Alabama Chief Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore on Sunday insisted that he had a moral duty to defy the United States Supreme Court if they tried to change God’s “organic law” by declaring that LGBT people had an equal right to marriage.
Moore told Fox News host Chris Wallace that if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that LGBT had equal marriage rights then he “would not be bound thereby.”
“I could recuse or dissent as a justice from Delaware did in the Dred Scott case [affirming slavery] in 1857,” the Alabama chief justice insisted. “They ruled black people were property. Should a court today obey such a ruling that is completely contradictory of the Constitution?”
Wallace pointed out that Moore’s directive that probate judges should refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses was similar to his refusal to remove the Ten Commandments from a the state Capital building after a federal court ordered him to.
“A state ethics panel said that you had to be removed from office because you had put yourself above the law,” Wallace explained. “Are you doing the same thing now, sir?”
Moore, however, said that he was “obeying the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which does not prohibit the acknowledgement of God.”
“When federal courts start changing our Constitution by defining words that are not even there, like marriage, they’re going to do the same thing with family in the future,” Moore argued. “When a word is not in the Constitution, clearly, the powers of the Supreme Court do not allow them to re-define words and seize power. The power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states or reserved to the states respectively or to the people.”
“This power over marriage, which came from God under our organic law, is not to be redefined by the United States Supreme Court or any federal court,” he concluded.
Watch the video below from Fox News’ Fox News Sunday, broadcast Feb. 15, 2015.
Trump is terrified that Russian interference is ‘undercutting his legitimacy’: ex-DNI lawyer
On Thursday's edition of CNN's "OutFront," Robert Litt, the former general counsel to the Director of National Intelligence, cut to the heart of President Donald Trump's fury over the ongoing reports Russia is planning to intervene to rig the presidential election in his favor.
"Why do you think he refuses to accept the intelligence, and now, by his behavior and this coincidence that is not a coincidence, seems to be having the same reaction again?" asked host Erin Burnett.
"Well, I don't want to go into psychoanalyzing the president, but it's pretty clear that he views the possibility that the Russians attempted to influence the election on his behalf is undercutting his legitimacy in some respect," said Litt. "He's working backwards from that conclusion to talk about the facts ... this has been a consistent pattern all along of denial of what the intelligence community is finding."
WATCH LIVE: Donald Trump holds 2020 reelection rally in Colorado Springs
Donald Trump was late to take the stage at a campaign rally in Colorado Springs after a bombshell report that Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin was one of the president's 2020 supporters.
Trump was scheduled to begin speaking at 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time at the Broadmoor World Arena, which has a capacity of 8,000. Trump took the stage 25 minutes later.
The rally is seen as a thank you for Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO), who voted to acquit the commander-in-chief following the Senate impeachment trial.
Garner is facing a tough re-election in 2020 in a state that has been trending Democratic.
‘That’s a bombshell, that’s an earthquake’: NBC reporter sounds the alarm on Russia’s latest efforts for Trump
The New York Times broke the story Thursday that Russia is supporting President Donald Trump and is already hacking the 2016 election to help his reelection.
It was something NBC reporter Ken Delanian called a "bombshell."
"It is the worst nightmare of many of my sources in the intelligence world," he said. "It's bad enough to learn that there is classified intelligence that Russia is interfering again and trying to elect Donald Trump. We should be careful about that because it is not clear what it means. Does it mean disinformation on social media, does it mean intercepts that suggest people in the Kremlin are discussing the campaign? That is bad enough, but then the notion that because a briefing of that information was delivered to a bipartisan group of lawmakers, that cost Joe Maguire the job? That is a bombshell."