[ConsistentLibertarian]

"I thought it was a good thing to disobey illegal or unjust laws."

Problem: Let's say half the country has different values than you and sooner or later some of them sit on State and Federal courts. Is your position that it's perfectly OK in principle for liberal judges to ignore the law if they feel it's unjust and that the only problem is that you disagree with them about the application of that principle in particular cases?

[Texas_Dawg]

Is your position that it's perfectly OK in principle for liberal judges to ignore the law if they feel it's unjust and that the only problem is that you disagree with them about the application of that principle in particular cases?

Just one more reason that so many I see on FR are not true conservatives. They don't support the rule of law (this is an area where conservatism has always taken the higher ground over leftist "progressivism"), many here are openly hostile to capitalism (it's all about evil CEOs shafting the "little man", you know), and on and on.

[First Amendment]

Is your position that it's perfectly OK in principle for liberal judges to ignore the law if they feel it's unjust and that the only problem is that you disagree with them about the application of that principle in particular cases?

The difference is that the liberal/leftist/secular humanist/moral relativists have only been making their interpretations of the Constitution for a couple of generations. The guys who wrote the original documents of the US would have been outraged at the decisions that the courts make now concerning religious freedom of expression. Tradition and history are on Moore's side. Modern liberal interpretation of the Constituion is not consistent with either.

[P.O.E.]

Problem: Let's say half the country has different values than you and sooner or later some of them sit on State and Federal courts.

Maybe the Feds should leave the states alone, and let people gravitate to those states they like.