(EDGE) Anti-LGBT US Senate, hopeful Judge Roy Moore from Alabama, is calling on Congress to impeach the federal judge who blocked President Trump's ban on transgender service members in the military.

In a statement released on Facebook Monday, Moore wrote:

"The decision of a federal judge in the District of Columbia enjoining President Trump's executive order on transgenderism in the military is absolutely ridiculous and is a perfect example of the outlandish doctrine of judicial supremacy whereby judges exalt themselves over the Constitution they are sworn to uphold."

Moore, who was famously suspended in 2016 for directing probate judges to continue to enforce the state's ban on same-sex marriage despite the United States Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell, ironically blasted US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly for "judicial activism."

"To say that President Trump cannot prohibit transgenderism in the military is a clear example of judicial activism," Moore wrote. "Even the United States Supreme Court has never declared transgenderism to be a right under the Constitution."

"Judge Kollar-Kotelly should be impeached by the House of Representatives for unlawful usurpation of power (Article II, § 4) and lack of good behavior (Article III, § 1), and referred to the Senate for a vote on removal.," Moore wrote.

The military's ban on transgender service members was lifted by President Obama in this last year in office. In July, President Trump announced via Tweet that the government "will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military."

A lawsuit was filed in August by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of eight transgender individuals, including service members in the Air Force, Coast Guard and the Army, as well as students at the U.S. Naval Academy and in the ROTC program at the University of New Haven.

Fox News reports that Judge Kollar-Kotelly said Monday that the plaintiffs clearly established that they would be harmed by the administration's directives. She also contended that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in arguing that the directives were unconstitutionally discriminatory -- targeting transgender people without evidence that their service caused substantive problems for the military.

The directives "do not appear to be supported by any facts," the judge wrote.