"He probably does not realize it, but Attorney General Pryor shares the jurisprudence of the German judges put on trial at Nuremberg," the chief justice's attorneys wrote in their brief. "... The judges in Germany swore an oath similar to the one taken by the German military" and "... argued that they were simply following the law of obeying orders of higher officials. This is the position (Pryor) has taken with respect to Roe v. Wade."
The Chalcedon article says this: He probably does not realize it, but Attorney General Pryor shares the jurisprudence of the German judges put on trial at Nuremberg in the case of U. S. v. Alstoetter, a trial made famous in the Hollywood production Judgment at Nuremberg. The judges in Germany swore an oath similar to the one taken by the German military: “I swear by God this sacred oath, that I will render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Fuehrer of the German Reich and people, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces …” The German judges defended their actions in enforcing unjust “laws” and of convicting and even sentencing men and women to death who were innocent of wrongdoing or guilty of only minor wrongs. The German judges argued that they were simply following the law of obeying orders of higher officials. Their actions, they argued, were therefore justified. This is the position that Attorney General Pryor has taken with respect to Roe v. Wade. He has promised to withhold the protection of law from thousands of innocent unborn children until the “law” changes. He doesn’t seem to see that Roe v. Wade is an act of lawlessness. It is not law. Compare that to the situation that the Alstoetter court noted existed in Germany: “[T]he dagger of the assassin was concealed beneath the robe of the jurist.”
If you have a link to the brief Moore's lawyers filed, I'd appreciate it, but it does appear they used the exact wording and phraseology from the Chalcedon article in their brief. I'm just curious if they quoted the entire article, took parts of the article verbatim, reworded it as a legal pleading or some other variation or combination. The quotes I've highlighted in red appear that Moore's lawyers did quote the Chalcedon article.
I did follow your link and read your other post before responding, so I'm not the one just spewing. I just consider your discovery to be unimportant. Lawyers borrow good arguments from diverse sources all the time. And whenever there is a high profile case, lots of people try to help. You don't have to be a scary reconstructionist to want a judge to be able to officially acknowledge the historical root of much of American law.
Besides, the argument put forth in the article and in the legal brief is hardly reconstructionist. It may be more or less effective in and of itself, but thinking the source of the argument taints the argument is to commit the genetic fallacy in logic.