This jackass will never sit on the bench again.
Oh and check out who his lawyer is… :rolleyes:
I love that he is suspended, not fired, so he can’t even run again until he ages out.
But he’s probably on the top of Trump’s Supreme Court list.
Typical. He calls his removal “politically motivated” instead of removing an asshat from a position of power and influence.
Well, I guess Less Really IS Moore… 
Moore’s Law was getting a bit difficult to uphold.
Best news I’ve heard all day.
Moore’s lawyer said “The rule of law should trump political agendas.”
Well then, be happy, because that’s exactly what happened.
No, no. The rule of their law.
Not on the list that he has released publicly, anyway.
Moore reminds me of some of those people in the Jury Nullification thread, who think that their personal opinion trumps established legal processes. Plus megalomania.
The most amazing thing about this particular group of “them” is that to them “law” means “Old Testament law”. Interesting stance for a bunch of supposed Christians.
oh good - the same one who defended Kim Davis.
gee, that’s reassuring.
Mike Huckabee’s bass roadie?
Well, the good news (I live in Ali-bama) is that he can’t screw up the Alabama Supreme Court anymore (I’m guessing more than a few judges there are happy to see him go).
As for the bad news…guess who is the leading candidate for Governor in 2018?
Yes, because being a bigot against homosexuals is remotely similar to thinking the legal system is unfair and unjust.
If this were reversed, and this guy was an LGBT-ally who supported a clerk who was giving out SSM certificates illegally, and he had the same thing happen to him, I’d say he was a hero and the punishment unjust. And I’m pretty sure I’d have a lot of supporters here.
For some reason, legalists seem to think this is a flaw. But it’s not. I don’t hold the law to be the epitome of virtue. The law can inform what’s right and wrong, but it’s not the be-all end-all. And that’s why maintaining the right of nullification is important.
Until we have a system where no innocent man goes to jail, there will always be a need for nullification. And I am free to argue what I think would make the system work better.
He already tried to and got clobbered in two prior primaries after his previous problens. May be that it happens yet again.
This is all wrong on so many levels.
First, what I am defending is the principle that the legal system ought not to be overthrown, in any case, by the individual opinions of one person. It doesn’t matter if that opinion is right or wrong. You might have supporters in your posited case, but they would be just as wrong as you are (about this point, not about their support for LGBT rights).
Second, it is not “the law” that is the epitome of virtue, it is the legal process that protects us from anarchy and vigilantism.
Third, no legal system or process is ever going to be perfect. If your standard is “it has to be perfect or I don’t support it” then you are doomed to a lifetime of complete disappointment. You are free to argue about it, but you ought not to be free to act in the way you propose.
Having said all that, I propose to stop this hijack and refer these arguments back to the jury nullification thread. I only drew a parallel that I thought was relevant, I did not expect to re-visit these issues here.