Roy Moore Is Constitutionally Illiterate

Asked about allegations Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore dated and engaged in appropriate conduct with teenage girls several decades ago, Alabama state senator Dick Brewbaker commented “I do not buy the idea that suddenly because it’s now the U.S. Senate, she felt like she had to come forward. I mean, come on. He’s run for governor, and he’s been elected to the highest court in the land twice.” This is one of the main defenses of Moore—that’s he a long-standing public figure suddenly bemsirched by allegations about four-decade-old events. And it is certainly true Roy Moore was twice elected to the Alabama Supreme Court. What Brewbaker neglected to mention is that in both cases, he was removed from office.

On January 15, 2001, Roy S. Moore was sworn in as chief justice of the Alabama supreme court. He promised to “support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama” and to “faithfully and honestly discharge the duties” of his office. Although Moore had been elected to a six-year term, he would be removed from the bench in 2003.

Shortly after assuming office, Moore commissioned for the rotunda of the state supreme court a monument to the “moral foundation of law” depicting, among other things, the Ten Commandments. As anyone could have predicted, progressive activists promptly sued, alleging the monument’s placement in the heart of the state’s judicial building constituted an “establishment of religion,” which is prohibited by the First Amendment. A federal district court agreed and ordered the monument removed.

Moore refused to comply with the order, which was upheld on appeal and then denied review by the Supreme Court. Moore’s state supreme court colleagues had the monument taken out.

In a 2003 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Moore maintained that his “decision to disregard the unlawful order of the federal judge was not civil disobedience, but the lawful response of the highest judicial officer of the state to his oath of office.” In subsequent remarks, he suggested that removing the Decalogue display was itself a violation of his oath—as if such a monument were required under state law.