Moore CJ of the Alabama Supreme Court is stepping up his efforts to retain a 2400kg statue depicting the Christian parable of the ten commandments in the state courthouse. The order of a federal judge to remove the statue recently lapsed, inciting the other eight justices of the Alabama Supreme Court to order its immediate removal.

With the greatest respect, Your Honour, civil independence does not necessarily give rise to judicial inventiveness; important reform is accomplished by legislative intervention. Courts today play a lesser role in the process of law creation and reform than those of the 18th and 19th centuries, and it is instead tasked to the legislature to formulate the rules which courts are to apply. While the Court has a legitimate (and very important) role to play in reviewing and applying the Acts of Parliament, to dispute the verdict of a higher court on such spurious grounds as 'religious conscience' (if - with respect -- there is such a thing) is far more destructive to the rule of law than blind subservience.

This is judicial politics at its lowest, and has no place in the courts, which are supposed to be arbiters of law - not a glorified moral consciousness. While public appointment may be more democratic (since it allows judges to better reflect community values), campaigns such as this serve only to reduce the public's faith in the apolitical nature of the legal system.

Perhaps even more alarming is that this is far from uncommon. Indeed, with many judges marketing themselves as crusaders for one particular religious cause or another, the impartiality of the judicial process must be brought into question. When a Judge (the Chief Justice, no less) favours Christian ideals over the orders of a superior Court, non-Christians must wonder whether they would be disadvantaged by appearing in a Court over which he presides. Though the reasoning of individual judges is undoubtedly influenced by their individual predilections and religious leaning, this is exacerbated by public campaigning: Moore CJ has an election 'promise' to fulfil.

Even countries that make judicial appointments by the executive risk creating a judiciary that reflects only a small minority of their jurisdiction. (Personally, I would question the efficacy of this ideal.) However, with other judicial scandals regular occurrences in the United States, careful review of the judicial appointment process appears warranted.