Roy Moore, candidate for US Senate from Alabama and twice-removed for cause Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama has called for the impeachment of a federal judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, because she had the gall to review an action taken by the executive branch of the United States, find it not in comportment with the laws of the US, and issue an order to take the action necessary to bring executive action back within the bounds of US law. Via Twitter, Ben Jacobs of the Guardian*1 reports on this statement by Moore:
The decision of a federal judge in the District of Columbia enjoining President Trump’s executive order on transgenderism in the military is absolutely ridiculous and is a perfect example of the outlandish doctrine of judicial supremacy whereby judges exalt themselves over the Constitution which they are sworn to uphold. …
Judge Kollar-Kotelly should be impeached by the House of Representatives for unlawful usurpation of power (Article 2, § 4) and lack of good behavior (Article 3, § 1), and referred to the Senate for a vote on removal.
Remember that given Moore’s history in being removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to follow the decisions of the court that the Constitution labels “Supreme” and to which the Constitution gives either original/sole jurisdiction or final appellate jurisdiction – on matters of both law and fact – in every single case, Moore is someone that really ought to know something about impeachment.
Although I didn’t speak to Moore, given his clear, thoughtful statements on the state of constitutional law in such basic areas as the right to privacy, the right to freedom of religious practice and freedom from state religious regulation, and the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, I would fully expect that he has already issued or will issue a follow-up statement clarifying why he thinks that it is wrong for a US federal judge to issue an order for mandating action on the part of the highest officers of the executive. That statement appeared fully formed in my mind, and when you see it, I’m sure it will closely resemble the following:
This all dates back to the case of Marbury v Maryland, where the FDIC was told that they couldn’t tax slaughterhouses without Thomas Jefferson first issuing the Great Commission to a justice of the peace who could determine that the slaughterhouses were keeping kosher, because the right to tax a carcass inevitably includes the right to devour a carcass, and no one has a right to any action which violates the commandments of the big G-D.
That Moore. Where could you possibly find a legal mind equal to Moore’s? What can you say about him, besides that his Originalism is truly … original.
*1: At this point in time, I’m unsure if it will be followed up with an article on the Guardian’s website or in its pages or if this will stand merely as Jacobs’ independent work, but I thought his relationship to the Guardian was important to note since without that role he might not have performed the background work that led to him having this information in the first place. You can decide if you want to judge the source for its relationship to the Guardian or not.