Posted by Chatter is picking up regarding the Supreme Court races… Here’s an update along with the basics for any latecomers…
We have three seats up in 2010, all held by Republicans. Patti Smith has announced that she is not running again. The other two are held by Mike Bolin and Tom Parker. You can see where keep up with the latest on these and other races at the 2010 Big List.
Democrats Deborah Bell Paseur and Sharon Yates are not showing interest in Supreme Court races, I’m told, so I have removed them for the Big List for now. Democrat Mac Parsons has told his circle that he will run against Republican incumbent Tom Parker, but so far he has not publicly announced which Supreme Court race he will enter. Democratic attorney Rhonda Chambers has also made known her interest in running against Parker.
Republican Kelli Wise on the Court of Criminal Appeals has declared her intention to run for the open seat. Former State Bar Association President Doug McElvy, also Republican, is said to be interested as well.
We hear that Gadsden Circuit Judge Clark Hall, a Democrat, is interested in running against Bolin or for the open seat. Montgomery attorney James Anderson has also been mentioned a Democratic candidate, though he has been mentioned as a candidate for the AG spot and for the state House as well.
One email correspondent tells the Parlor,
The powers that be want Anderson to run against Parker and are trying to convince Rhonda Chambers to run against Wise, instead of against Parker. If Chambers will change races, and no other Democrat enters the race, Anderson is going to run against Parker.
Not sure where that leaves Parsons. Anderson ran for the Supreme Court in 2002 against Harold See. And he seems to be exploring many options for 2010.
Tom Parker looks vulnerable. Several have noted to the Parlor that some of the interest groups most interested in the outcomes of the Supreme Court races are not interested in supporting Parker. Trial lawyers helped him in 2004 against incumbent Jean Brown, but they appear to be looking elsewhere in 2010. The Business Council of Alabama often backs Republicans in Supreme Court races but several readers have indicated to the Parlor that the BCA is not going to back Parker.
One lawyer reader told the Parlor that the Business Council of Alabama has talked to former U.S. Attorney Alice Martin about running in the primary against Tom Parker:
As for Alice Martin, this is like the maneuvers between the sexes for a high school dance. In this case, BCA (who strongly backed Jean Brown for re-election in this race in 2004) wants a more sympathetic justice. Alice Martin wants a high-profile job. I don’t know who initiated contact first. Probably a friend of one passed a note to a friend of the other during study hall. At this point, talk is cheap. Alice Martin may ultimately run for this seat, or the open (Patti Smith) S. Ct. seat, or nothing. However, Martin and BCA’s people are now speaking directly with each other.
We do our best to keep up with it all on the 2010 Big List. Let us know what you are hearing.
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
I have repeatedly stated that no one could possibly be worse than Tom Parker. With the mention of Alice Martin’s potential entry into the race, I must humbly retract my previous statements.
Roy,
I respectfully disagree. Alice Martin would make an absolutely fantastic Supreme Court Justice. Considering that Parker’s last race was financed by trial lawyers, her election would be a big shift toward economic conservatism.
Roy’s right on this one, Mullet. Ask law enforcement anywhere in the northern part of the State what was Martin like as the US Attorney, and you won’t receive a smile in reply. She was terrible. Meanwhile, while your only gripe about Parker seems to be how he was financed last go ’round, you overlook the truth about Colonel Tom — he’s been a frickin’ disaster, never doing his work, and forcing the other justices to bear an increased load (they’re basically doing his work for him). It would be hard to pick your poison if this match-up materialized.
Curious about Alice Martin & a possible flirtation with the BCA crowd. Does anyone else remember how they bowled her over at the last minute in 2000 when she ran for Court of Criminal Appeals? Seem to remember that BCA grouped behind Sue Bell Cobb in that race and left Alice out as the only Republican not supported by BCA that year. Wonder does Alice remember how they treated her? Or maybe sweet promises this year heal old wounds?
Loyal Independent
I do not think BCA supported Sue “this little light of mine” Bell Cobb.
Common Sense, Go back and check. Alice was left out in the cold in the election year of 2000 due to the loyalty of BCA to Bill Cobb, Sue Bell’s husband and lead lobbyist for the then-BellSouth. The Sue Bell Cobb story did not just begin in 2006 when she defeated Drayton.
Alice already got her payback for that little snub: she was awarded the job of US Attorney despite being unqualified for the position.
BCA supported Sue Bell, the Montgomery Big Mules always come before the interests of Alabama Businesses.
True enough on the last assessment. And how would you like to run on her track record after the Scrushy fiasco?
Also, if Alice runs on her record of the 2-Year College Investigations, what is Bradley going to run on? His stellar contributions to the PACT board or maybe his Amendment One legislative leadership in 2003?
Fascinating about James Anderson. It appears he has put forth more effort in this race than he has in all the other races he has floated his name for thus far. I hope he goes forward with it. James would match up well against Parker.
I have said it here before, BCA is not financing Parker, and Trial is thinking hard about sending more good money after bad. I’m glad you brought that up Danny, because it really shows Parker’s vunerability in 2010.
Right you are on Parker’s $$$ predicament. Maybe Tim James will spread a little James family money over to to his highly-placed cousin-in-law Tom Parker.
Almost everyone I know whose opinion I trust says Alice Martin was bad and Joyce Vance is good . . .
BUT – from everything I’ve seen, Martin was willing to do go after public corruption in a way that Vance is not. Everyone says Martin is bad, but I’ve never really heard anyone say what she did that was bad.
If Vance abandons public corruption cases in favor of “guns and drugs,” I will be disappointed.
The problem Democrats have with Martin is that she only went after Democratic politicians and Republicans with ties to Democrats, like Gary White and Buckalew.
The problem others have is that she lost the Scrushy case and its fair to say that the junior college investigation appeared to run out of steam. Only one legislator and no school board memebers got nailed. The evidence appears to have dried up on big fish like Hammett and even guppies like Ken Guin, Laura Hall, Ethel Hall, and Sandra Ray. Even Rick Rogers at Shelton never got nailed. A lot of leaks and hot air for very little.
I have heard Anderson was making calls to gauge interest in the HD73 race. He has told many people in the know that he does not want to take on a state wide again, and being a legislator would allow him to keep his law practice open.
Old hat Montgomery Voter. Anderson is using the HD73 race to conceal his intentions with other political opportunities. Everyone I’ve heard talk about it (and that’s not many) said that he would be crazy to get into that race. Why would he waste time and resources in a House race when he has run a very successful race as a statewide candidate, and he has a very good chance as a statewide in 2010?
There is a good bit of buzz about Joe Hubbard right now in Montgomery political circles. He’s got good ideas and the enegery to follow through on them, and the people that matter are listening. Why would James Anderson challenge a young, forward-thinking Democrat who is out there working on the ground, raising substantial money and picking up substantial endorsements? It just doesn’t make sense. James is smarter than that.
What part of this: “he does not want to take on a state wide again, and being a legislator would allow him to keep his law practice open” did you not understand?
Doug McElvy would be an excellent Sup. Ct. Justice and so would James Anderson.
Geeze, Montgomery Voter… someone is sensitive tonight. Don’t worry. If you, I mean James, wants to run statewide again, he will have all the support he needs, and you, I mean his, practice will be in good hands while he is up at the Supreme Court.
The trial lawyers only gave Parker money in the primary in 2004. The trial lawyers did not give him nearly as much money as people like to make out.
Esp. Beasley. Beasley talked about giving Parker big bucks but then did very little.
They did not help him in the general election in 2004 and did not support him at all in his race for Chief Justice.
The BCA does not a economic conservative – they want someone in their back pocket who well bend the law their way.
Parker simply follows the law and does not bend it to help the BCA or the trial lawyers.
If you are going to have someone run against you – Martin is just the kind of opponent you like to have.
She is a joke.
Kelli Wise for Supreme Court Justice. Wow! Repubs, we can do better.
Somehow I doubt a guy like James Anderson actually posts here. It is the usual collection of mouth breathers and hacks touting their preferred – and paid – candidates’ company lines. So A little close to home, are you outing yourself as being on this Joe Hubbard kid’s payroll?
Gee Post #19, a little sensitive. The trial lawyers did give him enough to beat Jean Brown, who spent soemthing like $4 Million dollars in a primary in an attempt to patch over the Roy Moore PR disaster. Seems like her theme then was “follow the law”. And curious that Tom’s theme is going to have to be “follow the law” now.
Next week, the Alabama Supreme Court will release statistics reflecting each individual Justice’s workload and productivity. I suspect that those statistics will show that Justice Parker has clearly not been earning his substantial state salary. Both the BCA and the trial lawyers ought to want to replace someone who is guilty of delaying justice and refusing to do his job. Justice Parker is an embarrassment to the Court. You can’t “follow the law” if you don’t bother to ever put it down on paper.
Montgomery Voter, I just call it like I see it. And, I agree that some posters on here tout an agenda. Maybe you should follow your own advice and keep yours to yourself.
Its not a matter of how many opinions but the quality.
You have to look at the actual amount of work.
If you ever had occassion to read of Parker’s opinions and dissents you would see he goes far deeper and does lot more research than the other Justices.
Your just repeating a tried old Nabors line.
Brown spend over 4,000,000 Parker less than 1/8 of majority of that did not come from trial lawyers.
Then Nabors keep hitting Parker over the head with that even though Parker got nothing in 2006 from the trial lawyers while on the other hand Governor Riley’s single largest contributor was
JERE BEASLEY – over $300,000 in the primary alone.
There is a good reason he got more state legal contracts than anyone else.
25,
I don’t think any lawyer would say that Parker’s opinions are better written and more thoroughly researched than the other opinions that come out of the court. I read Supreme Court opinions myself (on a regular basis) and I don’t believe Parker’s opinions are “deeper … and more researched.”
Sorry, princeliberty, I read almost every decision issued by the Supreme Court and you are absolutely dead wrong about Parker’s writings. Both the quantity AND the quality of his work is far below average (even for a pretty average court).
with those 2 republicans sqauring off it will put Mac in the drivers seat. one is considered ineffective and the other is not very well liked by the general public. do the math
Justice delayed is justice denied.
There isn’t a snow ball’s chance in hell Alice Martin could win a general election in Alabama – PERIOD!