Alabama judges file an amicus brief in support of suspended Chief Judge Roy Moore's appeal

I wrote on this blog about the suspension of Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore based on his defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage as not being the "law of the land" and part of the U.S. Constitution.

Actually, the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause does not include the U.S. Supreme Court precedents.

Right now, Judge Moore is appealing his suspension for the rest of his term.

He is reportedly supported on his appeal by an amicus brief filed by Alabama judges who claim that the judicial disciplinary authorities of the State of Alabama had no authority to discipline and suspend the judge based on his issuance of an administrative order.

This is the summary of the judges' argument:

The entire brief is published in the interlinked article.

The case of Judge Moore continues to be a very interesting case, raising vital issues of litigants throughout the country, specifically:

1) what is the legal status of U.S. Supreme Court decisions - since they are not part of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution?

2) are such decisions mandatory to follow for state courts in other cases?

3) can a judge be sanctioned for issuing a trial or administrative order and for its contents?

I will continue to cover this story.

Stay tuned.