A contrary opinion, the most eloquent of several received. (The ellipsis in

the 2nd paragraph is the writer’s, not mine.)

“Derb—Perhaps you didn’t spend enough time in NASCAR country (& I’ve

enjoyed your comments both on the internet & in NR proper). I think that by

2006 the state of public opinion in Alabama will still be such that Roy

Moore will be able to win most any in-state election he enters. I for one

would be gratified to see him in the U.S. Senate, if for no other reason

than to irritate the likes of the senators from NY. But you should

understand that many do not agree that his actions are ‘arrogant

insubordination,’ but rather a constitutional assertion of states’ rights

against the unconstitutional encroachment of the federal government, in this

case the federal judiciary. There is not only no legitimate constitutional

basis for banning a display of the Ten Commandments, but there is also no

legitimate constitutional basis for the intrusion of the federal courts in a

matter which pertains to the state of Alabama. [In a sense this is

illustrated by the recent ruling in Texas, allowing such a display of the

Ten Commandments.]

“I do think that Pryor has probably acted with selfless integrity, but at

the same time I think he is mistaken. Likewise, I think that the ‘integrity

and majesty of the law’ suffers greatly when activist federal judges mistake

their own political biases for constitutional principle … and it suffers

even more when apparently well-intentioned men like Bill Pryor enforce their

decisions. It leads many to despise the law as such, rather than just the

law improperly construed and applied. I don’t think that Pryor’s action

will serve to endear him to his hard-left opponents in the Senate, but I do

think that it may prove an impediment to further elective service in

Alabama. Maybe he should move north!”