Everyone’s favorite theocrat, former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, continues to pursue every possible angle to get his job back.
When we last heard from Moore, he was being thrown off the bench by the state’s Court of the Judiciary for violating judicial ethics, stemming from his refusal to abide by a federal court order. Now, as expected, he’s appealing that ruling.
But there’s an odd twist. Moore’s only choice in appealing the Court of the Judiciary’s ruling is taking his case to the state Supreme Court, of which Moore used to be a member. All of the eight other members of the state court have recused themselves from hearing Moore’s appeal, because of their earlier involvement, leaving the Alabama Supreme Court with no judges to hear Moore’s appeal.
So the state is left with the unpleasant task of finding a whole new set of state Supreme Court justices to consider just one case — Moore’s appeal.
This week, the names of 20 retired Alabama judges were put in a box to be selected randomly until seven people could be appointed to hear Moore’s case. Of course, the retired judges are free to say no when their name is pulled out of the box. Indeed, of the first seven names selected, only one has agreed to participate, while one has refused, and the others are still thinking about it.
No one yet knows what would happen if the state can’t find seven willing participants and too many of the 20 decline the invitation to hear the case. Shouldn’t Moore just lose by default?