>>>>He was in line with what he was elected to do and the federal judge was out of line to usurp authority over a state, where the constitution forbids him to do. <<<<<<<<
No, you are mistaken. The Constitution says that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and has certain jurisdictions. In past times, in the 1950s and 1960s, southern courts and state officials tried to defy the federal courts. They failed. Judge Moore will fail also. This is settled law and there is no doubt about it, that Judge Moore is obligated to obey the federal court. Here is article 6:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
No, you are mistaken. The Constitution says that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and has certain jurisdictions. In past times, in the 1950s and 1960s, southern courts and state officials tried to defy the federal courts. They failed. Judge Moore will fail also. This is settled law and there is no doubt about it, that Judge Moore is obligated to obey the federal court. Here is article 6:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.