[Thane_Banquo]

So a judge isn't an authority? That is a logically indefensible position, unless you'd like the Republic to descend into chaos.

I tire of this conversation. It is clear you believe we can ignore the Courts at our discretion simply because we disagree with them. I don't believe that. We'll leave it there.

[tame]

So a judge isn't an authority?

Not when he is a rogue out of step with the constitution and 2/3rds of the final governing authority (Congress, executive branch).

That is a logically indefensible position, unless you'd like the Republic to descend into chaos.

My position is the logical position, and it is exactly the way to stop leftist judges from sending our Republic into chaos.

remember, you are assuming that we will go into chaoes if we follow the constitution, and that the leftist judges are not the ones sending us into chaos by theirundermining the rule of law.

This is unjustified circular reasoning to assume that judges are the rule of law. They most certainly are not. They are interpreters of the rule of law. But when they incorrectly interpret the rule of law, they don't become the rule of law, themselves, to which we are accountable.

Please be careful of the underlying relativism you are arguing for. It is self defeating. If relativism is true, then you are right and wrong, which means I am wrong, but also right. I tire of this conversation. It is clear you believe we can ignore the Courts at our discretion simply because we disagree with them. I don't believe that. We'll leave it there.

Look, what I am arguing is that the judge who ordered the removal of the ten commandments is an aberational fraction within the greater parts of the governing authority who don't agree with him.

President Bush and the Congress (for the most part) no doubt agree with Judge Moore's interpretation. They are a greater part of the "governing authority" then that rogue judge, so Judge Moore is not being insubmissive.

[tame]

I also think you are not aware that you are arguing against yourself. You have an internally inconsistent position.

On the one hand, you argue that a court's power is not absolute. It is right for someone to sometimes set aside a court's ruling (as Lincoln did in the Dred Scott case), albeit for human rights.

On the other hand, you seem to be arguing that it is never right to do so.

Remember, our "Republic" did, in fact,"descend into chaos" (we had a civil war!) after Lincoln set aside the SCOTUS decision. But I'm sure you would not fault Lincoln for that just because he "disobeyed" the courts. You would probably argue he was in fact correct.

I know, I know. You would say that was for human dignity. But the point is we both agree that there are times when courts should be "disobeyed" even if it might conceivably result in chaos. We disagree on what grounds we should do so.

So it is disingenous for you to argue as if there is never a time to do so when you think chaos might be involved.