Alabama AG Answers Conservative Criticism for Prosecuting Moore

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 11/14/03 | David Thibault

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - Once an ally of ousted Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor Thursday insisted he did not prosecute Moore because of the judge's stance on a Ten Commandments public display.

"I did not prosecute the chief justice for the Ten Commandments. I prosecuted the chief justice because he refused to obey a court order from a federal district court that had been affirmed by the court of appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States had decided not to review," Pryor told CNSNews.com.

Pryor commented shortly after Alabama's nine-member Court of the Judiciary stripped Moore of his position for defying the order of U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson to remove the Ten Commandments display from the rotunda of the state courthouse.

In fulfilling his statutory duty to prosecute Moore, Pryor said his own personal views were irrelevant to the controversy and did not require him to remove himself from the case.

"I support the public display of the Ten Commandments, but I have never supported disobedience of a court order. It's my duty to represent the Judicial Inquiry Commission, and I did my duty."

Moore's attorneys had argued for Pryor's recusal before the Court of the Judiciary, but "the court unanimously ruled against them," Pryor said.

However, in prosecuting Moore, Pryor managed to anger many cultural conservatives from Alabama and elsewhere who had previously supported President Bush's nomination of the conservative attorney general to a seat on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mark Iain Sutherland, president of the Positive Action Coalition, a grassroots activist group in St. Louis, Mo., said that while he once supported Pryor's nomination to the federal bench, he now has too many questions left unanswered.

"Does [Pryor] have any convictions? Is he going to be playing political games? Is he going to be furthering his agenda like he's been doing as attorney general?...You can't really know that anymore because he switches, depending on the political opportunity," Sutherland said of Pryor.

In defying the federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments display he had ordered erected in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building, Moore argued that he was supporting the religious foundation on which the United States was created.

On Thursday, Sutherland accused Pryor of buckling to the judicial opinion of Thompson when he should have sought to defend the language of the U.S. Constitution acknowledging God.

"When a judge says something that is in contradiction to...the United States Constitution, [Pryor] is duty-bound to stand against that order," Sutherland said. "Just because a judge says something, it doesn't have the power of law, it's judicial opinion. People nowadays are saying: 'Well if a judge says it, it is law.' It is not law. It is judicial opinion."

Pryor is no darling of the political left either. His nomination has been the subject of a filibuster by Senate Democrats, who accuse Pryor of being a conservative extremist.

When Pryor was asked Thursday how he expected his prosecution of Moore to affect his nomination to the federal bench, he insisted it had "nothing to do with my nomination."

"I'm honored to be a nominee of the president, and I will continue to be, as long as he wants me to be his nominee," Pryor told CNSNews.com.

But Sutherland said Pryor should have stood behind Moore, even at the expense of his judicial nomination.

"Just because Democrats or...anybody is giving you a hard time about the values that you hold doesn't mean you should shift them around and try and appease them. You should stand for what you stand for. Whether that means that you don't get confirmed, then so be it."

Pryor is term-limited as Alabama's attorney general. As for a political future beyond his current office, Pryor is "not running for anything," Suzanne Webb, a spokeswoman for Pryor, said.

See Earlier Story:
Roy Moore Removed From Chief Justice Post (Nov. 13, 2003)

E-mail a news tip to David Thibault.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

[Burlem]

Maybe we should pass this e-mail on ..........:)

You just gotta love Dennis Miller on this one.....

Dennis Miller said recently, regarding the judges who declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional: "So, Your Honor, the Pledge is unconstitutional because it says 'Under God'. Guess that means when you were sworn in with your hand on a Bible, and at the end of your oath repeated, 'So Help Me God' that makes your job unconstitutional, therefore you have no job, which means your ruling doesn't mean shit.

[Scenic Sounds]

"When a judge says something that is in contradiction to...the United States Constitution, [Pryor] is duty-bound to stand against that order," Sutherland said. "Just because a judge says something, it doesn't have the power of law, it's judicial opinion. People nowadays are saying: 'Well if a judge says it, it is law.' It is not law. It is judicial opinion."

A judicial order is the law in the case in which it is issued.

[KEVLAR]

Is an order the same as an opinion?

[Semper Vigilantis]

Once again we have an elected official hiding behind what he percieves as "legal" because he doesn't have the moxie to stand up for what is RIGHT. I would expect this from California, but Alabama?!?

[xzins]

It is an interesting question.

If a higher court issue a patently illegal order, should one follow it because it's a higher court?

[Scenic Sounds]

Is an order the same as an opinion?

Well, there are opinions which do not contain orders and are merely declarative. An order is a directive, either directing that some act be done or not be done.

[joesnuffy]

wait till they decide to replace the upper case "G" in God with the lower "g" as in god
making god a generic term for which ever 'god' or 'non god' one decides to acknowledge
So help me "whatever"

[bigeasy_70118]

Is an order the same as an opinion?

No.

An Order is a final ruling on an issue in a case, usually in the trial court. An opinion, generally is from an appeals court and outlines the reasons for a decision.

[Sunshine Sister]

I hope Pryor does not end up on the federal bench. It's pretty hard to uphold the law as stated in the Constitution when he has clearly never read it! If he had he'd know better!

[yatros from flatwater]

Well, it is "law" if one accepts that the role of the judge is to legislate from the bench rather than to interpret the law, which really is the crux of the matter.

To paraphrase a famous playwright: "The first thing to do is to overturn Marbury v. Madison."

[Sunshine Sister]

Miller got that right!

[Leatherneck_MT]

"I support the public display of the Ten Commandments, but I have never supported disobedience of a court order. It's my duty to represent the Judicial Inquiry Commission, and I did my duty."

Yep so did your average Nazi. It wasn't a defense then and it's not now.

[k2blader]

"Does [Pryor] have any convictions? Is he going to be playing political games? Is he going to be furthering his agenda like he's been doing as attorney general?...You can't really know that anymore because he switches, depending on the political opportunity," Sutherland said of Pryor.

What a blithering idiot.

Pryor did what he did *because* he has convictions, is not playing political games, and isn't futhering his agenda.

[Scenic Sounds]

Yes, things will be much different after you get the Supreme Court to overrule Marbury.

Good luck. ;-)

[RJCogburn]

Well, I guess for some conservatives, The Rule of Law is a good thing to stand on when it suits their purposes as in the case of the Clinton's, but when they don't like it, they are all to happy to play games.

[OldFriend]

And he prosecuted him to sweeten up his chances of being confirmed by the Senate.

IOW, he sold his soul for a confirmation he will NEVER receive.

[Sloth]

but I have never supported disobedience of a court order.

Dred Scott?

[yatros from flatwater]

Well, You and I both know that they won't and as a result the Constitution is ineffective in restraining Leviathan, as the antifederalists feared.