[a fool in paradise]

so called conservative politicians and commentators are saying that she’s in the wrong because the rule of law must stand.

There was no ‘law’ the Supremacist Court false gods in black dresses’ decree. They willed it to be so. No legal basis for their decision. The “rule of law” is dead in this country, it is anarchy and tyranny. You can surrender to the tyrants who reject legal precedence...

[chajin]

Here’s a paragraph from Letter from Birmingham Jail, slightly altered to fit the present situation:

“It is true that the judge has exercised a degree of discipline in handling Ms. Davis. In this sense he has conducted himself rather “nonviolently” in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of intolerance for religion. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps the judge gas been rather nonviolent in public, as was the Supreme Court in requiring the acceptance of same-sex marriage, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of religious injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: “The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”

And one more quote, unchanged: “One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

AN UNJUST LAW IS NO LAW AT ALL.

[Cheerio]

There was no ‘law’ the Supremacist Court false gods in black dresses’ decree. They willed it to be so. No legal basis for their decision.

"THEY" got this ball rolling for good with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

Stick a fork in America.

[Bob434]

[[so called conservative politicians and commentators are saying that she’s in the wrong because the rule of law must stand.]]

Yeah, aint fox news grand? “Fair and balanced’ ya know (except more andm ore they side with the liberals)

[Know et al]

so called conservative politicians and commentators are saying that she’s in the wrong because the rule of law must stand.

I wonder if they believe that the Jim Crow and Dred Scott decisions should stand. They were once USSC decisions as well.