Marbury v. Madison in secondary school. Staver has filed his response on behalf of his client, Roy Moore, with the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. It is a rather voluminous motion but it breaks down into three parts really (one part bats…— no, not that):
First Staver is making a big deal about about an apparent leak to the New York Times from someone at the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC). It is unfortunate and if they can find the person responsible I am sure that he or she will be disciplined. Other than that it is irrelevant.
Secondly he is claiming that the JIC (which acted like a grand jury) lacked jurisdiction because they were required to interpret law beyond its authority. First of all the JIC were not the tryers of fact; They were the investigators. The matter is now in the hands of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. It is up to them to make a determination.
Thirdly he is trying to make a case that Moore was justified in defying a federal judge's order and then the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of the federal district court judge, the proper course of action was to bring the matter to the Court of Appeals. Moore did not do so. With respect to the Supreme Court, they are the final arbiters of the United States Constitution. They established that gay couples had a constitutional right to marry and the Court explicitly nullified state same-sex marriage bans. Simply stated it is impermissible for states to interfere with the constitutional rights of its citizens.
Mr. Staver knows this. Mr. Moore probably knows this as well. I expect that Moore's days as an Alabama judge are over. For the record, Mat Staver's firm, Liberty Counsel, is designated a hate group by the SPLC.