Do federal court rulings "reinterpret" state statutes?

Those who believe in judicial supremacy suppose that the judicial power of the United States Supreme Court allows its opinions to impose its own interpretation of state statutes on a state. In other words, instead of simply holding a statute unconstitutional (which it certainly has the power to do), the opinion of the Supreme Court explaining its judgment can create a de facto amendment to a state statute without the necessity of any action by the state legislature or a state court.

Do you agree with FACT and others that federalism prohibits the Supreme Court from telling states how they must interpret their own statutes after and in light of one of its rulings?

We asked all the candidates:

Do federal court rulings "reinterpret" state statutes?

These are were their answers:

I agree with FACT that while the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to hold that a state statute violates the U.S. Constitution, it does not have the authority to effectively amend that statute or make its interpretation of that statute binding on the state

The following candidates answered this way.
Janice Bowling

Sen. Janice Bowling

Republican

Senate District 16

Diane Canada

Diane Canada

Republican

House District 56 Candidate

Glen Casada

Rep. Glen Casada

Republican

House District 63

Scott Cepicky

Rep. Scott Cepicky

Republican

House District 64

Vincent Cuevas

Vincent Cuevas

Republican

House District 92 Candidate

Tandy Darby

Tandy Darby

Republican

House District 76 Candidate

Elaine Davis

Elaine Davis

Republican

House District 13 Candidate

John Dawson

John Dawson

Republican

House District 67 Candidate

Bruce Griffey

Rep. Bruce Griffey

Republican

House District 75

Esther Helton

Rep. Esther Helton

Republican

House District 30

Joey Hensley

Sen. Joey Hensley

Republican

Senate District 28

Matthew Hill

Rep. Matthew Hill

Republican

House District 7

Ronnie Holden

Ronnie Holden

Republican

House District 47 Candidate

Kelly Keisling

Rep. Kelly Keisling

Republican

House District 38

Tom Leatherwood

Rep. Tom Leatherwood

Republican

House District 99

Becky Duncan Massey

Sen. Becky Duncan Massey

Republican

Senate District 6

John McMahan

John McMahan

Republican

House District 76 Candidate

Lee Mills

Lee Mills

Republican

House District 99 Candidate

Brandon Ogles

Rep. Brandon Ogles

Republican

House District 61

Gina Oster

Gina Oster

Republican

House District 18 Candidate

Patricia Possel

Patricia Possel

Republican

House District 96 Candidate

Paul Rose

Sen. Paul Rose

Republican

Senate District 32

Paul Sherrell

Rep. Paul Sherrell

Republican

House District 43

John Stevens

Sen. John Stevens

Republican

Senate District 24

Jai Templeton

Jai Templeton

Republican

Senate District 26 Candidate

Terri Lynn Weaver

Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver

Republican

House District 40

Ryan Williams

Rep. Ryan Williams

Republican

House District 42

I disagree with FACT and believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has the power make its interpretation of state statutes binding on the state.

The following candidates answered this way.
Jarvus Turnley

Jarvus Turnley

Democrat

House District 66 Candidate

I am unsure.

No candidates have given this answer.

Other

The following candidates gave their own answers

"Again, SCOTUS is the law of this land. "

Subscribe