The World Around You

The Mobile Register spells out how dangerous the legal arguments being made by Roy Moore’s attorneys really are,

For evidence of the radical nature of his cause, look no farther than a recent article by one of his lawyers, John Eidsmoe, a professor at Faulkner University’s Jones School of Law.

Written for an outfit called American Heritage Research, Mr. Eidsmoe’s article openly states that the Moore case is based on the legal doctrine known as “interposition.” It holds that a state official can interfere with a federal official’s ruling if the state official considers it illegitimate.

Mr. Eidsmoe absurdly called interposition a “middle ground position,” but he also acknowledged that “implementation of the doctrine may be peaceable … or may proceed ultimately to nullification with forcible resistance.”

More concretely, interposition is the theory that was used by the Confederacy to justify secession from the union — and later used by former Gov. George Wallace to justify opposition to civil rights for black Americans.

The chief justice is not only raising the stakes in a way that his own lawyer admits could lead to “forcible resistance” (read: violence), but for a theory inextricably linked to blatant racial discrimination.

Mr. Eidsmoe’s article defending interposition takes readers on a wild ride through a full millennium of skewed history and quotes from theologians as well as politicians. But the gist of his argument is that if state officials abide by court decisions they believe to be unconstitutional, “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, though, already has destroyed that argument. In a speech last month at Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, Mr. Pryor noted that — unlike in past tyrannies cited by Mr. Eidsmoe — “our federal and state governments are far superior to Caesar in providing justice and securing religious freedom.”

Most important, we live in a society in which, “when the judiciary interprets the Constitution erroneously, we still retain all the lawful tools of political opposition. … We can campaign for different policies. We can elect candidates who will enact our favored policies. Our elected officials can appoint judges faithful to the rule of law. We can bring new cases before the courts and urge the overruling of erroneous precedents. If necessary, we can even amend the Constitution.”?

These arguments just strengthen my belief that the Supreme Court will see fit to let the order of the Court of Appeals stand. I also choose to believe that the Judicial Inquiry Commission will make the right decision and remove the suspended Chief Justice from office.