Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jeff Sessions concedes Roe v. Wade, same-sex marriage are 'law of the land'
The Week ^ | January 10, 2017 | Becca Stanek

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; homosexualagenda; jeffsessions; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last
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.

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?

1 posted on 01/10/2017 11:42:21 AM PST by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Well, so is immigration law. They wouldn’t enforce that— so to hell with enforcing their perverted crap.


2 posted on 01/10/2017 11:43:57 AM PST by WENDLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

It’s a no-brainer to admit to that.

Currently it is.

Should it be? Aha, now that is the real question.


3 posted on 01/10/2017 11:45:08 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Recall John McCain. NOW, before he gets us in WWIII.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Laws which can, and should, be overturned post haste.


4 posted on 01/10/2017 11:45:26 AM PST by ctdonath2 ("If anyone will not listen to your words, shake the dust from your feet and leave them." - Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

“Hey, those are our planes now!”

Ha ha...


5 posted on 01/10/2017 11:47:00 AM PST by isthisnickcool (Say what you will about The Donald, but he has all the right enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

It’s the law (for the time being).

“It’s been a long time coming, but a change gonna come.”


6 posted on 01/10/2017 11:47:16 AM PST by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Hmmmm....so Congress passed a Same Sex Marriage Law?


7 posted on 01/10/2017 11:47:56 AM PST by Maverick68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell
Jeff Sessions concedes Roe v. Wade, same-sex marriage are 'law of the land'

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.

8 posted on 01/10/2017 11:48:02 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

He’s right.


9 posted on 01/10/2017 11:48:18 AM PST by Ted Grant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell
Politics is downstream from culture.

Gotta change the culture. Er, maybe the better term is restore.

10 posted on 01/10/2017 11:49:37 AM PST by riri (Obama's Amerika--Not a fun place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

“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.


11 posted on 01/10/2017 11:49:43 AM PST by Timpanagos1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WENDLE

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.


12 posted on 01/10/2017 11:49:53 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


13 posted on 01/10/2017 11:50:23 AM PST by Pinkbell (http://dtforpres.blogspot.com/2016/11/cnn-lies-multiple-times-to-help-hillary.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All

Agree.

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.


14 posted on 01/10/2017 11:50:33 AM PST by TheTimeOfMan (A time for peace and a time for war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

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.


15 posted on 01/10/2017 11:53:08 AM PST by WENDLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

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.


16 posted on 01/10/2017 11:53:11 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Recall John McCain. NOW, before he gets us in WWIII.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell
No liberal senator would dare approach the subject of "selling unborn baby body parts" for that would be admitting it has and is occurring.

They might ask if recording "controversial, protected conversations with people involved in protecting women's 'healthcare,' is illegal."

17 posted on 01/10/2017 11:53:37 AM PST by zerosix ( Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

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.


Among the many things Obama taught us, such as it’s okay to politicize federal agencies, he showed us that the Justice Department is under no obligation to enforce laws the President disagrees with.


18 posted on 01/10/2017 11:54:59 AM PST by sparklite2 (I'm less interested in the rights I have than the liberties I can take.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell
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..."

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!

19 posted on 01/10/2017 11:55:03 AM PST by yoe (USA do not let BHO further divide this nation as he "hangs around.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68

Very good point.


20 posted on 01/10/2017 11:57:27 AM PST by John W (Under Two Months And Counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

So was slavery at one time


21 posted on 01/10/2017 11:58:18 AM PST by AppyPappy (If you really want to irritate someone, point out something obvious they are trying hard to ignore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Yes since the left is all about enforcing existing “laws of the land”.


22 posted on 01/10/2017 11:58:30 AM PST by Roman_War_Criminal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

I wasn’t aware of congress passing laws legalizing abortion or gay marriage.


23 posted on 01/10/2017 12:01:08 PM PST by upsdriver (I support Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roman_War_Criminal

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.


24 posted on 01/10/2017 12:01:30 PM PST by Pinkbell (http://dtforpres.blogspot.com/2016/11/cnn-lies-multiple-times-to-help-hillary.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“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.


25 posted on 01/10/2017 12:01:48 PM PST by edh (I need a better tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: upsdriver

These two laws were activist decisions.


26 posted on 01/10/2017 12:02:41 PM PST by Pinkbell (http://dtforpres.blogspot.com/2016/11/cnn-lies-multiple-times-to-help-hillary.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

So are the laws on immigration, but Democrats sure seem to think they can be ignored or changed.


27 posted on 01/10/2017 12:04:17 PM PST by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

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


28 posted on 01/10/2017 12:05:37 PM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Even though we won, we just lost again. SMH.


29 posted on 01/10/2017 12:06:12 PM PST by backwoods-engineer (Trump won; I celebrated; I'm good. Let's get on with the civil war now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

No sir. Either change it or God will.


30 posted on 01/10/2017 12:07:36 PM PST by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin (Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

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.


31 posted on 01/10/2017 12:11:41 PM PST by ZULU (We are freedom's safest place!!!! #BOYCOTT HAMILTON!!! #BOYCOTT NEW YORK CITY!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

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.


32 posted on 01/10/2017 12:12:03 PM PST by Pinkbell (http://dtforpres.blogspot.com/2016/11/cnn-lies-multiple-times-to-help-hillary.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Roman_War_Criminal

Did you hear Ted Cruz today? He was great.


33 posted on 01/10/2017 12:12:19 PM PST by lilypad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

The point is, it’s not the AGs place to determine that. He enforces the law; he does not make it.


34 posted on 01/10/2017 12:17:01 PM PST by bigdaddy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell
The protection of unborn children was codified / written into law (i,e. that abortion IS illegal) in every single state in the 1860s and 1870s, after many centuries of it being understood from common law that OF COURSE it is illegal and immoral. The medical doctors of the United States (then-version of the American Medical Association) were the leaders in this pro-life legislation, since they could use science to prove the humanity of the babies. And this was after the Republicans led the charge to acknowledge the humanity of the ex-slaves (of Democrat landowners). Which is why we can truly say that abortion is a civil rights issue.

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.

35 posted on 01/10/2017 12:17:44 PM PST by wildandcrazyrussian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

And so was “separate but equal” under Plessy v Ferguson.


36 posted on 01/10/2017 12:18:35 PM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WENDLE

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.


37 posted on 01/10/2017 12:19:35 PM PST by bigdaddy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

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?


38 posted on 01/10/2017 12:19:57 PM PST by Redleg Duke (Final countdown to the liberals' Trumpaccolips! Yee Haw!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.”


39 posted on 01/10/2017 12:28:28 PM PST by 7thson (I've got a seat at the big conference table! I'm gonna paint my logo on it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WENDLE

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.


40 posted on 01/10/2017 12:32:49 PM PST by savagesusie (When Law ceases to be Just, it ceases to be Law. (Thomas A./Founders/John Marshall)/Nuremberg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lilypad; MinuteGal; All

“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.


41 posted on 01/10/2017 12:34:08 PM PST by flaglady47 (TRUMP 45. How sweet it is. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

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.’


42 posted on 01/10/2017 12:40:08 PM PST by Pilgrim's Progress (http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/BYTOPICS/tabid/335/Default.aspx D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer; 7thson
"I believe it violated the Constitution and really attempted to set policy and not follow law," Sessions testified. "It is the law of the land. It has been so established and settled for quite a long time, and it deserves respect and I would respect it and follow it.

It does not deserve respect!

43 posted on 01/10/2017 12:43:07 PM PST by Pinkbell (http://dtforpres.blogspot.com/2016/11/cnn-lies-multiple-times-to-help-hillary.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 7thson

Well said, and I agree with you.

First get him the position. Then he’ll do the right things > IMO.


44 posted on 01/10/2017 12:44:10 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Recall John McCain. NOW, before he gets us in WWIII.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

‘rats bein ‘Rats ...


45 posted on 01/10/2017 12:46:31 PM PST by VRWC For Truth (FU Schmuckie Shoomer (Rat-NY))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

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.


46 posted on 01/10/2017 12:46:40 PM PST by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

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.


47 posted on 01/10/2017 12:50:33 PM PST by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell
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.

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.

48 posted on 01/10/2017 12:54:39 PM PST by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Personally, I do not, nor never will accept so called homosexual marriage or practices. “It is abomination.”


49 posted on 01/10/2017 1:07:12 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

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.


50 posted on 01/10/2017 1:08:41 PM PST by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson