Skip to comments.Jeff Sessions concedes Roe v. Wade, same-sex marriage are 'law of the land'
Posted on 01/10/2017 11:42:21 AM PST by Pinkbell
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) declared Tuesday during his Senate confirmation hearing that he would respect the Supreme Court's decisions about both Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage if he is confirmed as attorney general. While Sessions admitted he believes the ruling on women's right to abortion "violated the Constitution," he acknowledged that it is now "the law of the land." "I would respect it and follow it," Sessions said, while admitting he still thinks the Roe v. Wade decision was "colossally erroneous."
Sessions also indicated he agreed with President-elect Donald Trump that the debate over same-sex marriage is already "settled." "I will follow that decision," Sessions said, citing the Supreme Court's 5-4 vote in favor of broadening the definition of marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
My question I guess would be with a bakery, for example, that serves customers regardless of whether or not they are gay but are uncomfortable baking a cake for a wedding that violates their religious beliefs or a caterer, photography studio, etc. would have to provide services. I don't know if he discussed that, but I would like to know his position on that.
Now, onto abortion, I can understand where he is coming from when he says that he respects the law. That said, the law is unjust. It violates the 5th and 14th Amendments which declare that no state can deprive a person of his/her right to life without due process. The unborn child is innocent. Justice Blackmun said the case for abortion collapses if the unborn child is recognized as a person. Should Roe vs. Wade be enforced? Not in my opinion. I don't know if Jeff Sessions supports Personhood, though.
Just before, I heard him saying he will use federal protection to ensure women can get into abortion clinics if necessary. I don't support violence against abortion doctors or outside clinics, but I don't think he needed to go so are as to say he'll use that protection when one of the two people going into the clinic will be killed and not be coming out.
Finally, not sure if they discussed it yet, but was he asked at all about prosecuting Planned Parenthood for trafficking in body parts?
Well, so is immigration law. They wouldn’t enforce that— so to hell with enforcing their perverted crap.
It’s a no-brainer to admit to that.
Currently it is.
Should it be? Aha, now that is the real question.
Laws which can, and should, be overturned post haste.
“Hey, those are our planes now!”
It’s the law (for the time being).
“It’s been a long time coming, but a change gonna come.”
Hmmmm....so Congress passed a Same Sex Marriage Law?
What was before, was until it wasn't. If Liberals think their pet laws are immune to change, we need to disabuse them of that notion.
Gotta change the culture. Er, maybe the better term is restore.
“My question I guess would be with a bakery, for example, that serves customers regardless of whether or not they are gay but are uncomfortable baking a cake for a wedding that violates their religious beliefs or a caterer, photography studio, etc. would have to provide services. I don’t know if he discussed that, but I would like to know his position on that.”
That is not a federal issue as there is no federal law addressees the matters you mentioned with the wedding cake baker, or wedding photographer and never has a person been prosecuted by federal authorities for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Slavery was one time the “settled” law of the land. Just because a law is bad doesn’t mean it has to stay on the books.
He was just asked again about Roe vs. Wade and again said it was “ensconced” in law and wouldn’t say he would have his solicitor general to testify against it (called it hypothetical). Why is our side always afraid to come out firmly on stuff? The Democrats don’t care. For goodness sake - abortion ends a human life.
It no longer matters what the law is. This needs to bite the left just as they have bitten us over the last 8 years.
Will it lead to civil war? Possibly (except the left is mostly composed of helpless pussies). Better now than later.
Good example. I want these pervert laws repealed. I have information from a reliable source that the left will be beside itself when Donald does his thing the first month.
Sessions is a good man. We need him. I don’t want to get mired down in the hearings. We know how the Left plays the game one way for their boys and another for ours.
He will be approved and we’ll be very happy with him.
He’s not a shrinking violet.
They might ask if recording "controversial, protected conversations with people involved in protecting women's 'healthcare,' is illegal."
You can say that he has to adhere to the law as Attorney General. Of course, if the laws are overturned, he would have to adhere then as well.
Rather than let states decide that unfortunate debacle...the court was either threatened or made a knee jerk Political Correct decision. Again, Roe v Wade is a badly written law by most standards....should be re-written or something done to improve it...politically correctness should have no place in ANY law!
Very good point.
So was slavery at one time
Yes since the left is all about enforcing existing “laws of the land”.
I wasn’t aware of congress passing laws legalizing abortion or gay marriage.
Exactly - like immigration law. This law is unconstitutional, and it leads to the death of 1.3 million children per year. It wouldn’t be calling it the “law of land.” Slavery was once the “law of the land” too.
“If Liberals think their pet laws are immune to change, we need to disabuse them of that notion.”
Yep! They need to learn what a “constitutional amendment” is if they want to keep pushing this ridiculous garbage at the Federal level via some appointed-for-life black robed tyrants.
Just because they’re lazy and cannot mount a sane argument doesn’t mean their trashy pet projects should be imposed on the entire nation due to some interpretation of the US Constitution by some body of judges at one point in time. Makes ZERO sense.
These two laws were activist decisions.
So are the laws on immigration, but Democrats sure seem to think they can be ignored or changed.
He also said if that law was overturned he would enforce that law as well
As attorney general his job is to enforce the law not to decide if it is fair or not. If we want something changed that is our job. We hope that the USSC will do something about it
Even though we won, we just lost again. SMH.
No sir. Either change it or God will.
It goes without saying that SCOTUS decisions can’t be overridden by a US AG. But Congress has that authority to some degree and a new court can revise a prior court decision. Further, there are executive orders which can impact the way SCOTUS decisions are implemented - or not.
Conservatives should have learn a lot from the damn libs when it comes to promoting an agenda.
Whenever we get to these issues, our people tip toe around them. The Dems don’t care. They support abortion through 9 months - with Obama opposing protecting children born alive during an abortion. Why do we allow the media to dictate that there is something controversial about protecting unborn life?
As far as same sex marriage, I contend the Supreme Court didn’t have the right to change the definition of marriage - a definition that has proceeded the founding of this country.
Did you hear Ted Cruz today? He was great.
The point is, it’s not the AGs place to determine that. He enforces the law; he does not make it.
Therefore, we should be able to say that the US Supreme [sic] Court themselves ignored the "law of the land" by declaring unilaterally that no state laws forbidding abortion were Constitutional, even after 80-90 years of being in force, and without any comprehensible reason.
We are 44 years out from this decision of Roe v. Wade, which wasn't law but destruction of law. Some of us will live to see that day that Constitutional protection is again extended to all human beings.
And so was “separate but equal” under Plessy v Ferguson.
The President doesn’t have the authority to abolish gay marriage. And, I doubt he would if he could. DJT could not care less about gay marriage.
Leaky Leahey sounds like he is trying to set up Trump for impeachment based on that old tape. Why is this traitorous bastard not in jail?
What I would like someone to say is “yes, it is the law of the land. At one time, so was Jim Crow, so was segregation, so was whites/blacks only laws, so was Dredd Scott. However, over time and much bloodshed, these laws were deemed unjust and unconstitutional. Over the past few decades, over 60 million babies have been murdered by a segment of the medical and law industry more interested in making money then saving lives. As AG, I would follow the law but would work to get the law changed, just as I would any other unjust law.”
Well, like Nuremberg Trials, it WAS known to all people who had an ability to “think” critically, that any “Just” law ONLY promotes “public virtue” and can never be “Just” or constitutional, if it promotes illegal, unnatural dysfunctional “behaviors” that kill others or destroy the dignity and meaning of institutions. Any behavior (like sodomy and baby-killing) which treats human beings as a Means (object/slave) is unconstitutional—period. Every lawyer who doesn’t understand simple Natural Law Theory—that which created the US Constitution, needs to be disbarred. Or, if they are on the bench, they need to be tried for treason if they promote antithetical behaviors like baby-killing and sodomy. BTW, ALL Law promotes morality and the ONLY morality based in the US Constitution is Christian morality of individual Natural Rights from God only—never the State.
Now, saying there is a “right” to kill your own genetic offspring is not only vile, unnatural and evil, it is unconstitutional since Science proves a baby is separate and alive inside the womb. All people have Natural Rights in the USA.
And the promotion of sodomy and “sodomite marriage” is irrational and denies babies their biological mother or father (their Natural right), and a system which creates children out of Love and committed relationships—proven best system for civil societies (Natural family unit). To raise children to be emotionally healthy and flourishing takes a loving mother and father (non-sexist system), and to deny that truth or Natural Right is irrational and unnatural and a removal of Natural Law Theory from our legal system, which formed our Justice (virtue) system. Constitutional Law can never be antithetical to the individual natural rights of any human being.
The Leftists removed Right Reason and truth (science (God)) from our legal system which is unconstitutional. We need to put Right Reason and Natural Law BACK into our “legal” system.
“Did you hear Ted Cruz today? He was great.”
Cruz was spectacular today sticking it to the Dems regarding their total hypocrisy at these Jeff Sessions hearings. He went up one small notch in redeeming himself in my book. Cruz was really at the top of his game, and was exceedingly helpful to Session’s cause. Bravo, job well done today, Ted Cruz.
What is he supposed to say? It is the ‘law of the land’ until the Supreme court says it is no longer the ‘law of the land.’
It does not deserve respect!
Well said, and I agree with you.
First get him the position. Then he’ll do the right things > IMO.
‘rats bein ‘Rats ...
Until they’re overturned. And that’s the Supreme Court’s department, not the Attorney General’s. His job is to enforce and defend the law as it exists, whether he likes the law or not.
Segregation was the law, too, until it was overturned.
In colonial Virginia, into the early days of the Republic, it was illegal to release slaves if you were in debt or to release dowry slaves. The former is the reason that Jefferson, who opposed slavery, could not release his slaves, and the latter is the reason Washington could not release his.
That was the law. That doesn’t men that it remained the law, nor that it should have.
Well, that is the current state of the law. Again, that can be changed.
Why is it that liberals seem to think it's OK to use force to compel those people to provide services that violate their religious principles, but they uphold and defend the right of designers to refuse to provide dresses for Melania Trump because of their political beliefs?
I am for allowing the refusal in all these cases, even if I think it's a bad idea (in the case of Melania), but it's just another reminder that if it weren't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.
Personally, I do not, nor never will accept so called homosexual marriage or practices. “It is abomination.”
The ag cannot create laws, so technically his statements are what they should be.
Enforcement of laws and prioritizing what laws to enforce are more at his discretion, just like bammy and the sociocrats have shown us.
If the laws change then he will enforce the new laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.