[Dog Gone]

Are you saying that you want the U.S. to be a dictatorship ruled over by the Supreme Court? What the court rules, goes?

Well, yes, I guess. Although it's rather undeniable that Congress and the President have quite a lot to do with who sits on that bench and what jurisdiction they have.

That beats letting the President be dictator, or the Legislature passing whatever the heck it wants to pass without checks.

What is your solution? I thought we resolved this a couple hundred years ago in Marbury v. Madison.

[Bluntpoint]

Whatever a person's feelings are on this matter, this guy, after reproaching all superior courts who involved themselves, could not continue on the bench.

It would have been an appellate nightmare.

With civil disobedience comes responsibilties.

Like the human shields in Iraq, they may have been following their moral directives, but they still have to pay the price the law demands.

[John Twenty 28]

>>Are you saying that you want the U.S. to be a dictatorship ruled over by the Supreme Court? What the court rules, goes?

>Well, yes, I guess.

>What is your solution?

I'm rather partial to the idea of a constitutional republic. Guess I'm old fashioned.