23 February 2024


I almost don't know which judicial outrage to excoriate today. I think I'll choose the more inflammatory one; there's a conflagration in the foothills of the first mountain:

One night as you sleep in your goose-feather bed
We will be kneeling at your bedside
We'll pray for your soul like the good Lord said
Let all be forgiven, let none be denied

Then one night as you sleep in your goose-feather bed
We will be standing at your bedside
Your bones will be broken and your blood will be shed
Your eyes will be taken and your hands will be tied

Then we'll take you to the forest
Where none will hear your cry
And we'll cut down the sycamore and broom
And it's there we will forgive you
And it's there we'll watch you die
Like a dancing silhouette against the moon

And you will burn, you will burn
We will purify your soul in the fire, in the fire
And your spirit will live forever
It will rise, it will rise
From the ashes and the embers in your eyes, in your eyes
And your spirit will live forever

Praise the Lord
Another soul is saved
Praise the Lord
Praise the Lord

Steeleye Span, "You Will Burn" (1996) (ironically, the songwriter has remarked that he envisioned the song's victim as probably a midwife…).

I might be tempted to file a judicial and/or legal ethics charge against the dominionist cretin who would impose his religious and archly theocratic vision on everyone (PDF, jump to page 26). Leaving aside that I have nothing to do with Alabama (I haven't in nearly 20 years), and thus have no standing, consider who would ultimately rule upon and be responsible for enforcing any opinion regarding the judicial and/or legal ethics errors present here: These very justices. How fast can you say "institutionalized conflict of interest"? And how fast after that can you say "losing battle"?

Even the dissent deserves precious little credit. It desperately tries to argue with the legalisms that came from the dominionist premise of both the majority opinion and Chief Justice Parker's concurrence without engaging with those premises at all… or the fundamental problem that the science of IVF is very much against those premises. <SARCASM> But that would be importing knowledge and methods of reasoning beyond judicial competence, so that would be inappropriate. </SARCASM>

Perhaps the Alabama Supreme Court needs to consider a document of undoubted supremacy to its own amended state constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

U.S. Const. Art. VI ¶ 3 (emphasis added). If you can't be required to be a dominionist as a qualification for office, that rather denies dominionism as a legitimate and overriding policy preference, doesn't it?

Y'all have failed the allowable test, sirrahs, and made yourselves look worse than the Mississippi judiciary (and that takes some real effort).