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?
That was yesterday. A small town clerk just changed the game.
If we want to win on social issues we need to a.) stop importing Democrats and b.) stop turning people already here into Democrats by having an economy in such shambles that they're forced to rely on government programs just to put food on their tables.
I'll worry about gay marriage when my kids aren't minorities in their Spanish-speaking classrooms and I'm not filling out job applications at Walmart.
RE: But I can say most on this tread don’t understand the constitution. IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.
Yes it is and it is SILENT on the issue of gay marriage.
It does say this in the 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Well, It just so happens that Kentucky has a law PROHIBITING same-sex marriage.
Therefore according to the 10th amendment of the constitution, it is a power DELEGATED TO THE STATE OF KENTUCKY.
So, what law did Kim Davis violate? She is the one UPHOLDING the law.
Yes. The judge is the outlaw here. Some people see it, some don't. Someone who doesn't should not be choosing judges.
I like Trump, but he needs to re-think his position on this one. If he does it loudly enough he'll survive this misstep.
Yeah, I’ll believe the “law is the law” when I see the mayors and city managers of sanctuary cities held in contempt and jailed. Or ditto when governors and AG’s flouted the laws when it came to DOMA, or when their clerks issued licenses to homo couples when it was directly against the law. Or when Obama/Hillary/Holder ever have to pay for any of their lawless actions, which are legion by now.
The law is a joke. Selective, arbitrary enforcement. Just like what goes on in a banana-republic. If this is the “law” Trump is standing by, I have zero use for him.
“The Law is the law” = pro-gay marriage
Sometimes I think there are possibly 50 FReepers that REALLY get it. I suppose we should be grateful for the 50.
The law can be changed = anti-gay marriage.
When Rand Paul endorsed Mitch for the Senate in Kentucky I said at the time that would hurt him badly and it did. When Cruz voted for TPA I said at the time it would hurt him badly and it did. When Newt spoke of legalizing illegals I said he was toast and he was. Trump has just jumped the shark and he is going to be hurt badly by aiding the Marxists and homos in the war on Christians. He's still got time to walk it back but if he doesn't he is going to drop in the polls. Should Carson speak in support of the jailed clerk he will be leading in Iowa in two weeks. It is going to take a little time for all this to sink into the voters heads but once they realize Trump is pro homo and anti Christian in his policies his support will evaporate.
Trump is on record being for traditional marriage and against gay rights.
<><><><><
Trump likes traditional marriage so much, he’s on his 3rd round of traditional marriage.
He is so against gay marriage that he has attended at least one of them.
As long as they get our name on the statues right, “What difference does it make”?
Kidding aside, 50? Maybe. But it would have to be a good day.
RE: So you did not see the state of Texas pass a law protecting the clerks who do this I guess.
North Carolina did as well.
See here:
http://www.wral.com/nc-gay-marriage-opt-out-written-to-avoid-kentucky-style-impasse/14874577/
Errrrrr, there was a 2-to-1 majority against Obamacare from the moment it was conceived to the moment it was passed. It didn't have to "stew" for a single second.
“PRECISELY. Kentucky law as it stands now PROHIBITS same-sex marriage.”
Which SCOTUS ruled to be unconstitutional. Which means if Kentucky is still part of the U.S., then it cannot prohibit it (like it or not), not that Kentucky can still keep that until they get around to repealing it.
If that was the case, then Kentucky or any other state, could just opt to never do so. If this was an option then it would have been used sometime in the, oh I dont know, past 240 years.
Can you cite any precedence where a state kept a law on the books that was ruled unconstitutional, and enforced it until their state legislator got around to repealing it? I would love to hear where it has happened and worked.
It’s pretty difficult trying to keep up with it all.
I believe Dems have suffered for passing Obamacare in pretty much every election except POTUS 2012.
No, that’s the point.
We are now indeed a country of men, not of laws.
All bets are off.
You’re exactly right. SCOTUS found the KY law null and void, but there is no other law to replace it. So there IS no marriage law in KY. That’s why Kim Davis couldn’t license marriages in her county.
If you make this election about gay marriage, we will have a democrat in office for at least another 4 years.
And not just any democrat. Hillary Clinton or socialist Sanders.
It’s the economy stupid. It’s jobs! It’s immigration! It’s trade policy. It’s restoring the rule of law. And unfortunately this issue has a bad law.
If you make this election about gay marriage, we will have a democrat in office for at least another 4 years.
And not just any democrat. Hillary Clinton or socialist Sanders.
It’s the economy stupid. It’s jobs! It’s immigration! It’s trade policy. It’s restoring the rule of law. And unfortunately this issue has a bad law.
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.