Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, known for his opposition to federal courts imposing same-sex "marriage" on states, says U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg could be penalized for her public advocacy of "gay" rights as the court considers a case that could redefine marriage in federal law.

"It's called impeachment," he told WND on Thursday.

As WND reported, Ginsburg has performed same-sex wedding ceremonies and made supportive public statements. Justice Elena Kagan also has performed same-sex weddings and promoted "gay" rights at Harvard's law school while she was at its helm.

Critics contend the two justice appear to be violating judicial ethics rules that require recusal from a case in which there is even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

TRENDING: Undercover journalist turns the tables, sues Planned Parenthood for defamation

A brief from the Foundation for Moral Law, for which Moore worked before he was elected to the court's highest position in Alabama, explained that Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides: "A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court." 28 U.S.C. sec 455(a) mandates that a justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

The foundation pointed out in a submission to the Supreme Court: "Four weeks after this court granted certiorari in these cases, Justice Ginsburg was asked whether parts of the country might not accept same-sex marriage being constitutionalized. She answered: 'I think it's doubtful that it wouldn't be accepted. The change in people's attitudes on that issue has been enormous … It would not take a large adjustment.'"

Ginsburg's interview was with Bloomberg News on Feb. 12.

The motion said the "extrajudicial comments about a matter pending before the court violate Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States judges: 'A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.'"

The controversy has resurfaced, because even after being told of the appearance of a conflict of interest, Ginsburg again officiated at a same-sex wedding, as the New York Times reported.

The paper said that with "a sly look and special emphasis on the word 'Constitution,' Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States."

"No one was sure," the paper said, "if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage in constitutional."

A decision is expected sometime in the coming weeks.

But Moore said the Constitution's option for impeachment appears to apply, since Ginsburg's actions could be perceived as flouting the concept of a neutral judiciary. He noted that besides the well-known "high crimes and misdemeanors" that would subject a federal official to impeachment, Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution also provides that judges "shall hold their offices during good behavior."

Moore told WND, according to an analysis by historian Raoul Berger at Harvard Law School in 1970, that clearly suggests an end to "good behavior" is accompanied by an end of their "offices."

"His conclusion is there is an implied power to remove judges whose bad behaviors fall short of high crimes and misdemeanors," he said. Since there are no "dead words" in the Constitution, "every word has a meaning.

"The remedy rests with Congress," he told WND, although anyone could raise the question.

Moore explained that because he had spoken out on the issue, through an administrative court order in his state, when the question came before the Alabama Supreme Court, he did not participate in the arguments or decision.

That would be an appropriate solution at the U.S. Supreme Court, multiple groups have suggested, but there are no procedures to force a justice with the appearance of a conflict to step down.

A justice with the appearance of a conflict who would take part in the decision would simply "undermine the Supreme Court's credibility," Moore said.

He recently was interviewed on a Washington radio program with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, discussing the latest on the issue in his state. A federal judge there ordered the imposition of same-sex "marriage," but Moore pointed out to his state's probate judges, who issue marriage licenses, that they are bound to follow the state Constitution, which forbids it.

Hear the interview:

The federal judge's ruling could only apply to the specific plaintiffs in the case, he argued. The state's attorney general, who was a defendant, is a member of the executive branch, so the ruling could not impact the state's judges.

The federal judge, Callie Granade, later expanded her order, but it is stayed because of the pending Supreme Court decision.

Moore pointed out that the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, not the words of any justice or judge.

Nowhere in the Constitution, he noted, is marriage mentioned, which rationally makes any regulation the responsibility of states not the federal government.

Col. John Eisdmoe, also of the Foundation for Moral Law, told WND earlier that the pro-"gay" bias exhibited by Ginsburg and Kagan ultimately will leave a cloud over any ruling.

"The decision will forever be open to question of whether it was an honest and fair decision of the court or was controlled by their personal viewpoints on the issue," he told WND earlier.

Eidsmoe is a lecturer at colleges and universities and a constitutional attorney with a successful litigation record in religious freedom cases. He holds five degrees in law, theology and political science, including two doctorates, and he's written numerous books, including "Christianity and the Constitution."

WND has reported multiple groups have urged Ginsburg and Kagan to recuse themselves from the marriage case.

They have refused, to date, and also have declined to respond to questions on that issue.

Joining in the call for Kagan and Ginsburg to be removed from the case were hundreds of members of the Rabbinical Alliance of America.

"We join many other[s] who are appalled and deeply ashamed" that Ginsburg and Kagan "have still not had the grace, or decency to adhere to the U.S. code which calls upon a justice to 'Disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,'" their statement said.

"We call upon Chief Justice Roberts, President Obama and the House and Senate Judiciary committees to speak out and take the necessary steps to disqualify Kagan and Ginsburg from participating in these proceedings," said the statement, which represented the 850 members of the organization.

A report by the Hill cited Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries, who released a statement at the Supreme Court building urging the two justices to recuse.

"Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, knowing full well that unique legal issues regarding the definition of marriage would soon come before them, deliberately officiated at so-called homosexual wedding ceremonies creating not merely the appearance of bias, but an actual and blatant conflict of interest,” Lively said, according to the Hill.

"In my personal view they have committed an unparalleled breach of judicial ethics by elevating the importance of their own favored political cause of gay rights above the integrity of the court and of our nation."

Earlier, the American Family Association launched a campaign urging citizens to explain to their representatives in Congress why the two justices shouldn't participate in the case.

"U.S. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg should recuse themselves from any cases involving the homosexual marriage issue on the basis that they have conducted same-sex marriage ceremonies," the campaign letter states.

A petition has been created in support of ordinances that allow Christian business owners to live by their faith.

Fox News reported Kagan performed a Sept. 21, 2014, same-sex marriage for her former law clerk, Mitchell Reich, and his partner, in Maryland. NPR reported Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., in August 2013, the campaign said.

Brian Camenker, whose Mass Resistance organization has released a detailed report on Kagan's pro-homosexual activism while she was at Harvard, added, "Federal law is clear, if there's a perception of bias. There is no question there is a question of bias [here]."

His report, which he compiled with Amy Contrada of Mass Resistance and Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, originally was published when Kagan was a candidate for the court.

It's been updated now and re-released.

The report is blunt: "Kagan is committed to the radical campaign pushing acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as 'civil rights.' Her unprecedented activism supporting that view as dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009) calls into question her ability to judge fairly and impartially on same-sex 'marriage' and other homosexuality- or transgender-related issues that may come before the nations' highest court."

The report continued: "There should be grave concern over Kagan's issues advocacy concerning 'sexual orientation.' Even before her nomination to the court, her enthusiastic and committed pro-homosexuality activism at Harvard (including her recruitment to the faculty of radical 'gay' activist scholars like former ACLU lawyer William Rubenstein and elevation of radical out lesbian Professor Janet Halley) was highly significant for the nation. Now, it is imperative that senators and the U.S. public gain an accurate understanding of the radical, pro-homosexual environment that was Kagan's home at Harvard – and the GLBT legal agenda that Kagan herself helped foster as dean."

See Ginsburg's comments: