So, Roy Moore, in 2003, lost his position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court due to an ethics violation. He refused to obey a lawful federal ruling. (he stated it was due to religious grounds).
In 2013 the people again voted him to be Chief Justice. So, ok, why was he allowed to even run for election for be Chief Justice? This would be like a former President who was impeached and removed for office running for election again.
Ironically, his removal by other judges is just as bad as a felony conviction that men in his position hand out all the time.
Why did he get a ‘second chance’ to again defy the Federal courts?
I can’t think of many instances where anything short of a violent felony bars a candidate from running for public office. Violating bar association rules, getting reprimands in a job jacket, even fairly egregious individual offenses like DUI, soliciting, drug use etc. are no bar anywhere except with voters… and quite obviously there are places and candidates for whom voters don’t give a red rat’s ass about such peccadilloes.
I suspect this guy has a lot of strong supporters on his “state’s rights” stance. (Hears a voice yell out, “Yew tahl 'em, Roy!”)
Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution states the punishments that the Senate can impose following an impeachment: removal from office, and disqualification from ever holding further Federal office. However, they don’t have to do the latter if they don’t want to; current US Representative Alcee Hastings was removed from his federal judgeship after being impeached, but the Senate did not choose to disqualify him from further office. I guess that technically means that a future president could re-nominate Hastings as a judge, but good luck with that confirmation.
Perhaps someone with background in Alabama law can shed some light on whether disqualification from office is something that could have been done to Moore at all, and if so, why it wasn’t.