WASHINGTON (Christian Examiner) -- Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore called for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg late last week suggesting she violated ethical standards for federal judges by commenting on a case before her when officiating a same-sex marriage ceremony in Washington, D.C. May 17.
[Ginsburg] is actually commenting on a case that is the same issue that is before her – the constitutionality vel non of same-sex marriage, and she's pronouncing a marriage by saying under the authority of the Constitution.
Ginsburg gave a sly look and emphasized the word "Constitution" when she pronounced the two men married by the powers vested in her by the United States Constitution, Moore said, quoting a New York Times report of the event.
"[Ginsburg] is actually commenting on a case that is the same issue that is before her – the constitutionality vel non of same-sex marriage, and she's pronouncing a marriage by saying under the authority of the Constitution," Moore said.
The United States Supreme Court justices heard arguments in April challenging same-sex marriage bans in four states. The Court's decision, expected in June, has the potential of forcing all 50 states to legalize same sex unions.
Moore noted both Ginsburg and Justice Elena Kagan had performed same-sex marriage ceremonies prior to the April oral arguments and that calls had been made for the two to recuse themselves from the high court case.
His comments came at the end of an approximate 20-minute conversation in which Moore argued that the United States Supreme Court had historically decided that marriage and parenting laws reside with states rather than the federal government.
As recently as 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsoron the basis that the federal government had no authority over marriage and divorce, Moore said.
In its 2013 decision, Moore noted the Court cited precedent set by the 1906 Haddock v. Haddock decision which claimed that at the time the United States Constitution was adopted, states possessed full power with regard to marriage and divorce and that the federal Constitution delegated no authority to the United States government on these subjects.
"That's the U.S. Supreme Court saying in the case of DOMA the federal government has no authority over the subject of marriage divorce. Well, they're part of the federal government, and we're now waiting to see whether they violate their principle," he commented.
Moore also told Perkins that the word "marriage" cannot be found in the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment declares that powers not delegated to the federal government nor denied to states by the Constitution are reserved for states.
"They simply don't have this power," he said of the possibility that the Supreme Court will change the legal definition of marriage nationwide.
"Twenty-three states have bowed down to unlawful federal authority in stopping their constitutional issues, and it's so deceptive because you'll see in the paper how many states have adopted same-sex marriage," Moore continued. "Most of these states have been ordered by federal courts or seven state supreme courts that their constitutions were unconstitutional and therefore they had to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Historically, from the inception of the Constitution, federal courts had no authority over the subject of marriage and divorce in the state."
Moore said the 2013 decision also quoted an 1890 court case that determined domestic relationships between husband and wife and parents and children are under the purview of state laws. "I think that case is important because if they can violate this authority over divorce, can they also violate that authority over parent and child?" he wondered aloud.
With regard to Ginsburg, Moore said she has also publicly called the Constitution old and outdated.
"It's old and outdated because people are not obeying it and recognizing its limitation on power. One of those persons is Justice Ginsberg . . . If Congress is going to let these justices disobey the Constitution they're sworn to uphold, then Congress has a check and a balance. It's called impeachment," he said.