Connect with us

Guest Columnists

Open Letter to the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission

Avatar

Published

on

From Dr. Tom Ford, III
Re: Chief Justice Roy S. Moore

Members of the Judicial Inquiry Commission — Chairman Billy Bedsole, Judge Randall Cole, Judge David Kimberley, Mr. David Scott, Judge Craig Pittman, Dr. David Thrasher, Judge Kim Cheney, Mr. Ralph Malone, Ms. Augusta Dowd, Ms. Jenny Garrett, and Ms. Rosa Davis:

We speak to the Judicial Inquiry Commission as a body, understanding that it acts at the behest of the majority of its members. To any members who dissented from the decision to bring charges against the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy S. Moore, we wholeheartedly thank you. The following letter is not addressed to you.

However, to the J.I.C. as an institution, we say that by issuing your Complaint against Chief Justice Roy Moore, you overstepped your bounds and you took the wrong side. We have read the background section and found it to be more akin to a witch hunt than a pertinent introduction to charges against a judge. We have scrutinized the charges. We have read the complaints that facilitated those charges. We have read every exhibit that you attached. We search in vain for a legitimate ethics charge against Chief Justice Moore.

You levy six charges against the Chief Justice. Every one of them is due to be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. You take issue with the Chief Justice’s administrative order dated January 6th, 2016. While Canon 3(A)(6) of the Canons of Judicial Ethics notes that judges “should abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court,” that rule “does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court.” Administrative orders are issued not in a judicial capacity but in an administrative capacity. Such orders are well within the constitutional authority of the Chief Justice. Ala. Code § 12-2-30 states that, as the administrative head of the judicial system (see Ala. Const., Art. VI, § 149) the Chief Justice is authorized to “take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state.”

It’s no secret that there is conflict in the courts, in the culture, in the church, among probate judges, and in the legal profession about how to deal with the marriage issue. Squelching debate is never an answer for any conflict resolution and filing charges related to an administrative order under the guise of enforcing judicial ethics is not an acceptable solution for legal controversy. While you may have ideological disagreements with Chief Justice Moore’s position, your disagreements do not warrant the action you took on May 6, 2016 (or your leaking of confidential information that was printed in two newspapers before the decision was to be made.)

Allow us to respond to each of your six charges:

Advertisement

Charge I: “…Appear[ing] to direct all probate judges to…[disregard] a federal court injunction.”

Response: You speak out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you accuse the Chief Justice of instructing probate judges to violate a federal district court injunction. On the other hand, you criticize him for failing to mention the injunction at all. Which is it?

It would have behooved you to read the Chief Justice’s administrative order before making it the basis of a spurious ethics complaint. Had you done so, you would have seen that the Chief Justice did not direct Alabama probate judges to do anything or to abstain from doing anything. He stated that the injunction issued by the Alabama Supreme Court on March 12, 2015 was still in effect. At the time, that was an obvious and incontrovertible procedural reality — otherwise known as a “fact.”

Advertisement
Advertisement

Your personal views about the propriety of the Alabama Supreme Court’s injunction, and the effect federal court rulings bore on that injunction, are of the utmost irrelevance to the case, and you disgrace the process by injecting them where they do not belong. To charge an elected official with an ethics violation for stating something as self-evident as “the sky is blue” is itself unethical.

Since the only federal injunction possibly affecting Alabama was issued by the Southern District, we must assume that you overlooked the fact that the actual order compelling Alabama probate judges to act was issued, not by the Chief Justice, but by the Alabama Supreme Court in a 7-1 margin, the Chief Justice recusing. In his administrative order, the Chief Justice pointed out that reality. Do you intend to charge the other Justices as well?

Charge II: An unwillingness to follow “clear law.”

Response: It is obvious to us that, as far as you are concerned, the only thing necessary to create “clear law” is a majority vote by the U.S. Supreme Court. To borrow the condescending language you used when referencing Chief Justice Moore, it is your “personal right” to believe whatever you wish about judicial review. But you have no right to denounce someone as unethical for subscribing to, and acting on, a view different from yours (and which happens to be legally correct). You should take note of what United States Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter said: “the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” Whom do you wish to challenge: Chief Justice Moore or Justice Frankfurter?

Your statement that the law is clear baffles us to no end and makes you the laughingstock of attorneys and citizens across Alabama. If the law is so clear, why are you having this discussion, filing these charges against a Chief Justice, disregarding countless legal briefs and motions filed in API over the course of the last year, and forgetting about orders from the Alabama Supreme Court? The current debate over marriage policy and the scope of judicial review is far from clear.

Charge III: “[D]eciding substantive legal issues…”

Response: The administrative order neither added nor subtracted anything from the legal reality at the time of its’ issuance. The Chief Justice expressly stated that he was not commenting on the case and that the decision would have to come from the Alabama Supreme Court. He wrote, “I am not at liberty to provide any guidance to Alabama probate judges on the effect of Obergefell on the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court. That issue remains before the entire Court which continues to deliberate on the matter.” The Court decided the substantive legal issues on March 4, 2016.

Charge IV: “[S]ubstituting his judgment for the judgment of the entire Alabama Supreme Court.”

Response: Which one of you who lent your vote to this preposterous charge is prepared to be brought up on ethics charges of your own? After all, you stated repeatedly in the Complaint that the Alabama Supreme Court’s injunction was nullified by subsequent legal proceedings, something the Alabama Supreme Court itself never conceded. Therefore, you are also guilty of substituting your judgment for that of the State’s high court.

The Alabama Supreme Court itself asked for briefs on its “existing orders” after Obergefell v. Hodges. The Chief Justice’s statement that the Alabama Supreme Court’s injunction of March 12, 2015 (from which the Chief Justice recused himself) was still in effect, merely expressed a legal reality and did not substitute his judgment for the Court’s. Further, if the Alabama Supreme Court had agreed that the Chief Justice prematurely issued judgment in a case, it could have corrected or rescinded the Chief Justice’s administrative order, which it did not do.

Charge V: “[I]nterfer[ing] with the legal process and remedies in the United States District Court and/or the Alabama Supreme Court…to address the status of any proceeding to which Alabama’s probate judges were parties.”

Response: This is ironic coming from you. Talk about interfering with the legal process! No one denies the controversy surrounding the relationship between the Southern District Court and the Alabama Supreme Court and their respective orders. Such judicial controversies should be resolved by those courts and, ultimately, the United States Supreme Court by way of a process that involves many jurists and attorneys – not merely the J.I.C. Again, if the Alabama Supreme Court had believed that the Chief Justice’s administrative order was inappropriate, it could have rescinded it.

Charge VI: “[T]aking legal positions…on a matter pending before the Alabama Supreme Court…[and] participating in further proceedings.”

Response: Which legal positions are you referring to? Legal positions are different from legal realities. We find outlined in Chief Justice Moore’s administrative order legal and procedural realities that, though uncomfortable, were necessary or otherwise permissible to outline. He took no positions on API itself and there was thus no reason for him to recuse himself.
In the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges — arguably the most polarizing and contested SCOTUS opinion in the history of American jurisprudence — a Pandora’s box of questions dealing with morality, constitutional jurisdiction, marriage and family policy, and the scope of judicial review have swamped the country and the legal profession. Your singling out of Chief Justice Moore for one administrative order related to this issue because of complaints filed and/or encouraged by individuals and organizations who seek to destroy him, demonstrates that this proceeding has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with political assassination. You’ve sided with the wrong people, you’ve sided with the wrong legal arguments, you’ve sided with the wrong court, you’ve sided with the wrong opinions, and you’ve produced pathetically biased charges.

Regardless of your opinion on whether Obergefell constitutionally removed the gender requirement from marriage in all fifty states, you’ve played your part to dishonor God, squelch conflict resolution in the proper context of the courts, bury the rule of law, and surrender to the whims of a few who don’t care for any of it. You have attempted to take the easy way out and we intend to work with activists, organizations, and citizens across the state to bring a halt to this political game in which you have participated.

We are disappointed in you. We are appalled by your capitulation. We are indignant over the politically motivated charges you levied against an elected official we trust. And we intend to do all we can to ensure that the people of Alabama understand that when lines were drawn, you took the wrong side before God, before the law, and before the people of the State of Alabama, and you grossly overstepped your jurisdiction.

Respectfully,

Dr. Tom Ford, III
Sanctity of Marriage Alabama

Advertisement

Guest Columnists

Opinion | State Sen. Will Barfoot should be highly commended

Glenn Henry

Published

on

State Senator Will Barfoot should be highly commended, for sponsoring Senate Bill 105, in which military families, require school districts, operating magnet schools, to accept enrollment applications, for military children, where families have received transfer orders, to Alabama military installations.

Additionally, Sen. Barfoot (R) Pike Road is sponsoring Senate Bill 106, called the School Choice and Student Opportunity Act, formation of charter schools, on or near military installations, with focus on serving military dependents, authorized. Tenure for certificated teachers temporarily serving in charter schools are preserved.

Lt. Gov. Will Ainsworth, recently correctly stated that his goal is to “make Alabama the most military-friendly state, in the country.”

Over one year ago, former President and Commander of Air University, Lt. Gen. Anthony Cotton, advised the public, that 56 percent of students attending the Air War College, were not bringing their families; due to a poorly performing local school system, that was under intervention, and take over status. Mandatory, federal laws, state that adequate, and sufficient education must be provided, to kids of military families, by the Local Education Agency, which is, the Montgomery Public School System.

Gov. Kay Ivey drafted, an outstanding tentative education initiative package, of ideas, by reaching out to Lt. Gen. Cotton, to ask the families at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, to provide their list of wanted items. The Governor’s directives to her staff, were very clear; provide the families at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, with everything, they put, on their list.

The governor also ensured, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford were notified. Emergency education funding was requested. Additionally, the acting Secretary of the Air Force Matthew Donovan, and the Chief of Staff Air Force Gen. David Goldfein were contacted.

Through Gov. Ivey reaching out to Lt. Gen. Cotton, the education committees were formed; with successful results. Currently, the military children at Maxwell-Gunter, are attending schools out of district, in counties such as Elmore, Autauga, and Pike Road City Schools, regardless if they live on base, or off base. Families living at the family camp; within recreational vehicles, may enroll their kids, in the on-base school. Faculty, professors and instructor kids, may enroll out of district.

Advertisement

It is critical that SB-105, and SB 106 pass, successfully, through the House and Senate.  Additionally, Gov. Ivey, Lt. Gov Ainsworth and Sen. Barfoot, are exactly right; on their current direction, and their proper and correct road, being travelled, due to the following reasons.

Today, the Montgomery Public School system, is still under intervention, and this education system, is not moving forward. Other military bases in Alabama, are facing similar situations, in which the Local Education Agencies, are not providing, adequate and sufficient education, outside the military base gates.

The on-base Maxwell-Gunter Elementary and Middle School, and its principal Mr. Paul Hernandez, have been deemed, Top-Notch School, and Top Principal, over recent years according to the Department of Defense Education Activity Americas.

Advertisement
Advertisement

I taught at Maxwell-Gunter, for two years, and I never had to send, one student to the office. The Parent Teacher Association at Maxwell-Gunter, is the best on the planet. I thought the parents were teachers. They are in the schools, from sun up, to sun down, helping to mold, and shape our next generation of airmen, wingmen, astronauts, scientists, doctors and future Air Force Academy cadets.

Many military parents, in private, are very concerned, their kids have the options, and opportunities to attend the very best schools, not the worst schools. Parents do not want their kids in unsafe environments, nor in class rooms, where the students are cursing at the teachers daily.

Over the years our Air Force Secretaries, Colonels and Generals, have spoiled us, by providing, the best of everything. Education is taken very seriously, within our military services. Our Air Force, and our Space Force, can’t remain number one, throughout the world, without the best education, top training, most effective hardware, and fastest software systems.

At this juncture, the only adequate, safe and sufficient schools, that I see in Montgomery, are a few of the magnet schools, private schools, or home schooling. A new Military Magnet school on the military base, or near the base, would be awesome.

I would also highly suggest, that the appropriate standards, of the Military Magnet schools, be set at the same high standards, and the current top cultures, of the Department of Defense Education Activity for K-12. Due to their proven excellence in education, and their top-notch academic advancements. Many students at Maxwell-Gunter, are highly performing, and virtually mastering, robotics in grades, 6 through 8.

Therefore, we should commend, Gov. Ivey, Lt. Gov. Ainsworth, and Sen. Barfoot; and support them in their efforts, in making our state the most military friendly in the nation. Their initiatives, will provide, much needed assistance, not only for Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, but for all military installations in Alabama. Our ultimate goal is to attract military families to our Great State, and retain the current military families—not run them away.

This one, we must get right. Other states would Love to have our military families. Our state leaders are making sure, that we do everything, in our power to keep them. We can’t let other states, out work us, nor out hustle us, through their better education and training systems.

Just as a matter of information, in working with Gov. Ivey, in an unofficial capacity over the years. A lot of top Department of Defense officials, and top Air Force and Space Force leaders, along with local Air Force leadership, such as Lt. Gen. Cotton, and  42nd ABW Commander Col. Patrick Carley; have been very gracious, in supporting Maxwell-Gunter families, and our regional communities, to ensure that we continue to have the best education, and training systems.

Our top Department of Defense, civilian and military leaders; and our Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett, Chief of Staff Air Force Gen. David Goldfein, and Chief of Space Operations Gen. Jay Raymond, have always, had our Six, and we have always, had their Six. There is absolutely, no doubt about that!

Glenn Henry is retired from the U.S. Air Force. He has been a high school teacher and university adjunct professor. He has earned numerous IT Cisco certifications. He is a Certified Professional Ethical Hacker. He lives in Montgomery with his wife Teresa.

 

Continue Reading

Guest Columnists

Opinion | The workforce superhighway—stay clear of malfunction junction

Ed Castile

Published

on

As you merge onto the Workforce Superhighway in search of that dream career, don’t venture into dead ends or get lost at malfunction junction. Instead, look for signs directing you to AlabamaWorks!

There are several ways to enter the workforce superhighway and get on the right path. On-ramps include the Alabama Department of Labor’s Career Center System with offices placed strategically in 50 locations, or via one of Alabama’s Community Colleges that are conveniently located across the state. Many will enter the workforce highway via one of the seven regional workforce councils representing Alabama’s seven workforce regions. While others will enter through one of Alabama’s existing employers through work-based learning initiatives, such as the Alabama Office of Apprenticeship.

The great news is that there are thousands of job openings in all sectors of Alabama’s economy including aviation, forestry, chemical, automotive, bio-medical and information technology. Alabama companies are paying premium wages for employees with a positive attitude, good work ethic and the appropriate skill sets. AlabamaWorks! provides a roadmap to these great jobs and it’s just two clicks away. (www.alabamaworks.com)

Remember when career resource programs were siloed, loaded with government acronyms and frankly, not user friendly? In those days, to the unexperienced eye, all workforce roads led to nowhere. Even harder to understand were the state and federal programs which were designed to help, and yet always seemed to be just out of reach. It was as if one road led to another road, which led to another, and eventually people careened off the highway at malfunction junction.

To help untangle the malfunction junction, Gov. Kay Ivey announced her Success Plus plan mandating that Alabama’s workforce programs work together to help citizens find credentials of value that will lead to a self-sustaining career. The goal: 500,000 additional credentialed workers in the workforce by 2025. To succeed, workforce agencies are working towards becoming more user friendly, untying the complicated knots and cross-training staff on multiple programs. Therefore, when a citizen enters from any on-ramp on to the workforce highway, they will find that there are no detours or road blocks. Rather, they will find friendly and helpful workforce professionals ready to assist.

Credentials may be earned as a student completes their K-12 education, during college or as an apprentice. The credential may also be an occupational license or industry recognized certification needed as a job requirement, or to advance to the next level.  There are thousands of potential credentials available, and they can be stacked, sequenced and aligned in a progression of increasing skill to assist Alabamians as they travel the workforce superhighway.

Now that you are successfully navigating the superhighway, how do you know what a credential of value is and if it is legitimate? Gov. Ivey has appointed a group of professionals though the Alabama Committee on Credentialing and Career Pathways (ACCCP) to make sure the credentials available in Alabama are truly of value. When you successfully attain your credential of value, then what? You want to make sure your credential is added to the Alabama College and Career Exploration Tool (ACCET) being created for you to market your workforce profile online where employers are looking for employees with credentials. The ACCET is a digital resume that helps you find employers and employers find you. The ACCET is currently under development and will be available in the fall of 2020.

Advertisement

The workforce superhighway has many intersections and AlabamaWorks! is the ever-evolving road map. This one-stop online workforce resource will turn malfunction junction into a distant memory. Happy motoring and stop by anytime,  www.alabamaworks.com is open 24-7.

Ed Castile, Deputy Secretary of Commerce
Workforce Development Division, Director of AIDT

 

Advertisement
Advertisement

Continue Reading

Guest Columnists

Opinion | The New Way Forward Act is an assault on our borders

Bradley Byrne

Published

on

A clear warning of how far to the extreme left the Democratic Party has moved is the recently introduced New Way Forward Act.  This immigration bill would totally uproot the rule of law, provide amnesty for illegals here, and import dangerous criminals into the United States.  By allowing foreign citizens who committed serious felonies to stay in our country, all Americans would be at risk.  And by granting new rights to illegal aliens, the New Way Forward Act would prevent our immigration officials from detaining most illegal immigrants.  Shockingly, over forty of my Democrat colleagues in the House have cosponsored this legislation.

We have long known that many on the far left have the goal of global open borders.  They do not appreciate that to keep our country prosperous and strong we must have real, enforceable borders.  Put another way, our country won’t be any different from the rest of the world if we eliminate our borders and let whoever wants here to enter.

Simply put, the New Way Forward Act aims to decriminalize illegal immigration altogether.  It would turn us into a sanctuary nation where anyone who desires entry can come in almost unchallenged.  It grants new rights to illegal border crossers that would effectively shut down our already overworked immigration courts.  For example, those detained for illegally entering would be entitled to an initial custody hearing within 48 hours, and detainees would be entitled to a new bond hearing every 60 days.  This is designed by the bill’s authors to be impossible!

The bill also includes provisions to block local law enforcement from performing immigration enforcement activities.  Why would we not want our law enforcement to actually enforce our laws?  Isn’t that what they are for?  This explains a lot of what some of my more liberal colleagues in Washington think about law and order.

Perhaps most shockingly, the New Way Forward Act removes certain felonies from consideration when considering whether detainees should be allowed entry to our country.  Why would we want to protect convicted felons from being deported?  This legislation would roll out a welcome mat for them.  The bill would even repeal laws that make illegal entry into the United States a crime.  Can you imagine the chaos this would bring?

This bill has one goal – open borders.  That’s why Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf says this bill would “gut the rule of law” in the country.

I have been to our southern border.  I’ve seen firsthand the challenges facing our border patrol agents.  Without question, gutting our immigration laws would make their jobs tougher.  It would erode American safety and incentivize illegal immigration.  Yet Democrats overwhelmingly support sanctuary city laws that allow jurisdictions to refuse to enforce our immigration laws.  These sanctuary jurisdictions go further by stonewalling federal officials seeking to enforce our immigration laws.  But it gets even worse.  States like California have passed laws to grant driver licenses to illegal immigrants.  Shockingly, these laws could even automatically register illegal immigrants granted driver licenses the right to vote in elections!

Advertisement

Last week I signed on as an original cosponsor of the Stop Greenlighting Driver Licenses for Illegal Immigrants Act.  The premise of this bill is simple: if you are a sanctuary city blocking the enforcement of our federal immigration laws, you should be blocked from receiving federal money.  This bill would prevent states that issue driver licenses to illegal aliens from receiving important federal grants.

Unfortunately, common sense is something lacking in Washington.  I’m proud to be able to serve you by bringing Alabama values to the swamp.  I’ll continue working with President Trump to fight bills like the New Way Forward Act and to ensure our immigration policies serve and protect you, the American people.

 

Advertisement
Advertisement

Continue Reading

Guest Columnists

Opinion | We cannot allow Alabama to fall behind our neighbors

Fred McCallum

Published

on

As the Birmingham region enters a new decade, it is more important than ever in our increasingly connected world that Alabama’s largest city be equipped with modern wireless infrastructure that provides connectivity that powers opportunities for businesses and residents alike.

That is why the Birmingham Business Alliance (BBA) supports standardization of small cell deployment statewide – enhancing connectivity today as well as supporting 5G and technologies of the future.

Connectivity is a key issue in creating and sustaining a 21st century economy and workforce, connecting both urban and rural areas to enhanced broadband opportunities. Ongoing advancements in wireless broadband technologies are necessary to keep pace with consumer demand and are crucial to our state’s continued economic success. Without the ability to economically deploy the latest in wireless broadband infrastructure, we put at risk our ability to effectively compete in a digital economy.

The BBA has long supported increased access to broadband technology across the Birmingham region and the state of Alabama through our annual state and federal legislative agendas. Our support is reflected in our 2020 state legislative agenda, which lists this issue as a priority and specifically supports streamlining and standardizing the permitting process for small cell wireless equipment and services, allowing wireless companies limited access to public Rights of Way for the deployment of small cells and establishing permit fee limitations for localities.

We join with key community organizations like the Decatur-Morgan County Chamber of Commerce and the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce in supporting statewide legislation that simply standardizes the permitting process for small cell wireless equipment and services, including broadband; allows entities providing wireless services, subject to existing applicable constitutional provisions, access to Rights of Way for the deployment of small cell equipment; and establishes permit fee guidelines for localities, allowing them to recover reasonable compensation while still encouraging broadband investment.

Small cell deployment is one way to ensure Birmingham and Alabama’s wireless infrastructure remains competitive, allowing both businesses and residents to thrive. More than half of U.S. states have already passed legislation that welcomes investment and removes barriers to deploying wireless infrastructure.

This new decade and the ones after it will require us to be connected to ensure the best for the Birmingham region’s businesses and its residents. Supporting small cell deployment is key as we look towards the future, continually making sure that, as the world becomes more and more connected, we in Birmingham and in Alabama do the same.

Advertisement

We encourage state legislators to support this effort so we as a region and as a state can stay competitive in an ever-changing world.

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Authors

Advertisement

The V Podcast

Facebook

Trending

.