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 ...
It is very obvious that your opinion is informed by your anti-religious bias.
I see no evidence that:
- she is not performing her duties.
- she feels the need to “give her blessing”.
These are both fabrications of your own bias.
She is merely discriminating - which is a part of her job description.
As an elected official to what oath did she swear?
To whom is she ultimately responsible? Her constituents, her conscience, the state legislature, or The Supreme Court?
Methinks it is NOT the latter...
Get back to us in a week and let us know how that worked out.
Well, he actually had a chance to claim ownership of the conservative movement If he had framed this argument constitutionally.
But he did not see the open door and thus did not walk through it...
or.....he sides with the law and order set who wear blinders and cannot see a bad law from a good.
I need a link to the video
If he was a citizen, trust me, they would be calling him an immigrant citizen. Until I see otherwise, he’s an illegal.
If he were trying to get the sign back, he would have grabbed the sign, not the guard. By the way, where he grabbed the guard is where the man’s weapon is kept. Do you know what happens when you grab a cop by his service revolver? You get shot.
And again, if the guard took the sign and shouldn’t have, the illegal should have called the cops, not attacked him. Abortion protesters have their signs taken often but you don’t see them tackling anybody because they would be arrested.
I posted Chief Justice John Roberts’ comment that it did invalidate marriage laws in most states. I believe I gave you the excerpt from his opinion. Then there is the savings/severability issue. You can, of course, see that the state might no longer want tax connections in their marriage law since those were based on procreativity.
Legality?
Using your logic there have not really been 50 MILLION murders committed under the guise of the euphemism known as abortion.
Is a thing right because it is legal?
The nature of humans requires opposite genders for humanity to survive.
Comparing homosexual unions to bans on interracial marriage is nonsense. Interracial marriages produce offspring, homosexual unions can not.
When there is a good case, I’ll join the fight.
This isn’t it.
“The guy has the ability to turn this country around and drag it from the economic toilet, but on an issue that doesn’t affect the live of 95% of the people on this board, that has ZERO impact on economic stability or national safety, let’s dump him for someone polling at 7%.”
No president has that sort of ability. What they can do is set the conditions for growth through leadership and rhetoric while getting the government out of the f’n way.
You are expecting Trump to DO something!
That’s not the way a economy is set free to grow.
This is probably my biggest objection to Trump. He understands the business world, but he does not translate that to less regulation and less government equals dynamic growth.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has no authority to declare that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States” nor is there any such “fundamental right”
None, but many presidents have varied the total number of judges on the court.
I would love for a conservative president to appoint 3 to 5 die hard conservatives to the court.
Then I would either impeach or if that’s not possible re-assign every liberal judge in the US to a 1 square foot piece of meaningless dirt and cut their salaries and benefits to $1. Then appoint conservative replacements for all of them that will promptly right all the wrongs that have been perpetrated by liberals on this country.
Then I would start rounding up the domestic traitors and start charging and jailing them.
What is being said is that a clerk would have the authority to not issue licenses based on the legislature not rewriting the law....provided there was no savings clause.
As a matter of fact, I think in the case of homosexualist marriage, the Alabama Supreme Court has said exactly that, and Judge Moore recused himself from the ruling. You do remember that, don't you?
That said, you put up liberal straw men. I'm hoping it's so you can now argue with a liberal someplace who throws this stuff at you.
It wouldn't necessarily even have been a racist motive to wait for the new law. There could have been many benefits accruing to being married under the new law.
LOL. I am pro-religion. I am anti-stupidity and futility.
The state pays the piper. The state calls the tune.
Nothing this clerk does should be confused with the religious state known as "marriage."
Does she grant licenses to people who only want to be married by a J-P? Shouldn't that offend her Christian sensibilities?
So, until he proves he's innocent, he's guilty. Got it. Are you familiar with the amnesty that Reagan granted AFTER this man came to the United States?
If he were trying to get the sign back, he would have grabbed the sign, not the guard. By the way, where he grabbed the guard is where the man’s weapon is kept. Do you know what happens when you grab a cop by his service revolver? You get shot.
As I said, it is IMPOSSIBLE to see what happened for about half a second when someone stepped in front of the camera.
I suppose we should be happy that the BODYGUARD (not a cop) didn't shoot the guy, because THAT would be the end of Trump's candidacy.
And again, if the guard took the sign and shouldn’t have, the illegal should have called the cops, not attacked him.
Really? So, if YOU are out on the street and some punk comes and takes something from you instead of going after them you will wait for the police?
Why just "couples" if the 14th Amendment actually equires treating unequal things equally? Are you you to say the same thing when they rule that incest is the law of the land?
Cordially,
quote “Give me a priest or minister or anyone in a *private* position who doesn’t want to comply with “gay marriage” and I support them. But a public official must do what the proper authorities require. Or resign, the honorable thing.”
You mean like enforce existing immergration laws? or federal prohibitions against pot?
Funny how enforcing existing laws only matters when the left likes the law (or in this case unconstitutional decrees from the Supreme Court)
The relevant portion of the majority opinion states:
“the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.”
Any portion of the statute not held invalid is still in force.
I see you are another law school flunky. The New York Penal code says that if you use physical force against someone who is trying to recover property which you have stolen, then you are guilty of Third Degree Robbery. Look it up.
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.