Anarchy or tyranny. There has been many who have said that if a judge does not obey the law(or a decision) then we will have anarchy. I disagree. Someone has to say enough is enough and who is better than a popular elected official. I say tyranny is the alternative to anarchy. Which one do you think is worst? Definitions :anarchy. Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at Date: 1539 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order :<not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker> Tyranny Date: 14th century 1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man -- Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state> 2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b : the office, authority, and administration of a 3 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock -- Dixon Wecter> 4 : an act Look at these definitions and see which is worst. Remember what Moore has done is to say that the Federal judge is out of jurisdiction. He is not promoting anarchy, but tyranny is the only other choice. WAKE UP!!!!