I do understand your point about "bending the paper back," so to speak.  However, while hyperbole may be sometimes necessary, it still is hyperbole.

On the second point, I agree with your first paragraph in its entirety.  The second paragraph is where you and I would disagree.  Like it or not, the USSC is responsible for interpreting the Constitution.  Oftentimes, we all think that they have done so wrongly.  However, to follow the rule of law, we must acknowledge that their interpretation, right or wrong, is the law of the land.  IOW, Moore was perfect right as a Christian to take the stand he did.  However, his stand was not consistent with the current law of the land.  Therefore, as a Christian, he is called to suffer, though it may be unjust.  Where he and his supporters are wrong is to suppose that the law of the land justifies him.  It does not. 

obclhorn:   Given the following situation: 

A soldier is given an order by an officer to call in artillery fire on an apartment building.  The soldier knows that there are only civilians inside the building.   The soldier protests to the officer that the order is unlawful.  The officer points out that defeating the enemy is the "law of the land," and that the soldier needs to kill those civilians to scare the enemy into surrendering the village.   Does the soldier abide by the officer's interperetation, or does he refuse to obey orders? 

^^(I should mention that that was a rhetorical question.  :D ) 

Bryce, if you are interested in a debate, check out my latest entry.  :D :D :D

"With people mostly saying she was fine..." I guess I didn't realize many people were saying that  All the conservative opinions I've heard have been really against her. I think the only good report I've heard recently was from Focus on the Family... and my Dad said if Focus on the Family was for her, then she must be bad. Because James Dobson and Focus on the Family aren't the best conservatives around either. Anyway, I don't know what to think.

Would you expect the soldier in that situation to argue that he shouldn't have been removed from his unit?

Were that situation to happen in the Army, the officer would be booted, and the soldier commended, if not promoted/rewarded.  :)

(Well, the officer might not be kicked out, but at least punished.)

The Constitution is (according to itself) the supreme law of the land. I am curious where the SC got the authority to be the law of the land? If they are the final say on everything, doesn't that empower them over the other branches and violate the separation of powers?

Let me ask you this:  If you were a police officer, and were told to go arrest Christians because they violated "separation of church and state," since they were US citizens and worshipped, would you do it?   You know that that is a TOTALLY wrong interperetation of the Constitution - which you swore to uphold as a police officer.   Would you obey that rediculous order?   Even if the entire government said that Christians couldn't be US citizens and had to be arrested?    Would you obey it then?  

I guess my bottom line is this:  There is a higher authority.  :)

SecDef, I clearly agreed with that statement.  I said, "Moore was perfect right as a Christian to take the stand he did."  So, you can keep on coming up with more and more analogies, but that's not going to actually affect the disagreement.  Read the discussion again, because your last post indicates that you don't really have a grasp on what I'm saying.  Just in case I haven't been clear, I'll repeat it:  As a Christian, Moore was correct.  That does not make him legally correct.  The law was correctly applied in removing Moore from office.  He was in the wrong, according to the law.  He was in the right according to God's law.  Does that narrow the disagreement for you?

Bryce, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  The USSC is responsible to interpret the Constitution.  Thus when a dispute over whether something complies with the Constitution arises and is brought before them, they have the final say.  This isn't the same as being the supreme law of the land.   Their jurisdiction is limited.  Not as limited as it ought to be, but still limited.  If nothing else, it is limited by the fact that it is a wholly reactive authority.

"He was in the wrong, according to the law.  He was in the right according to God's law."

Maybe I haven't been clear enough.   In the situation I described, the soldier would be legally correct.  :)   I believe that Judge Moore was legally right AND morally right.  He may not have carried out everything in the best manner, but that does not effect the morality and legality of his actions.  :)

BTW, Bryce, check out Ned's comments on Mier. 

http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/

He wasn't legally correct.  Period.  If you find anyone who has anyone understanding of Constitutional law that says otherwise, they have an agenda.

Thanks for the link Sec. Ned is a former "insider" in the White House, for those of you who want to click on Sec's link above.

Kevin, I am not a constitutional scholar, but I don't see it giving judges quite the authority that you ascribe to them. I need to study constitutionaly law more. Maybe after that I could defend a more clearly defined understanding of the judicial system.