Justices can also take legislators to the woodshed.

PBPO News:

The Florida Supreme Court justices ruled that the Legislature’s redistricting map was invalidated by their 5-2 ruling, according to a plaintiff in this case.

In rare instances of intra-court tension, justices took a few jabs at one another in Thursday’s opinion.

Justice Barbara Pariente was a former West Palm Beach attorney and appellate judge. Justice Charles Canady is a former Republican state legislator who was also a member of Congress.

Pariente was the author for the majority. Canady, however, was the author the dissent. Canady stated that the opinion of five justices was “teeming in judicial overreach.”

Canady concluded that the “damage done by this decision in the structure of appellate processes is only exceeded by the damage done the constitutional separation of power.”

Pariente also included a few additional choice phrases, which she seized upon in her majority opinion.

She called Canady’s attack on the majority “extravagant.”

“The barrage of epithets employed by the dissent includes the following colorful array: “fallacious”; “fabricated”; “extreme distortion”;”revolutionary deformation”; “teeming with judicial overreaching”; “creatively cobbled”; “aggressive invasion”; “aberrant decision”; and “unprecedented incursions,” Pariente noted.

She said, “Ofcourse, we categorically refuse the dissent’s many derisive critics.” We also point out that the dissent’s exaggerated claims that this court violated the separation and has abolished the presumption that constitutionality applied in legislative acts within the redistricting context are nothing new.