Opinion ID: 1755560
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Penalty of Removal From Office

Text: The Judicial Inquiry Commission argues that this Court should not review the sanction imposed on Chief Justice Moore by the Court of the Judiciary because, it argues, there is clear and convincing evidence that Chief Justice Moore violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics, as charged, and once the Supreme Court determines that the record shows by clear and convincing evidence that the charge or charges have been committed, then [the Supreme] Court does not have the authority to reduce or reject the sanction imposed by the [Court of the Judiciary]. Boggan, 759 So.2d at 555. Chief Justice Moore, however, argues that, even if this Court finds that the Court of the Judiciary correctly held that he violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics, nothing in the Alabama Constitution of 1901 limits this Court's review of the sanction imposed by the Court of the Judiciary. Section 6.18(b), Amend. No. 581, Ala. Const.1901, provides that [a] judge aggrieved by a decision of the Court of the Judiciary may appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court shall review the record of the proceedings on the law and the facts. Thus, argues Chief Justice Moore, if review of the sanction imposed by the Court of the Judiciary is beyond the reach of the reviewing court, then a judge aggrieved by a decision of the Court of the Judiciary has only one-half of the remedy set out in § 6.18(b). Thus, argues Chief Justice Moore, this Court should not only review the sanction imposed by the Court of the Judiciary and reverse its order imposing the sanction, it should also overrule the holding in Boggan and remove the hindrance Boggan poses to appellate review of a judgment of the Court of the Judiciary. As we held in Part I of this opinion, the Court of the Judiciary had before it clear and convincing evidence that Chief Justice Moore violated Canons 1, 2A, and 2B of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, as charged in the complaint filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission, by willfully refusing to obey a lawful and binding order of a federal court. We decline to revisit Boggan and its predecessor holdings, as Chief Justice Moore suggests we do. We find it unnecessary to do so because we conclude, as did the Boggan Court, that the sanction of removal from office was not plainly and palpably wrong, manifestly unjust, or without supporting evidence. In fact, the evidence of Chief Justice Moore's violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics was sufficiently strong and convincing that the Court of the Judiciary could hardly have done otherwise than to impose the penalty of removal from office. We find that the sanction imposed was proper and that it is supported by the evidence of record.