Suspended Chief Justice Roy S. Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court is likely to join the ranks of the unemployed after Wednesday's hearing on his battle over the Ten Commandments.
Attorneys on both sides of the case think he will be removed by a court of his peers.
"We fully anticipate an adverse judgment, and that could include a removal from office," said Terry Butts, one of Moore's three lawyers.
"It seems odd to put it this way, but I am optimistic that he'll lose his job," said Richard Cohen, president and chief executive officer of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which filed the complaint against Moore.
"I think he richly deserves to be removed from office," Cohen said.
Moore installed the 5,280-pound granite monument displaying the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Center in Montgomery, Ala., in September 2001.
He finally lost the fight to keep it there Nov. 3 when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal of an order to remove it.
The original order was issued by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson Aug. 5, ruling it was a violation of separation of the church and state provisions of the Constitution.
That decision generated a nationwide petition drive to impeach Thompson.
The monument was removed from the lobby Aug. 28, but the dispute has touched off controversies over monuments and posters featuring the commandments in several other states including Wisconsin, Minnesota, Wyoming, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee and Idaho.
Moore's attorneys are upset because the hearing will be in the Supreme Court chamber in the judicial center rather than a larger venue as requested by Moore.
They had wanted to have it in the Montgomery Civic Center auditorium or the Davis Theater to accommodate thousands of spectators.
They also are disappointed the court has ruled the proceedings will not be televised, although the verdict will.
"That's highly inconsistent with anything that's gone before," Butts said.
The state Court of the Judiciary, which will hear the case, also denied motions by Moore's lawyers to forbid Attorney General Bill Pryor from prosecuting the case and disqualify five of the nine members.
Also denied was a motion for dismissal and one requiring court members to submit to questioning to determine if they are biased against Moore.
The Alabama Court of the Judiciary is composed of one appellate judge appointed by the Supreme Court, two circuit judges appointed by the circuit judges' association and one district judge appointed by that association.
The other five members are two lawyers appointed by the bar, two non-lawyers appointed by the governor and one person appointed by the lieutenant governor.
The court has the authority to remove ethics offenders -- including Moore if he is found guilty -- from office, further suspend them without pay or censure them.
Moore's rise to prominence began when he was a state circuit judge and refused to take down a plaque containing the commandments from the wall of his courtroom. He said he wanted the commandments to be the last thing a prisoner saw before sentencing.
The controversy put him in the limelight and gained him enough support to land him on the state Supreme Court, where he was elected Alabama's 28th chief justice in November 2000.
Moore's attorneys are expected to argue the basic case all over again.
They said despite the near certainty of defeat, they will put up a defense. It will resemble the one used in previous hearings involving the removal of the monument.
One of the arguments, contained in a petition to the Supreme Court contends that the 11th Amendment prohibits a federal court from issuing an injunction against a state or one of its officials, especially when the injunction includes penalties.
Thompson's ruling included a $5,000 fine for every day the monument remained in the rotunda.
Moore's attorneys accused the government, through the federal judge, threatened to "invade the Alabama treasury for billions of dollars in an effort to cower its officials into prompt compliance with the court's final judgment and injunction, as well as to provide a significant incentive for state officials to initiate proceedings to remove chief justice (Moore) from office."
Moore says he and Thompson agree that the main issue centers on the question, "Can the state acknowledge God."
"I argue for the rule of laws, and against any unilateral declaration of a judge to ban the acknowledgement of God in the public sector," Moore wrote in an Internet essay. "We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so.
"The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes a 'the favor and guidance of Almighty God' as the basis for our laws and justice system," he wrote. "As the chief justice of the state's supreme court, I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's Constitution."
Butts said that will be one of the keys to his case. He will emphasize Moore's "allegiance to the Constitution of Alabama. In sticking to that oath, he has not violated the canons of ethics."
Cohen doesn't buy it.
"The canons of ethics say he must demonstrate respect for the law. He said he has no intention of upholding the law. It doesn't get much starker than that. He has thrown people in jail for violating his rulings," Cohen said.
Critics also complain that Moore's arguments and those of his attorneys are based on the doctrine of "interposition," that would allow a state official to interfere with a federal official's ruling if the state official thinks it's wrong.
They say that theory was used by the Confederacy to justify secession from the Union and by former Alabama Gov. George Wallace to justify opposition to the civil rights movement.
In an article for American Heritage Research, John Eidsmoe, one of Moore's advisers, said if a state officials abide by court decisions they believe to be unconstitutional the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.
But in a speech at Stamford University's law school, Alabama's attorney general, considered a "darling of the right" by Cohen, argued, "When the judiciary interprets the Constitution erroneously, we still retain all the lawful tools of political opposition."
"We can campaign for different policies. We can elect candidates who will enact our favored policies. Our elected officials can appoint judges faithful to the rule of law. We can bring new cases before the courts and urge the overruling of erroneous precedents. If necessary, we can even amend the Constitution," Pryor said.
