Posted on 09/04/2015 9:57:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We’re in a weird place as a party when Trump, the would-be strongman who’s going to smash sclerotic American government as we know it, is more of a “rule of law” guy than Ted Cruz is. And way, way more of one than Mike Huckabee is.
Trump prefers an accommodation in which gay couples can get their licenses, as the Obergefell ruling requires, and Davis can opt out so that she’s not involved in something that violates her religious beliefs. But she doesn’t want to opt out. She wants to force the whole office to opt out by forbidding her deputies from issuing licenses without her approval. As recently as yesterday, during her contempt hearing, her lawyers were warning people that marriage licenses issued today by her staff (there have already been two as of 10:30 a.m. ET) while she’s in jail won’t be valid because they lack her signature as county clerk — and she might not be wrong about that. What she’s doing, as Charles Cooke put it, isn’t so much seeking a conscientious objection for herself as demanding a right of secession for Rowan County from the post-Obergefell legal regime. Cruz and Huckabee seem okay with that. Trump evidently isn’t.
“The other simple answer is rather than going through this, [because] it’s really a very, very sticky situation, a terrible situation — 30 miles away they have other places, they have many other places where you get licensed, and you have them actually quite nearby,” Mr. Trump said. “That’s another alternative. I hate to see her being put in jail. I understand what they’re doing. It would be certainly nice if she didn’t do it, but other people in her office do it but from what I understand she won’t allow other people in her office to do it.”
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. It would be nice to have other people in her office do what they have to do.”
Smart point, but the Cruz/Huckabee take on this is that a “lawless” Supreme Court opinion doesn’t count as “law” the way a statute does. Cruz, at least, knows better, but it’s in his political interest to push that argument. I’m curious to see if he comes after Trump over this at one of the debates, sensing that it’s a rare chance for him to out-populist Mr. Populism. If he does, Trump should come back: Who gets to decide which court opinions are sufficiently “lawless” that they needn’t be enforced? We’re left with Trump, the alleged revolutionary, standing up for the long tradition of judicial review while more mainstream GOP pols argue that that tradition has been so discredited by left-wing double standards that conservatives should take the same a la carte approach to law enforcement. Let every county clerk go their own way. In hindsight, Obama should have cited his, ahem, deep religious convictions as grounds for granting executive amnesty.
Exit question via a Twitter buddy: How come no one’s standing up for the conscience rights of Davis’s deputy clerks? What if one of them enthusiastically supports gay marriage and wants to issue licenses in Davis’s stead? The state’s telling Davis that she has a duty to obey Supreme Court rulings and she’s telling her deputies that they have a duty to obey her personal religious beliefs. Why is the former less legitimate than the latter?
We had Jim Crow laws —>Rosa Parks -—> Martin Luther King Jr. -—> Civil Rights Act of 1964.
We can follow that model.
.
>> “As far as I’m concerned, these are greater threats to this country than gay marriage.” <<
.
You have no moral compass!
.
If a book is your favorite, the least you could do is be familiar with it. Yet, when asked what his favorite Bible verse is, his reply was “It’s personal”.
________
I agree. “It’s personal” may just mean “I don’t have one.”
But we are now in a new era. One in which the Left gets to blatantly ignore the “Law,” as long as it furthers their agenda. The “Law” now exists only as a weapon against conservatives. The whole banana-republic paradigm.
The “Law” no longer merits any respect or allegiance.
RE: “It’s personal” may just mean “I don’t have one.”
AKA, I don’t read it ( that’s what I personally suspect ).
A war of faith could be bloodless, or almost, except of course for the blood of Calvary.
What Poland did with Solidarnosc, with their churches behind it (and taking Jesus seriously, not talking about a denominational thing here) is an example.
.
>> “Trump qualifies as a social conservative. He is pro-traditional marriage and against gay rights.” <<
.
That is a total inversion of the truth!
He has demonstrated that he has zero respect for marriage (especially his own) and great love for the freedom to have any woman he lusts for.
I assume that his supporters are exactly like him.
.
Well, there IS a bigger one, the loss of faith altogether.
I believe the Lord allowed this to happen as a challenge to get faith to see the importance of rallying.
You are so free with the condemnations that you lose credibility, which is a shame because you have so many good insights otherwise.
One candidate has argued (and won numerous times) before SCOTUS. Sen. Cruz is solid in his legal opinion that she has a case. Of course a judge can hold anyone in contempt in his court. And that judge can be impeached too.
Okay from Rosa Parks getting arrested to the 1964 was 11 years.
In the meantime what do you think Trump and Cruz can do. And will those actions help them in the GOP AND in the general election?
The fact you labeled Franklin Graham a televangelist was a bigger tell to me about you than Trumps remarks about Kim were about him
I’m under no illusion tha Trump is a culture warrior per FR standards
But his bombast does encompass us more than not
Are you sure that many of them really see it as a condemnation?
This is the new America; get up to speed.
.
That is a total inversion of the truth!
He has demonstrated that he has zero respect for marriage (especially his own) and great love for the freedom to have any woman he lusts for.
I assume that his supporters are exactly like him.
<><><><
Have we ever agreed on anything ever before?
Will this require that one of us change our view about this immediately? If so, it’ll have to be you.
If the shoe fits. What has the guy actually DONE other than line his pockets and fly around on the faithful’s cash?
Nothing.
Any common sense person can see the condemnations, and if they like I are actually immersed in Christ, doubly so.
Quit playing silly asinine games in the name of the Lord, is my advice, which you are of course free to ignore.
RE: In the meantime what do you think Trump and Cruz can do. And will those actions help them in the GOP AND in the general election?
There is a simple solution to this problem and it is in the constitution.
LET THE STATES DECIDE WHAT MARRIAGE LAWS THEY WANT.
North Carolina already has an opt out law for government officials who cannot in good conscience, honor what they consider a sham marriage.
So far, 5% of the officials have taken advantage of it.
Any President worth his salt can DEMAND that Congress pass a law similar to North Carolina and apply it FEDERALLY.
And any Congress worth its salt ( not sure about the current one ), will pass this law.
Okay, as far as letting the states decide, SCOTUS has overruled the states. So the remedy to that is to execute one of the checks on judicial power. Impeachment, removal of authority, etc.
NC opt out law probably hasn’t yet been tested with a federal challenge. Unless it provides a remedy such as an alternative process or person whereby SCOTUS’s abominated ruling can be satisfied, it too will be overruled by federal courts.
But a Federal version of that NC law is certainly worth trying.
RE: But a Federal version of that NC law is certainly worth trying.
This SHOULD BE DONE PRONTO. I can already see what’s going to happen to say, Military Chaplains ( effectively under Uncle Sam’s pay ) who refuse to solemnize gay weddings.
This will affect not only Christians, but Muslims and Jewish chaplains as well.
Just one of the many problems I foresaw when those 5 black robed judges decided to impose gay marraige on the country.
Here’s the rub — WHAT IF SUCH A LAW IS PASSED AND SAY, A PRESIDENT CRUZ SIGNS IT, AND THE ACLU CHALLENGES THIS LAW AND IT GOES TO THE SCOTUS?
This will then be Executive/Legislature vs Supreme Court.
What happens then?
And where in the constitution does it say that the SCOTUS decision overrides the will of the legislature who are accountable to the people?
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.