Replies

This is one of the most seriously misguided articles from our side of the political fence that I have seen in a long time. The issue is whether we live under a government of laws, or not. This guy Moore guy feels, based solely on his personal value system, that he is the sole judge of what is permissible under the law. In our country, individuals do not and should not have the power to disregard statutes or lawful court orders based on their personal views about them. Pryor, as the chief law enforcement officer in his state, did his duty in applying the law to a law-breaker despite his personal views,and should be praised for that. If only all government officials could be counted on to faithfully execute the constitution and laws.

There are other officials who believe that their personal take on the law and morality should override statutes, voter referendums, and the established legal processes for resolving disputes over public policy. For example, the lawless Mayor Newsom of San Francisco feels that he is free to allow gay marriage in San Francisco, despite it being contrary to the express letter of California law (and a voter referendum), because of his own personal beliefs and personal "interpretation" of the California Constitution. How does this differ in principle from what the former Alabama judge Moore did?

Unless conservatives are consistent in their support of the rule of law, we are lost. We know that many on the left hate the rule of law, and will misuse the courts or other techniques to accomplish their desired policy ends despite clear laws and public opinion to the contrary. We lose our moral standing to oppose left-wing demagogues and judicial activists if we are unwilling to apply the rule of law to all, regardless of their political beliefs.