The STATE SUPREME COURT of ALABAMA ruled against him! He is breaking their ruling on the law. How is that a federal matter?
(from today's Washington Times)
But the eight state justices said Judge Thompson's order must be followed, writing that they are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it."... In their decision, the eight state justices invoked a state law that gives them the authority to overrule any administrative decision made by the chief justice.
They caved in on the principle, not the law.
The Alabama Supreme Court says they are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law". What "law" are they following in this case? There is NO Federal law, passed by Congress, which addresses this controvery. Only forty years of judicial activism has formed some sort of precedent. But, no law. So, are they saying whatever a Federal judge says is now "law"? Apparently they have conceeded that point.
What they've done in saying they are following "law" is in fact only following a judge's orders, which is a far different thing than following the law - unless everybody wants to conceed whatever a Federal judge says from the bench is settled law.
Now these judges have picked an Alabama Law with which to enforce the ridiculous ruling of a non-existant Federal Law. This is a slipperly slope Judge Moore is refusing to traverse, and for good reason.
I fear these Alabama Judges have picked the wrong hill to die on.