WND EXCLUSIVE
War over 'same-sex marriage' case still on'Political' claims against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore to be reviewed
Published: 1 day ago
Bob Unruh
http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/war-over-same-sex-marriage-case-still-on/The complaint against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore for ordering state judges to adhere to the state law on marriage instead of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision will be reviewed by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary on Aug. 8.
The panel of judges set up to review judicial behavior, the Judicial Inquiry Commission, will consider his motion to dismiss the complaint.
The motion to dismiss argues Moore’s order was an administrative decision over which the review panel has no authority.
“We look forward to our day in court,” said Mat Staver, the chief counsel of Liberty Counsel, which is defending Moore along with Judicial Action Group.
“We have stated all along that the JIC lacked jurisdiction to issue the charges. They are baseless and should be dismissed so the chief justice can return to the work for which the people elected him,” Staver said.
The JIC said it will treat the chief justice’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, so that the single hearing could dispose of the entire case.
The case, which shows the fight over “same-sex marriage” is far from over, was based on allegations from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which previous pulled stunts such as putting Dr. Ben Carson on its “Extremist Watch List.”
Further, the JIC had hired a former member of SPLC to carry out the prosecution of Moore, leading some to charge the JIC’s actions are improper and politically motivated.
The JIC case centers on Moore’s administrative order to judges in January regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that “same-sex marriage” is a constitutional right.
Staver has told the court the administrative order expressly said Moore “could not provide guidance to the probate judges because the matter was pending before the Alabama Supreme Court.”
“The JIC apparently wanted the chief justice to openly disobey the Alabama Supreme Court and to take matters into his own hands,” Staver said. “The JIC’s position is astounding and clearly wrong. It is no wonder why the JIC has no jurisdiction to render legal decisions. When it veers into this forbidden realm, it makes no sense.”
Staver contends the JIC “lacked jurisdiction to issue the charges because they all deal with a legal interpretation that is beyond its authority.”
“We have asked that these baseless charges be dismissed.”
After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in June 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court invited the parties in the Alabama Policy Institute case “to address the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision on this court’s existing orders.” Those orders were that probate judges in the state should follow the state constitution and grant marriage licenses to man-and-woman couples.
In his January order, Moore stated: “I am not at liberty to provide any guidance to Alabama probate judges on the effect of Obergefell on the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court. That issue remains before the entire court which continues to deliberate on the matter.”
Later, that court issued a certificate of judgment regarding its 2015 orders.
The motion to dismiss explained: “The JIC’s complaint is premised upon the false proposition that in his administrative order … the chief justice defied the federal courts. The purpose of that order, however, was to instruct the probate judges about the status of the state-court injunction that had first been imposed upon them in March 2015 and that the June 29, 2015, order of the Alabama Supreme Court had continued in effect post-Obergefell pending further briefing,” court filings reveal.
“The sole purpose of the administrative order in question was to inform the probate judges that six months after the briefing order, the court still remained in deliberation on the matter and that, therefore, the API orders continued in effect pending ‘further decision.'”
The JIC, the motion said, couldn’t tolerate orderly procedures and instead “expressed its displeasure with such … by filing an ethical complaint against the chief justice for respecting the authority of the Alabama Supreme Court to modify its own orders and for recognizing that those orders remained in effect until so modified.”
The motion points out to the JIC that the Alabama Constitution “creates the JIC and specifies its limited jurisdiction and powers.”
“The nine-member JIC has ‘authority to conduct investigations’ concerning any Alabama judge and has the ability to file ethical charges.”
But all six of the JIC charges “arise from a single administrative order,” which is reviewable, according to Alabama Code, only “by the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court.”
The state has “no provision for any other body to review the validity of those orders.”
The actual charges, however, are part of a larger offensive by SPLC and JIC against conservative justices in Alabama.
WND reported that Justice Tom Parker has sued because SPLC filed a complaint with the JIC in an attempt to restrict his free speech, which is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Moore, too, sued the JIC earlier over violations of his constitutional rights in its decision to file charges against him.
The cases suggest SPLC, which smeared Carson by putting him on its “thoroughly disgusting list of ‘haters,'” is working with the JIC to injure the conservatives, according the filings.
SPLC and the JIC are attempting “to intimidate, silence, and punish Justice Parker for his originalist judicial philosophy and protected speech,” the legal action explains.
“Justice Parker has a constitutional right to speak out on the case so long as he is not presently presiding over it. We know have seen a disturbing pattern of the JIC doing the bidding of the Southern Poverty Law Center and filing politically motivated charges against Alabama Supreme Court justices in order to remove them from the bench. It is time to put a stop to this free speech violation and the automatic removal provision,” said Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver.
Moore had sued in federal court, contending that the state process for handling, hearing, responding to and adjudicating complaints against him violates his constitutional rights.
He’s asking the federal court to derail the process that state officials are pursuing, seeking damages and immediate reinstatement.
