No, Pryor upheld other judicial rulings, which although misconceived, are the current ruling.
The easier thing would have been to uphold Moore's position.
Moore was behaving exactly like the San Francisco Mayor. He was disobeying the law, based on his personal beliefs. Neither one is acceptable.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; ... where th eintention is clear there is no room
for construction ,and no excuse for interpolation or addition."Joseph Story ,Martin v.Hunters' Lessee ;
The COnstitution is a written instrument.As such it's meaning does not alter.That which it meant when it was adopted ,it means now."SOuth Carolina v.the United States.
The 14th amendment was drafted in 1868 and NO court until
1940 desired to bastardize the Constitution until 1940.
What Roy S.Moore did cannot be compared to the Mayor in San
Francisco who took what has Never been and declared it as
justification. Roy S.Moore took was is written and stood on the Rule of Law.