[Political Junkie Too]

I’m finding it very odd that people have decided that they won’t accept a Supreme Court ruling if it does not go the way they have decided it should go. That doesn’t sound like following our “system” at all...

Here we may find some common ground.

There is a difference between accepting a Supreme Court ruling on the here and now, and fighting to change it (which is not an accepting behavior).

For example, I offer the recent Kelo eminent domain "takings" decision. People accepted the taking of their property because the alternative was forcible removable by law enforcement. But, that did not stop states from enacting laws to nullify the Supreme Court ruling for future eminent domain claims in their states.

So, Supreme Court rulings are not "final" in that sense. If Obama can't be stopped in 2009, he might still be prevented from running in 2012, as was Arthur, by new laws requiring the positive proof of qualification by candidates before running for president.

-PJ

[Star Traveler]

Okay, I can buy that. There is still room for change, working within the system that we have in order to make that change, while accepting (in the way of a court order) what is not agreed upon — for now... [I think... :-) ]

—

Of course, there is always one particular option for possibly some individuals (which is sort of extreme, but possible) and for deeply held convictions (and you have to be careful here) there is civil disobedience (but that should be rare, and one has to accept the penalties involved in engaging in that, too...)