What do you guys feel about his Dred Scott argument, specifically the idea that the courts can be devastatingly wrong about something and enshrine wrong/discriminatory views into law - and thus those laws should be opposed or broken by the people.
For the most part, we are a system of laws. If we don't like what the SCOTUS ruled, we have a legal remedy. We just need to pass a new law or an Amendment (yes I know it is difficult) depending n the situation but the SCOTUS isn't unchecked.
His argument is wrong in that it's the law of the land, still, because we used an Amendment to overturn it.
Having said that, of course I reserve the right to ignore anything that is morally repugnant. Just like military personnel are obligated to ignore morally repugnant orders. If an officer tells you to murder and rape a captive, and you do it, you are wrong.
But the SCOTUS isn't going to create some random thing that does this. Even Dredd Scott did not. It's easy to view it in today's prism, but back when the ruling occurred, they were not going against the grain. It was the prevailing or at least close to it belief of the time. They were validating current repugnant morals.
To look at it any other way is ludicrous. Dredd Scott was a product of its time period. People like Mike Huckabee would have sang praises onto that ruling. Where Dredd Scott was a validation of an awful belief and maintaining status quo for the most part, Obergefell is a repudiation of one. Obergefell is Windsor. It is Brown vs Board. It is Texas v Lawrence. It is not Dredd Scott. It is not Plessy.
