[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - 10 Cs

[CobaltBlue]

This reminds me of a story told about a conversation between Leander Perez, "boss" of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, and Earl Long, then governor, about integration of the public schools in Plaquemines Parish.

Leander did't like it, and wanted to resist it, but Long quipped, "well, Leander, what are we going to do now that the feds have got themselves the ay-tomic bomb?"

Alabama already tried seceding from the Union once, and it didn't work. And Alabama already tried resisting federal court orders to integrate their schools, and let black folks register to vote, and that didn't work, either.

As a practical matter, the governor of Alabama, the Alabama attorney general, and eight of the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court intend to obey Judge Thompson, and, indeed, already have.

So I don't think we're going to have the grand confrontation you're hoping for. But even if you did, is this issue worth killing people for and worth dying for? Said issue being this particular copy of the Ten Commandments.

My guess is that everybody is putting up a big fuss hoping to get one more justice on the US Supreme Court to grant cert, BWDIK?

[.30Carbine]

Among the most vital issues facing American jurisprudence are (1) whether our legal system may acknowledge the Higher Law of God as the source and measure of our laws; (2) whether the establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the State of Alabama from acknowledging God and His law as the moral foundation of law; (3) whether the State of Alabama (and the 49 other states) are distinctive and viable entities in the American constitutional system or whether they are merely closely supervised subdivisions of a national government; and (4) whether it is ever appropriate to disobey the order of a federal judge.

The most astute observations and concise historical analysis on the subject to date. Must reading for scope and precedent of interposition.

[MissAmericanPie]

So where do we report?

[SevenDaysInMay]

Why do we bow to federal blackrobes in matters beyond their Constitutionally limited jurisdiction?

Because they say so?

Because they cite Marbry v. Madisom et al. when SCOTUS blckrobes pulled a power play once and more upon a time?

Why would SCOTUS rule that they are not all powerful?

Why do the legislative and executive branches play along when SCOTUS and lesser courts rule clearly in violation of our RATIFiED Constitution?

Because of blackrobes self-justifying doctrine of stare decisis reinforcing unConstitutional rulings until judicial unlawfulness becomes doctrine because they say so?

Our Rule of Law is failing because blackrobes act unlawfully - with no basis in law or Constitutional authority. Our Law of the Land is being mocked as it is repeatedly ignored and violated to fit unelcted politicians' social agendas guided by admired or envied European trends. Our RATIFIED Constitution is being ruled away by bench fiat as we sit by and let blackrobed tyrants order us about to suit their utopian agendas called case law. These very men and women violate their oaths of office and "good behavior" terms of office when they rule unlawfully, flagrantly unConstitutionally.

It is passed time that we demand blackrobes' impeachment and removal from office - with total loss of their gravy train of full pay and benefits for life in their comfy perversion of retirement, a status created by who else, themselves.

Did the 1861 War of Northern Aggression amend by force of arms amid serial slaughter our written, RATIFIED Constitution voiding our 9th and 10th Amendments, 20% of our Bill of Rights, such that federal jurisdiction is unlimited, supreme and all powerful because federal blackrobes say so?

[jwalsh07]

Nice one, the Colonel is pretty much right on.