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

Skip to comments.

Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’
Washington Times ^ | 09/04/2015 | David Sherfinski

Posted on 09/04/2015 5:12:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004

Bottom line, host Joe Scarborough said, is that if Supreme Court makes a decision, that’s the law of land, right?

“You have to go with it,” Mr. Trump said. “The decision’s been made, and that is the law of the land.”

“She can take a pass and let somebody else in the office do it in terms of religious, so you know, it’s a very … tough situation, but we are a nation, as I said yesterday, we’re a nation of laws,” he said. “And I was talking about borders and I was talking about other things, but you know, it applies to this, also, and the Supreme Court has ruled."

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; kentucky; kimdavis; religiousfreedom; scotuscongdidthis; snottrump; trump; vomit; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 761-780 next last
To: EternalVigilance

Dumbest statement on this topic I have seen.


221 posted on 09/04/2015 7:06:37 AM PDT by skippyjonjones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

That is the losing argument in the case.

Now that the case has been decided, the only option is to change Constitution.


222 posted on 09/04/2015 7:06:56 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: theoldmarine
After the election if there was real conservative leadership in the house and senate this battle could be fought out legislatively or legally.

Yeah, Mitch, heard you loud and clear.

223 posted on 09/04/2015 7:07:43 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: ObozoMustGo2012
Yes, let’s dump Trump based on ONE issue.

Tomorrow: Yes, let’s dump Trump based on TWO issues.

Next Day: Yes, let’s dump Trump based on a few issues.

Compromised principles on display for all to see, folks!

224 posted on 09/04/2015 7:08:45 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Trump - He likes progressive taxes and criticizes Walker for not raising taxes in WI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ObozoMustGo2012

BTW, it’s not only one issue.

Trump doesn’t want to tear up the Iran deal-—he wants to “police” it.

He’s lauded Planned Parenthood as doing great things for “women’s health”, and believes abortion is only a small part of what they do.

Earlier he said it was time to move on from the queer marriage issue.

He had a close working relationship with Al Sharpton, wanted to make Charlie Rangel Secretary of HUD, donated $25,000 to Terry McAuliffe’s Virginia gubernatorial campaign, etc., etc.

Every day more evidence of Trump’s liberalism and his lack of fitness for the presidency emerges. And every time, his most devoted fans dismiss it and say, “Who cares, it’s one issue.”

That just doesn’t wash anymore.


225 posted on 09/04/2015 7:08:52 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon (("This is a Laztatorship. You don't like it, get a day's rations and get out of this office."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
If we want to complain about a sheriff who won't issue carry permits, or a police chief who won't enforce immingration law, then we need to also complain about a clerk who won't issue marriage licenses.

Now stop it Dave. You are messing up a well crafted Dump Trump thread.

226 posted on 09/04/2015 7:09:44 AM PDT by itsahoot (55 years a republican-Now Independent. Will write in Sarah Palin, no matter who runs. RIH-GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TheStickman
"Just like all the other things Trump has said that were supposed to be “the end” this one won’t leave a mark either."

Nope Trump jumped the shark and it is going to cost him the support of conservatives, tea party folks and evangelicals. Ben Carson will be in first place a week from now in Iowa.

227 posted on 09/04/2015 7:09:54 AM PDT by jpsb (Believe nothing until it has been officially denied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

Thank you for the answer.

I am not clear on the mechanics of it, but my opinion is that the “unconstitutional” bits are void, but the rest of the statute is intact. The “female” bits are a dead letter.

I could be wrong.

In any event, it is a limited argument. The legislature must correct the language at some point.

People are upset at the SCOTUS ruling and are applauding disobedience to it. That’s fine, but it is ultimately futile. SCOTUS has ruled as it has and this is not going to trigger some mass movement to amend the Constitution.


228 posted on 09/04/2015 7:11:15 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

The USSC has no authority to declare “The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.”

This commandeers the legislative process of the States. There is no fundamental right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose.

Judges are not Legislators


229 posted on 09/04/2015 7:11:23 AM PDT by Ray76 (When a gov't leads it's people down a path of destruction resistance is not only a right but a duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: theoldmarine; xzins
And, by the way, when did you come to know the Lord Jesus?

1971. I found Jesus in a Christian Coffee house on Beach Blvd. I was baptized by the hippie freak Lonnie Frisbie.

230 posted on 09/04/2015 7:11:24 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (Tagline pending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave; P-Marlowe
That law was struck down....Can you demonstrate that?

From Chief Justice Roberts' dissent in the recent Obergfell ruling:

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

231 posted on 09/04/2015 7:11:36 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: theoldmarine

I totally agree with your post. Thanks for saying better than I would have.


232 posted on 09/04/2015 7:11:54 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

“Nope Trump jumped the shark and it is going to cost him the support of conservatives, tea party folks and evangelicals. Ben Carson will be in first place a week from now in Iowa. “

Likely not. But emotionalism can make you think anything you want.


233 posted on 09/04/2015 7:12:41 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Washi

I don’t read anywhere Trump agreeing that she should have gone to jail.

I didn’t read anywhere that Trump said no matter what, she should have issued those licences herself. He could have delegated it to someone else.

I’m against abortion, so I am not going to apply for a job at Planned Parenthhod, and if I did, expecting to keep my job if I refused to perform abortions. I would rightfully be dismissed from my job.

What Davis should have done, and what Trump was advocating, was that she could have delegated the responsibility to other clerks in the office, and her job and rights would not be affected. She could have resigned from her position if she felt it violated her religious beliefs. She was not forced to stay.

I don’t agree with a lot of laws, nor many SCOTUS decisions. Even with the strict gun laws after the Heller 2A decision, I am not going to waive a gun around in liberal states like NJ or NY in an act of “Civil disobedience” and expect to not get arrested.

You fight the fights that you can win now (immigration, economy), and fight for more when you’re in a position to do so.


234 posted on 09/04/2015 7:13:13 AM PDT by ObozoMustGo2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
We need a president that will DESTROY the courts!

You missed that opportunity when Newt outlined a plan to shut them down during the last election.

235 posted on 09/04/2015 7:14:13 AM PDT by itsahoot (55 years a republican-Now Independent. Will write in Sarah Palin, no matter who runs. RIH-GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
I could be wrong.

You are.

Obamacare was not passed with a saving clause, so if any part of it is found unconstitutional, the whole law is void.

Do you not remember the arguments here on why it was so important that the employee mandate be found to be unconstitutional? If the court had so ruled, then the whole statute would have been voided and the matter sent back to congress to fix.

The Supreme Court does not have a line item veto.

236 posted on 09/04/2015 7:14:27 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (Tagline pending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: skippyjonjones; P-Marlowe
"Troll."

LOL!

skippyjonjones

signup

11-21-2014

These mouthy little retread trolls just won't learn.

237 posted on 09/04/2015 7:14:48 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon (("This is a Laztatorship. You don't like it, get a day's rations and get out of this office."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: xzins

OK, thanks.

I would say that 1, that is a dissent not a court order. And 2, “invalidate” is not necessarily saying that the entire statute is voided.

In any event, the state laws must be changed, so this argument is limited in time. This clerk’s argument is still that God forbids her to do these newly defined duties of her office.


238 posted on 09/04/2015 7:14:54 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: skippyjonjones; Jim Robinson; xzins
Stop pretending you were for Trump you insufferable troll. How have you not been zotted yet?

Ask Jim.

239 posted on 09/04/2015 7:15:11 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (Tagline pending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

No kidding... I imagine you know how he turned out. Of course Samson didn’t do too well either for one who judged Israel for decades. I would sincerely love to hear more of your story. Lonnie was long gone and I was already saved by the time I made my way down to Costa Mesa Calvary Chapel in 1976. This is personal, so no need to answer, but are you still ‘on fire for Jesus’?


240 posted on 09/04/2015 7:15:40 AM PDT by theoldmarine (Saved by grace through Faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 761-780 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