The Supreme Court refused to block the removal of Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments display yesterday, rejecting an emergency appeal filed by Moore’s attorneys.
It was, to be sure, a long shot. Herb Titus, who’s heading Moore’s defense, offered a pretty silly argument to the high court, saying the Supreme Court should let the monument stay so as to “permit the chief justice to fulfill the campaign promise that he made to the citizens of Alabama to restore the moral foundation of law.”
That’s Moore’s best argument? The religious monument is obviously in conflict with the First Amendment and years of court precedent, but let’s keep it where he is so Moore can “fulfill a campaign promise”? Yeah, that’s persuasive.
This does not mean, however, that the Supreme Court has ruled on the merits of the case or even on whether to hear his appeal. Yesterday’s announcement only dealt with whether the high court — or more accurately, Justice Kennedy — would intervene to delay enforcement of the district court’s order about removing “Roy’s rock” by the Aug. 20 deadline (which obviously didn’t happen).
At this point, however, the Supreme Court could still agree to hear Moore’s case and consider his argument. I don’t think that’s going to happen, but it’s possible.
In the meantime, the washing-machine shaped religious display sits in the state judicial building in Montgomery. Moore’s cult following are holding candlelight vigils, promising civil disobedience, and literally praying around the 5,280-pound piece of granite day and night.
By the way, Carpetbagger regular Maverick called yesterday with an interesting observation. Isn’t the worship of Moore’s monument a textbook example of idolatry? And isn’t that frowned upon in the Bible? Good point, Mav.
In any event, the good news (pardon the pun) out of Alabama is that state officials appear to regard the rule of law a bit more seriously than Moore does.
I had feared that state officials like Gov. Bob Riley and Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor (yes, that Bill Pryor) would follow Moore’s lead on this. After all, both have endorsed Moore’s crusade and argued for more government endorsement of religion through their government offices.
Apparently, Riley and Pryor agree that Moore is right about the Commandments, but think he’s wrong about ignoring federal court orders.
In fact, Pryor announced this week that he will enforce the federal court order regarding the removal of Moore’s monument, even though he disagrees with the judge’s ruling.
“I expect it to be removed very soon,” Pryor said. He added, “My responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, and I will be doing my duty.”
I don’t care much for Pryor’s politics, and I’ve railed against his judicial nomination on more occasions than I can count, but it’s reassuring that even he sees Moore’s defiance of a federal court order as misguided.
I have a hunch that had Pryor not been nominated to the 11th Circuit, and been forced to explicitly promise that he can set aside personal feelings to honor the rule of law, he may not be as willing to enforce the district court’s order in this case. Nevertheless, Pryor has committed to following the law and I’m glad.
Just as encouraging, the eight men and women who serve with Moore on the Alabama Supreme Court are considering action of their own. The Mobile Register reported that Moore’s colleagues “have considered using a state law that allows a majority of the court to overrule an administrative decision by the chief justice,” though they are not expected to take action unless Judge Thompson starts trying to collect some of the $5,000 daily fines.
Once the monument is gone, will it possible to begin impeachment proceedings against Moore?