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.
No. quite the contrary. It is the leftist courts who believe they can ignore the constitution "at their discretion simply because" they "disagree" with it.
Second, I'm not the one who is a relativist. I don't think "disagreement" is a condition for disobeying the courts. Rather truth, Godliness, and constitutionality are the conditions.
I don't argue we should disobey the courts when they disagree with us, but rather when they are wrong. Truth, after all, is knowable.
If you say it is not is to allow that it is. After all, if you say truth is not knowable, then you are claiming to know that it is unknowable, which is self-contradictory.