OK. I can steer clear of a direct states' rights argument while still advancing my case.
Sure, the federal judge cites the First Amendment as the pitiful justification for the wrongful decision to order the monument removed. Part of my aim must be to defend Judge Moore against this scurrilous charge.
However, it is also fair for me to make a direct case against what the federal judge Thompson did, the essential by what law? question. There is no requirement for me to cast that action as an individual rights infringement. Let me be clear: I do not accuse Thompson of infringing anyone's individual rights! And yet I adamantly protest his action.
Since neither the Court of Appeals nor the US Supreme Court have chosen to stay or overturn the decision, it is probably considered well reasoned. Thompson describes the elements leading to his decision very clearly. It will answer, better then I ever could, the exact laws (and court interpretations) involved.
Reading some of the comments Moore made at the trial does make me wonder about his judicial temperament.
Anyway, I'd be happy to discuss it with anyone who has read it.