At the outset, this court emphasizes that this case is concerned only with alleged violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics . This case is not about whether same-sex marriage should be permitted; indeed, we recognize that a majority of voters in Alabama adopted a constitutional amendment in 2006 banning same - sex marriage , as did a majority of states over the last 15 years . Moreover , this is not a case to review or to editorialize about the United States Supreme Court's June 2015 split decision in Obergefell v . Hodges , 135 S . Ct . 2584 (2015), a decision that some members of this court did not personally agree with or think was well reasoned. This court simply does not have the authority to reexamine those issues . This court convenes only "to hear complaints filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission" as to alleged violations by judges of the Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court. See§ 157 , Ala . Const . 1901 (Off . Recomp.) As this court stated in the 2003 action against Chief Justice Roy S . Moore:
"The Canons are not merely guide lines for proper judicial conduct; they are binding on all judges by the oath taken upon assuming office, and violations of the Canons can serve as the basis for disciplinary action. The charge or charges against a judge must be proved by clear and convincing evidence before any discipline may be imposed."
***
On the basis of the evidence presented, this Court unanimously finds that the JIC proved by clear and convincing evidence that Chief Justice Moore is guilty of charges nos . 1 - 6. Specifically, Chief Justice Moore is guilty of violating:
• Canon 1, in that he failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary;
• Canon 2, in that he failed to avoid impropriety appearance of impropriety in all his activities;
• Canon 2A, in that failed to respect and comply with the law and failed to conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary;
• Canon 2B, in that he failed to avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute;
• Canon 3, in that he failed to perform the duties of his office impartially; and
• Canon 3A (6), in that he failed to abstain from public comment about a pending proceeding in his own court.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/sept-30-2016-order-in-re-roy-moore-1.pdf
