Fiorina Did Refer to SCOTUS Decision As “Law of the Land”

Caffeinated Thoughts ^ | September 30, 2015 | Shane Vander Hart

[EternalVigilance]

Carly Fiorina’s recent interview with Jan Mickelson on WHO Radio on Friday is getting some attention namely because of what she denied.

“Here in Iowa when you say Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land that sets us off because Iowans got bludgeoned by court decisions here, and we went through Civics 101 and we don’t accept propositions that court decisions are the law of the land,” Mickelson said.

“Actually, with all due respect Jan, I think that is a quote from someone else, not from me. I know there are many Republican candidates, Kasich among them, who have said those exact words, but there is no doubt, there is no doubt that we have a problem with our judiciary,” Fiorina responded.

MIckelson later circled back to the original question after she discussed the importance of appointing the right judges, “so you never said that?”

“I am not aware of having said that. I am aware of other candidates saying that. I think this probably came up with the recent decision on gay marriage. My comment on that was we must exert enormous energy towards protecting religious liberty in this country, and that means every state has to pass a religious freedom protection act. We have had those pass in many state, and I stood strong and defended Indiana when everybody was piling on Indiana, but it is clear we have to pass those laws at the state level, as well as, the federal level,” Fiorina said.

She did refer to a Supreme Court decision as “the law of the land,” and that comment was made in the context of the Supreme Court decision on marriage that at the time was still a month out from being released.

How do I know this? She said it to me.

Watch the video of her saying it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6Ge6sIEicU

“I think the Supreme Court ruling will become the law of the land, and however much I may agree or disagree with it, I wouldn’t support an amendment to reserve it. I very much hope that we would come to a place now in this nation where we can support their decision and at the same time support people to have, to hold religious views and to protect their right to exercise those views,” Fiorina told Caffeinated Thoughts after a Dallas County Republican event in May.

“I think this is a nation that should be able to accept that government shouldn’t discriminate on how it provides benefits and that people have a right to their religious views and those views need to be protected. We need to protect religious liberty in this country,” Fiorina added.

Now granted she said this before the Supreme Court ruled on marriage, but her statement is pretty clear. “I think the Supreme Court ruling will become the law of the land.” The way it was framed it appeared she believed that regardless of how the court ruled.

Mickelson’s question wasn’t about her opinion about whether she agreed with the ruling or not. It’s about whether she believes the judicial branch is supreme. She is asked a lot of questions and gives a lot of interviews so I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt that she probably forgot.

That said she owes Jan Mickelson’s listeners some answers about her view of the judiciary.

[EternalVigilance]

Very Romneyesque.

[EternalVigilance]

FYI...

[DuncanWaring]

The “Law of the Land” once also held that one man could own another as property.

[CivilWarBrewing]

So did Trump and others. Shows lack of understanding of SCOTUS’ limitations of their authority.

[GraceG]

So I guess Dredd Scott and Kuramatsu still is the law of the land too!

[EternalVigilance]

Absolutely.

[Vigilanteman]

You owe an apology to Romney for the comparison. Even he wasn’t that dense. If Fiorina thinks we live in a dictatorship run by a committee of five judges, then there is no reason for a congress or a president.

[EternalVigilance]

I hope you’re not holding your breath for any apologies to Romney.

I’d hate to see you die.

:-)

[DiogenesLamp]

“I think the Supreme Court ruling will become the law of the land, and however much I may agree or disagree with it, I wouldn’t support an amendment to reserve it.

Good bye! No further consideration of you is warranted.

[Jim W N]

I don’t really care what Fiorina said. She’s not a trustworthy or worthwhile candidate for President. We need someone MUCH better than that.

Regarding the law of the land, a SCOTUS decision based on a good-faith effort to apply the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended, is certainly a valid interpretation of a federal law and thus certainly is part of the law of the land.

A SCOTUS decision, congressional legislation, or a Presidential act that is not authorized by the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended, is NOT the law of the land (ART VI, CL 2, U.S. Constitution).

[EternalVigilance]

Romney was that dense, by the way. When the supreme judicial court in Massachusetts offered a completely non-binding opinion that fake sodomite “marriage” should be the law in their state, and suggested that the legislative branch should make it so, Governor Romney, without any legitimate authority whatsoever to do so, enforced their silly opinion on the whole state.

[South40]

Fiorina Did Refer to SCOTUS Decision As “Law of the Land”

So did Trump. (tagline)

[EternalVigilance]

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

-- President Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

[Vigilanteman]

Strictly rhetorical. Romney said stupid things because he so badly wanted to be liked by the ultraleft cesspool of politicians and voters in Massachusetts. Fiorina says them as if she actually believes them. Huge difference.

[EternalVigilance]

"You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

-- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Charles Jarvis, (28 September 1820).

[EternalVigilance]

Let’s face it, Romney doesn’t really believe in much of anything.

[EternalVigilance]

Yup.

[Vigilanteman]

FWIW, I think Donald Trump is basically Mitt Romney with more backbone. If you break it down by issues, there is little difference.

That's not a popular thing to say around here, but that's the fact, Jack!

[EternalVigilance]

I agree.

[txrefugee]

Fiorina said that Kim Davis was an elected official. and it was “her duty to obey the law of the land.” I’m sure this is on video because it was on Fox News when Davis was sent to jail for not issuing marriage licenses. Obviously, Fiorina isn’t ready for prime time and has opposing viewpoints on every issue.