[Law]

More of the old familiar names.

Add in Roy Moore, or at least his lawyers:

This, also, isn't "discussion" but, rather, an effort to spread guilt by association.

[Catspaw]

If you had followed my link rather than just spewing, you'd see that Moore's attorneys, if you compare the article and Moore's lawyers filings prior to his removal as chief justice, appear to be word for word from the Chalcedon article,, at least when it comes to comparing William Pryor and Nazi judges, and Pryor's position on Roe v. Wade.  If I'd like to be able to compare the article from Chalcedon with the complete pleadings of Moore's lawyers, but according to the al.com article, Moore's lawyers are quoted as saying this in the Mobile Register:

 

"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.