https://www.facebook.com/donald.v.watkins/posts/10209688186743599
The Case Against Roy Moore
By Donald V. Watkins
©Copyrighted and Published (via Facebook) on June 17, 2016
©Copyrighted and Published (via Facebook) on June 17, 2016
In May 2016, a nonpartisan group of citizens who form the independent Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission ("JIC") charged Chief Justice Roy Moore with violating the Judicial Canons of Ethics. The JIC laid the facts out in the charges against Moore. He will be tried by a separate nine member, nonpartisan, independent group of citizens who form the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.
This is the second time Justice Moore has been charged by the JIC with violating the Judicial Canons of Ethics. The Court of the Judiciary first removed Moore from the Supreme Court in 2003 after he was found guilty of violating the Canons of Ethics in another matter. Moore was suspended from the bench last month after the JIC lodged it current charges against him.
The citizens who serve on the two independent judicial oversight bodies involved in Moore's case were confirmed in their official positions by the Alabama Legislature, which is overwhelmingly Republican. The issue before these two bodies is not a "left" or "right" political issue. The issue is whether Roy Moore complied with the applicable Judicial Canon of Ethics.
The Canons are rules that govern the conduct of judges in the performance of their official duties. All judges must comply fully with these rules.
In May, the Judicial Inquiry Commission charged Justice Moore with six counts of willfully failing "to comply with an existing and binding court order directed to him". Moore failed to comply with this binding court order violated Canons of Ethics Numbers 1, 2, 2(A), and 2(B), all of which are rules designed to promote integrity and confidence in the Alabama court system. The specific order that Moore willfully disobeyed was a binding federal court order directing the Alabama court system in general, and Moore in particular, to recognize same-sex marriages in Alabama.
All citizens must comply with existing and binding court orders directed to them, whether they agree with them or not. This is particularly true for judges, who issue orders all of the time.
The voters of Alabama created a constitutionally established JIC and Court of the Judiciary to make sure that judges follow the Alabama Canons of Ethics. The Canons bind judges, not the voters who elected them. Every person is expected to comply with an existing and binding court order directed to him/her. If there is a conflict between the political views of the voters who support a judicial candidate and the Canons of Ethics applicable to a judge's conduct on the bench, then, under Alabama's constitution, the Canons of Ethics prevail.
The other eight Supreme Court Justices are complying with the Canons on the binding court order involved in Moore's case. If the JIC and Court of the Judiciary did not enforce the Canons, then every judge would be free to do whatever he/she wanted and could blame his/her violations of the Canons of Ethics on his/her efforts to comply with the will of the voters who supported him/her.
In America, judicial cases are decided based upon the facts in the case and applicable law and not on the politically popular views regarding the issues involved in the litigation.
Donald V Watkins
No comments:
Post a Comment