[Dog Gone]

Look, you took statements of mine out of context to try to build your case. Put me at the bottom of your new ratings system. I think I might welcome that.

What Judge Moore is doing is serious stuff which challenges the entire role of the judiciary. Some may welcome that, but there's really no viable alternative. If the courts aren't the final arbiter, who is? The people? That's mob rule. If we're going to be nation governed by the Rule of Law, then there has to be a final word that we all agree is that final word.

For 200 some years, we've agreed that it will be the courts. Now you want something else to be the final rule, although you haven't articulated that yet that I've noticed.

[cornelis]

For 200 some years

It was the Roman days, 200 BC; and the Greek days, 600 BC, that woke the mob. Read Solzhenitsyn on how a law matures.

[rwfromkansas]

Well, the SCOTUS GAVE ITSELF the role of final say on things in M. v. Madison. I don't know what the alternative would be, as we need the courts to check the legislature and executive branch.

At the same time, the courts have much more power than they originally had.

[jwalsh07]

Look, you took statements of mine out of context to try to build your case. Put me at the bottom of your new ratings system.

I don't as a rule take statements out of context. You show me where I did and if I think I was out of line, I'll apologise.

I think I might welcome that.

Lighten up Dog. I don't keep lists and I don't have a ratings system. Ladders are plentiful though.

What Judge Moore is doing is serious stuff which challenges the entire role of the judiciary. Some may welcome that, but there's really no viable alternative.

Judge Moore is exercising his rights as an American citizen and a jurist in the great tradition of our country. He and his fellow travelers are doing it peacefully and with conviction. What better example for American youth?

If the courts aren't the final arbiter, who is? The people? That's mob rule. If we're going to be nation governed by the Rule of Law, then there has to be a final word that we all agree is that final word.

The final arbiter is the Congress of the Unites States of America elcted by the citizens of same. It's all in the COnstitution. All we need do is honor it the way it is written or amend it. Either is fine with me.

For 200 some years, we've agreed that it will be the courts. Now you want something else to be the final rule, although you haven't articulated that yet that I've noticed.

For that same 200 years voluntary prayer in school and the posting of the decalogue were Constitutional. Only in the past 50 years have they somehow morphed into UnConstitutional. To ignore that is fooly, no?

As for articulating my thoughts on rneegade courts, I've been doing it here for quite some time now. Congress should slap them down via the purse or laws proscribing the courts from making laws or they should simply be impeached.

All Constitutional, all within the rule of law.

[microgood]

If we're going to be nation governed by the Rule of Law, then there has to be a final word that we all agree is that final word.

This only works if the ones making the final decision are fulfilling their obligations to interpret the law rather than make it. If they do not fulfill their obligations, I do not feel any obligation to fulfill my end of the deal.

[VRWC_minion]

Now you want something else to be the final rule, although you haven't articulated that yet that I've noticed.

PErsonally, I would like to see Congress limit the scope of courts from ruling on certain religious areas.