Bill Pryor Asks Chief Justice Moore If He Will Deny His God
The Complete Transcript of the Cross Examination

January 6, 2004

The following is the complete transcript of Attorney General Bill Pryor’s cross-examination of Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Chief Justice.

A: Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General.

Q: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe you testified on direct examination that you did not remove the monument because to do so would require you to violate the First Amendment, your oath of office, and the Ten Commandments?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: While the Glassroth case was pending in the federal courts after you were sued in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, you had attorneys represent you in that court; isn’t that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you recall that they presented arguments on your behalf in those courts?

A: Yes.

Q: One of the arguments that they made on your behalf was that the monument was not a law respecting an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment; isn’t that right?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You made that argument in the District Courts, didn’t you?

A: Yes.

Q: And you made it in the Eleventh Circuit, didn’t you?

A: Yes.

Q: And you made that argument in the Supreme Court of the United States, didn’t you?

A: Well, we submitted that on —

Q: Right.

A: Well, we asked for a petition for a writ of certiorari on other grounds, in other words, that they had on the part of a “Lemon test,” but that was an argument we would have made —

Q: Right.

A: — in the United States Supreme Court.

Q: Right. You asked the Court — the Supreme Court of the United States to hear —

A: Yes.

Q: — your case and to hear that argument; isn’t that right?

A: Yes.

Q: The District Court disagreed with your argument; isn’t that right?

A: Yes.

Q: And the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with your argument?

A: Yes.

Q: And the Supreme Court of the United States decided not to hear your case; isn’t that right?

A: Yes.

Q: You also presented an argument to the District Court about your oath, didn’t you?

A: Yes.

Q: And you presented that argument in the Eleventh Circuit, didn’t you?

A: I did.

Q: And in your petition to the Supreme Court of the United States, you asked them to hear that argument, didn’t you?

A: Yes.

Q: And each of those — well, let me start first. The District Court disagreed with that argument; isn’t that right?

A: Yes.

Q: And the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with that argument?

A: Yes.

Q: And the Supreme Court of the United States decided not to hear your case?

A: Yes.

Q: Finally, as to your argument that the injunction violated the Tenth Amendment, you presented that argument in the District Court, didn’t you?

A: Yes.

Q: And you presented it in the Eleventh Circuit, didn’t you?

A: I did.

Q: And it was one of the points that you made in your petition to the Supreme Court of the United States when you asked them to hear your case, wasn’t it?

A: It was writ of mandamus — I think that it was a -

Q: And the District Court disagreed with your argument; isn’t that right?

A: Yes.

Q: And the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the argument; isn’t that right?

A: Yes.

Q: And the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear your appeal?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, earlier you also testified, I believe, that when the mandate was returned to the District Court, that it was your understanding that you should pursue the appellate process and the District Court should not enter an injunction; isn’t that right?

A: Well, repeat that again, please.

Q: It was your understanding that, when the mandate came back to the District Court, that you were to pursue your appellate process —

A: Yes.

Q: — and the District Court was not to enter an injunction of the kind that it entered on August 5th; isn’t that right?

A: Well, the District Court had already entered an injunction, but they had stayed the injunction and there was a stay in effect when the mandate came down.

Q: But you didn’t think that the District Court should enter the injunction that it did on August 5th?

A: Not lift the stay. Right. I did not think that they should have lifted the stay to impose the injunction after the mandate came down.

Q: Okay. You asked, though — After the August 5th injunction was entered by the District Court, you asked the District Court to stay that injunction, didn’t you?

A: After the August 5th —

Q: Yes.

A: — came down?

Q: Yes.

A: No. No. The District Court asked us if we had an objection, and we registered an objection. I believe that’s what you are talking about. Maybe I am confused. But after the mandate came down, the District Court on —

MR. PRYOR: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

HON. THOMPSON: Sure.

Q: I’d like to show you, Mr. Chief Justice, what has already been admitted into evidence as JIC Exhibit Number 10, an Order of the United States District Court in the Middle District of Alabama dated the 18th of August 2003.

A: Right.

Q: And do you — If you would like, take a moment to look at it. Does that appear to be an order denying a request by you to stay the injunction of August 5th?

A: Okay. Okay. Sure. This is — This is the motion to stay. Okay. I’ve got my times crossed out. I thought you were talking about after the mandate and about the conference that the Court had. This is a motion to stay.

Q: Right.

A: Correct.

Q: And the District Court denied your motion to stay the August 5th injunction?

A: Yes, they did. They did. And then it went to the Eleventh Circuit. They denied it, and then the United States Supreme Court refused to stay the mandate.

Q: Well, they actually denied an application for a stay —

A: On the mandamus.

Q: — of the injunction —

A: Yes.

Q: — on August 20th?

A: Yes. August 20th is the very day that he had originally set.

Q: The deadline —

A: I understand what you are talking about.

Q: That’s right. The deadline was set by the August 5th injunction?

A: Sure. I was speaking earlier about the August 4th conference call.

Q: Sure.

A: And I thought that’s what you were talking about.

Q: Okay. Mr. Chief Justice, you stand by your testimony of August 22nd of this year before the Judicial Inquiry Commission that you would do it again, don’t you?

A: I would do everything that I have done again. Yes. I mean, what I have done is - applies to the law. If that’s — I see what you are talking about when I said — would I do it again.

Q: Well, as you know, we have admitted into evidence the transcript of your testimony. I just — I have the shorthand reference. I just wanted to know whether you stand by that testimony of that day?

A: I stand by that testimony of that day, and I have not reviewed it but —

Q: Well, if you would like to review it, you can.

A: If I may.

Q: Sure.

A: So that we can know — here it is. Is this the whole thing?

MR. JONES: That’s — That’s the paragraph — excuse me. That’s the paragraph where the phrase he has just referred to came from.

A: Okay. This —

Q: There’s the entire transcript, Mr. Chief Justice.

A: Well, if it’s possible for me to read this —

Q: Sure.

A: May I read the whole thing?

Q: Certainly.

A: Because I think — I think it’s important to know when I said I would do it again. “Chief Justice Moore, we welcome you here. We know that these have been busy times for you. We appreciate your presence here today.”

Q: You want to read the entire transcript?

A: Well, I think —

Q: I don’t mind you reading it, Mr. Chief Justice, but I would ask that you just read it to yourself to speed things along.

HON. THOMPSON: The transcript has already been stipulated to. It’s already in evidence.

A: You know, I didn’t want to read the whole transcript. I wanted to read what I said, and this is the whole transcript of what Mr. Jauregui said. So —

Q: Okay.

A: If I may read this paragraph.

HON. THOMPSON: Please.

A: I am upholding my oath. I have nothing to apologize for. I’m upholding the First Amendment. I am upholding the Constitution of Alabama, and we were too ashamed to acknowledge God. When we let a federal judge come in and tell us — call it the “Rule of Law,” that we can’t acknowledge God as the Justice System says we must, as the Constitution says we must, then we have got a problem. I did what I did all the way through, not from what you read in the papers, not from what you imagine about politics or religion or forcing my beliefs on somebody else. I did what I did because I upheld my oath, and that’s what I did. So, I have no apologies for it. I would do it again. I didn’t say I would defy the court order. I said I wouldn’t move the monument, and I didn’t move the monument, which you can take that as you will. But, you know, I think you have to have respect for the Court, but I also have respect enough for the Court to tell them when they have no jurisdiction in this matter under the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which declares that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, the establishment of the Justice System doesn’t belong with the federal government in Alabama. One more: But in any event, I respect you guys and ladies — and that’s my statement. If you have no question - if you have a question, I will be glad to answer it. And that was it.

Q: And you stand by that testimony —

A: Yes, sir.

Q— Mr. Chief Justice? And — And your understanding is that the federal court ordered — ordered that you could not acknowledge God; isn’t that right?

A: Yes.

Q: And if you resume your duties as Chief Justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today —

A: That’s right.

Q: — no matter what any other official says?

A: Absolutely. Without — let me clarify that. Without an acknowledgment of God, I cannot do my duties. I must acknowledge God. It says so in the Constitution of Alabama. It says so in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It says so in everything I have read. So —

Q: The only point I am trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that, in fact, if you do resume your duties as Chief Justice, you will continue to do that without regard to what any other official says; isn’t that right?

A: Well, I’ll do the same thing this Court did with starting of prayer; that’s an acknowledgment of God. Now, we did the same say thing that justices do when they place their hand on the Bible and say, “So help me God.” It’s an acknowledgement of God. The Alabama Supreme Court opens with, “God save the State and this Honorable Court.” It’s an acknowledgment of God. In my opinions, which I have written many opinions, acknowledging God is the source — a moral source of our law. I think you must.

Q: You bring up opinions. Sometimes you’ve written dissenting opinions, haven’t you?

A: Yes.

Q: And sometimes you’ve been the only member of the Supreme Court of Alabama to write a dissenting opinion; isn’t that right?

A: Absolutely. Many times. There is only one dissenting in all the courts. That’s a - and many times one judge will dissent and others not.

Q: And if you write a dissenting opinion and the other eight associate justices have another opinion, when a case returns to the Circuit Court, which opinion is the Circuit judge supposed to follow?

A: With the majority.

Thank You.

MR. PRYOR: That’s all of my questions.

HON. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Pryor.