[fieldmarshaldj]

"I just don't think its wise to advocate what essentially constitutes anarchy. After all, we are a nation of laws."

When judges refuse to obey and interpret laws AS written, it is the DUTY of the other branches to nullify and/or disregard said decisions. The courts are not God, and their decisions are NOT a mutual suicide pact for this nation. Their activism and deliberate misinterpretations ARE anarchy.

[Shortstop7]

their decisions are NOT a mutual suicide pact for this nation. Their activism and deliberate misinterpretations ARE anarchy.

I was thinking the same thing about you. ;)

[ComeUpHigher]

You certainly are entitled to your opinion. I think it is best to give it greater consideration.

In 1896, the US Supreme Court rendered the Plessy v. Ferguson opinion in which it held that the concept of “separate but equal” was constitutional. The decision was wrong and ultimately the US Supreme Court overruled Plessy. In 1896, it would have been anarchy and perhaps civil war for the President and governors of various states to refuse to comply with this decision.

I asked for a link if you have one regarding constitutional scholars or professors who have analyzed the Goodridge decision. Since you haven't provided a link, I'm assuming you don't have any authority for your position, correct? Despite your passion, there is simply no constitutional authority for the anarchy you advocate.

Fregards