Judge Moore is Right!

We stand with God's Word and the law of our land for marriage as defined by God - union between one man and one woman.

standwithcheif2By issuing the complaint against Chief Justice Roy Moore, the Judicial Inquiry Commission, as a body, has overstepped its bounds and and sided with lawless tyranny. This is an action more akin to a witch hunt than a pertinent introduction to charges against an elected judge. We have scrutinized the charges, read the complaints that facilitated those charges, read every attached exhibit and searched in vain for a legitimate ethics charge against Chief Justice Moore. Every one of the six charges levied against the Chief Justice is due to be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim.

At issue is the Chief Justice’s administrative order dated January 6th, 2016. While the Canons of Judicial Ethics say that judges “should abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court,” that rule “does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court.” Administrative orders are issued not in a judicial capacity but in an administrative capacity. Such orders are well within the constitutional authority of the Chief Justice. Alabama code further states that, as the administrative head of the judicial system, the Chief Justice is authorized to “take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state.”

It is no secret that there is conflict in the courts, in the culture, in the church, among probate judges, and in the legal profession about how to deal with the marriage issue. Squelching debate is never an answer for any conflict resolution and filing charges related to an administrative order under the guise of enforcing judicial ethics is not an acceptable solution for legal controversy. While the Commission and the activists behind the inquiry may have ideological disagreements with Chief Justice Moore’s position, these disagreements do not warrant the action taken on May 6, 2016 - or the leaking of confidential information that was printed in two newspapers before the decision was to be made.

We have responded to each of the six charges here.

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar