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.
Cripes, what an attitude. The entire argument is about federal courts making law out of whole cloth and you just bowe your head and mumble "It's kind of a done deal".
For what is worth, that is the statement that I thought you took out of context. Looking back at your post and mine, you didn't. So my accusation is wrong. I apologize.
My mistake was in trying to smooth things over. I should have been quite firm in pointing out that the First Amendment does apply to the states, and that's firmly established constitutional law.
It's pretty weird that this is debatable at a conservative forum.