flap" is not just a harmless mistake. As the Star's editorial shows, people are going to take that original mistake, put some spin on it and next thing you know, someone will be accusing her of not adhering to her pledge -- I can imagine the TV ads already. Hopefully there will be some corrections, printed as prominently as the original stories.
While she did not mention the 8-1, party line Supreme Court ruling that threw out $3.6 million billion in punitive damages against ExxonMobil for defrauding the state of Alabama, that verdict certainly reinforces the perception that decisions can be bought in Alabama.
Alabama judicial races have become obscenely expensive, perhaps the most expensive judicial races in the nation. Speaking at Alabama State University on Thursday, Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb advocated several changes to Alabama's method of selecting judges, including having nonpartisan elections for appellate judges and drastically reducing allowable contributions to judicial campaigns.
“Judges must do what’s best for all no matter the political impact,” said Cobb, who used the example of the courageousness of Judge James E. Horton Jr., who granted a defense motion to set aside the rape conviction of Haywood Patterson, one of the nine so-called Scottsboro Boys accused of raping two white women on a train. The ruling cost Horton his career when he lost his next election.
...
“Big money and mudslinging are eroding the confidence people in the justice system,” she said.
...
“In the past 13 years in Alabama, interests both inside and outside have spent $54 million to elect appellate judges,” she said. “The bottom line is that we are not supposed to be ‘pro’ anything, but a level playing field.”
The Decatur Daily has more a more complete description of the three bills Judge Cobb hopes the Legislature will take up:
One bill would create a merit selection process for judge vacancies at every level, and the candidates would not be questioned about their political affiliations.
Cobb said 24 states use the merit selection process, including Tennessee and Florida.
The second bill would create non-partisan elections for appellate judges only.
Cobb said 14 states hold non-partisan judicial elections, including Georgia and Mississippi.
“My hope is, we can show how it works on an appellate level and these type of elections would come to a local level,” she said.
The third bill would limit donations to judicial candidates to $250.
“This will be a contentious issue, but it will happen if you want it, if you call your legislators and tell them you want it,” Cobb said.
Illustrating that great judicial minds think alike, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she would like to see the states do away with the election of judges and go to a system of merit selection.
"If I could wave a magic wand ... I would wave it to secure some kind of merit selection of judges across the country," O'Connor said at a conference on her majority opinion in Strickland v. Washington in 1984, which set standards for determining whether a lawyer is providing competent representation.
O'Connor's home state of Arizona switched from partisan elections of judges to an appointed system in the 1970s. "I watched the improvement of the judiciary in that state," O'Connor said at the conference sponsored by the non-partisan Constitution Project. She was elected a trial judge under the old system and later appointed an appellate judge by then-Gov. Bruce Babbitt.
This is a step beyoned what Judge Cobb has proposed, but I think a merit system is worth considering in Alabama. Quite a few other states use some form of merit selection -- Alabama should look at what is and is not working around the country to see how we can arrive at a better system. Partisan elections with no limit on campaign contributions, as we have now, are more like judicial auctions than elections.
Judge Deborah Bell Paseur could not have picked a better time to announce her candidacy for the Alabama Supreme Court. Several weeks ago she told me she planned a formal announcement the first week in November, but the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of ExxonMobil has given her announcement an extra media push and her message of integrity and equal justice extra relevance.
Prominent plaintiff lawyer Jere Beasley, a major Democratic contributor brought in by the Republican governor to represent the state in the Exxon Mobil suit, said Tuesday he has been surprised by the strong public reaction to the Supreme Court's decision.
"It's totally anti-Exxon," Beasley said.
The reaction was very strong from the foreman of the jury that ruled against Exxon Mobil. Montgomery schoolteacher Joey King said he was "totally shocked" by the ruling and believes businesses' campaign contributions to justices had an impact.
The big budget battle between plaintiff lawyers and business interests for influence on Alabama's highest court has led in candidates raising $54 million since 1993.
Even the usually conservative Birmingham News says the ExxonMobil ruling reinforces the perception that Alabama justice belongs to the highest bidder:
But the high court's ruling does nothing to improve the perception that justice is for sale in Alabama. Anyone paying attention to special-interest campaign giving in state Supreme Court races might have predicted an 8-1 ruling in ExxonMobil's favor, although not necessarily a ruling that found no fraud and dismissed $3.5 billion in punitive damages. That's because business interests fueled the campaigns of the eight Republican justices who sided with ExxonMobil. And trial lawyers, who often sue big businesses, larded the campaign coffers of Democratic Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, who dissented.
That doesn't mean the Republican justices ruled incorrectly or that campaign dollars influenced their ruling. Or that they were right, and the Democratic justice dissented because of all the money her campaign received from trial lawyers.
But the perception that big bucks buy justice in Alabama absolutely exists, and grows worse every election cycle with high-stakes Supreme Court races that pit business interests against trial lawyers. The past 12 years, Alabama's Supreme Court races have been the country's most expensive, according to a recent national study. It is not unreasonable to wonder what kind of justice all that money is buying.
The Decatur Daily had even stronger words for the Republican controlled court:
The Republican Alabama Supreme Court should be ashamed of accusing citizen jurors of not knowing common sense from legalese.
The Montgomery Circuit Court jury that heard the landmark case against Exxon Mobil had no trouble understanding that the petroleum giant defrauded the people of Alabama by grossly underpaying natural gas royalties to the state from wells in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Republican court majority said shorting the state of $51.9 million was just a big boo-boo the international conglomerate made and it wasn't worthy of punishment.
The Supreme Court race will undoubtedly be another multi-million dollar extravaganze, but I'm hopeful that voters wll pick the candidate who honestly believes that all comers, not just the ones with deep pockets, are entitled to justice. Enough is enough!
T.H.E. Social Work Agency Adoption home studies & care management services in the North Alabama area.
Licensed, certified, caring social workers. blog advertising is good for you
The 
It's an argument that makes sense - at least it does until you look at how many other duties the Chief Justice has. Specifically, the Alabama Chief Justice is in charge of the 
There's been a 
Despite 
They're still counting votes in Minnesota, Alaska and a few other places, but the election is now over in Alabama.
.... that Judge Greg Shaw is the beneficiary of half a million corporate/oil dollars from something called “The Center for Individual Freedom.”
