The political circus in California has been temporarily eclipsed by the one in Alabama, where Judge Roy Moore is currently playing his own version of Terminator by ferociously attacking the rule of law.
The political circus in California has been temporarily eclipsed by the one in Alabama, where Judge Roy Moore is currently playing his own version of Terminator by ferociously attacking the rule of law.
There has been much written about the current controversy over the huge stone table inscribed with one of the many versions of the Ten Commandments that Moore installed in the public courthouse, but most of the arguments—pro and con—miss the essential point.
What would our reaction be to a police officer who decided that rape laws didn’t deserve enforcement, and who proceeded to ignore their violation? What about an officer who—in the mode of the old “Dirty Harry” films—decided for himself who the bad guys were and proceeded to kill them before they could be tried?
What would we say about a zoning official who refused to issue permits for buildings he decided were ugly, even though they met the zoning requirements? Or a state legislator who decided that conflict-of-interest rules shouldn’t apply to him? A few years ago, former Mayor Goldsmith was roundly criticized for comments following a Star report that the wastewater treatment plant had not complied with state bid laws. He had defended the violation by saying that the laws hadn’t kept pace with the needs of a 21st century city.
So what do we say about a judge who refuses to follow long-settled law, based upon his belief that his religion is more important? (And would all the folks who seem to agree with him grant Muslim judges or Wiccan judges the same leeway? If not, would they restrict judicial office to Christians? Prostestants?)
Moore is, of course, entitled to his opinion about the propriety of precedents. And if he were not a judge, sworn to uphold the laws of the land, he would be free to agitate, argue and otherwise make his opinions known. As a judge, he is also free to “call ‘em as he sees ‘em” in the absence of controlling precedents. What he is not free to do is openly defy both precedent and legal process, because to do so is to challenge the very concept of the rule of law. If Moore can ignore the law, there is no reason to chastise those who don’t comply with bid laws, or police officers who make their own rules.
The religion clauses of the First Amendment give each of us the right to believe as we wish, and the right to promote those beliefs in any way we wish—except one. We are not permitted to use government to privilege the beliefs of some citizens over others. We can bring our religion into the public square, but we cannot insist that it be endorsed by the public sector.
There is something worse than entering a government building that proclaims, in effect, that some citizens are more welcome than others. What is worse is to have your case heard by a judge who is openly contemptuous of law.