You said — “It wouldn’t be the first ruling from the Supreme Court to which folks around here reject. Can you say “abortion”?”
I agree with you there. But, people *do accept it” in that it’s applied as the law. That doesn’t mean that they think it’s right — but they’ve accepted the decision. And they’re still working on changing it, while accepting the decision. That’s working *within* the system to make changes.
So, when you say “reject” it — the question is are you going to reject it by blowing up abortion clinics with bombs? Or are you going to reject it by shooting abortion doctors dead? If so, that’s not the kind of rejection that I would be talking about.
I would reject it — in that it’s not right, but it’s still the law and it needs to be changed. Then I would work on whatever can be done to change it, while recognizing the *reality* of the situation at the present time...
Get real. Now your playing word games?
Surely you don’t think that any Freeper is going to blow up the White House!
Each of those Justices takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. It’s debatable whether some have ignored that oath.
With all the mystery surrounding Obama, some Americans may reject him as our President without a determination that he is indeed a natural citizen. But that rejection doesn’t mean very much in the big picture. It’s not as if we can ignore the bills and orders he’ll sign into law.
I wish Obama would just produce his damn birth certificate. But if he doesn’t, I think the Supreme Court has a Constitutional duty to rule on whether he is qualified to hold office. But I also think the Justices won’t touch this political hot potato.