Posted on 09/05/2015 1:24:44 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
On June the 16th the SCOTUS handed down a decision on same sex marriage. The majority opinion agreed that same sex marriages must be recognized by the states. The states would have to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, and they would have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. LINK
None of us agreed with that ruling, but it was a much anticipated ruling. Conservatives knew this was coming for months. The ruling, one that could be a catastrophe for traditional marriage, was a potential nuclear bomb to the Biblical and even historic definition of marriage for most of recorded civilization.
This being the case, traditional marriage supporters had plenty of time to prepare. Special task forces could have been established. Methods of countering a potential SCOTUS bombshell could have been developed. None were.
Today we're very upset that a young woman was arrested for defying a court order and refusing to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple. It was against her religious beliefs, and for someone, we knew it would be. Tonight she remains in jail.
All day long today, Republican candidates have been making statements about this situation. Some of them have pledged support to this woman. Some are upset that others didn't express what they deem to be enough support. Lets be clear about something here.
That ruling came down on June the 16th. Before the August 4 & 6th recess, there were 28 days of business.
If our members of the House or Senate had been concerned over the sanctity of marriage, they could have introduced legislation within hours of the SCOTUS ruling. They didn't.
Yesterday the first court clerk was arrested for refusing to issue same sex marriage certificates. Since that moment some of our Republican candidates have been expressing a massive amount of support for the clerk, and they should have.
Some of these candidates who expressed the most support for the clerk, were quick to take other candidates to task for not showing enough support. This is where it gets rather interesting.
Some of the candidates who have shown the most support, are now taking other candidates to task for not showing enough. Strangely enough, three of those candidates served in the Senate and House. Did they express their strong support of traditional marriage there?
Was any single piece of legislation written and processed to address SCOTUS skulduggery? Were people like this clerk protected? Did Obama have to use his veto pen?
NO! NO he did not.
One whole month came and went and no legislative action was taken at all to rectify this situation.
We have supposed Constitutional scholars. WE have people who have argued before the SCOTUS, and know better than anyone else how this system works. They did nothing!
Now they are on the campaign trail, and it's expedient to rally to the defense of someone who could have been protected. She wasn't.
Today one non-politician has come under the gun for recognizing what the law on the books today is. He said he wished the clerk hadn't been arrested, but the law says she has to issue the licenses to same sex couples.
Folks, he's right!
Note this isn't what some folks have determined it to be.
This politician didn't endorse the SCOTUS actions.
He didn't approve of them.
He didn't say they did the right thing with their ruling.
What this politician said was that he was sorry this woman was arrested, but she has to follow the law. Yes folks, she does. We are a nation of laws.
What can this candidate do for the clerk now? He can voice support. He could come down an protest with others. Neither of those things can put an end to what is going on.
This evening there is a lot of gnashing of teeth. Guys are just so upset that this clerk has been arrested.
Where was that concern on June 17th to August 4th? LINK
Why is it that private citizen is being blamed here? Why didn't our Congress-critters do their job?
Is it any wonder we have a non politician kicking the politician's butts this year?
Cruz, Paul, Santorum... what action did you take to prevent this? Here you are acting as if you really care, but when you had plenty of time to know this was coming, and plenty of time to introduce legislation, you didn't.
Don't you dare try to blame this on Trump. Now nothing can be done. Where were you when something could have been done?
When responding to another comment to me, I thought of your post and the idea that it would make a good avenue for Davis’ attorney to pursue in court.
I wonder if he is aware of this seeming loophole.
I make it a general rule to stay away from civil insurrection.
I believe we work within a legal framework because not to do so opens Pandora’s Box.
We see a reason to become militant. We acutally use decent judgement. How does that work out? It may work out as you think, but then it just as easily could work out with the National Guard on our streets or worse.
Then there’s the issue of other groups. A significant enough segment of Blacks think they are treated unfairly, so they decide to initiate civil insurrection. “Hey, they did it!”
I don’t like where this leads. You may be able to point to a few cases of this working. If someone spent enough time, they could probably find instances of it turning out disastrous as well.
Was it true or not?
He had months to know the SCOTUS ruling was coming down.
He knew there was a good chance it would be unfavorable.
He did no preparation and took no action.
Sure my emphasis is over the top, but it’s far less over the top that the idiotic over the top comments about others that some folks buy into without any critical thinking.
I stand by my comments. Cruz must not have had a problem with the SCOTUS ruling. He too no measure to prevent what is taking place now.
The point wasn’t to blame one Congress critter. The point was to awaken folks to the fact that one political candidate is not to blame for what happened to Davis.
Cruz was in a position to do something. Trump wasn’t. Trump is now the focus of negative energy. Cruz is the darling.
You don’t see a bit of a conflict there?
I would remind Cruz that cases come down all the time, and are considered to be precedent. A ruling is generally considered to be broad spread. It applies across the board.
SCOTUS rulings are never required to address an issue in each state for that ruling to apply.
I’m no legal scholar, but this concept is obvious even to a layman.
Nobody does...
But I think it's telling of the future to look at Roe v Wade...and see that after decades of peaceful and legal litigation, that it's only gotten worse as the recent revelations of planned parenthood suggest.
So let's go further back to the other bastardization of the constitution by scotus.
Let's look at Dred Scott. let's look at the aftermath of that jewel of judicial excellence.
I'd like to think that there is a prim and proper way to address this new and latest grievance though petition and legal complaint.
But I think anyone can see the end result.
Ever heard of Roe v Wade?
Think that case had to be repeated in every state?
Laws are produced by legislation. The states all have current law in regards to marriage. These current laws still stand. A court "ruling" is only applicable to those whose case is before the court. What you refer to as "effective law" does not exist, as court rulings have variables due to the individual nature of each case being litigated. We need to FORCE those who wish to impose their will on us to do so one case at a time rather than concede to their argument that somehow by magic, the Supreme Court can legislate. We need to act according to OUR argument rather than react to theirs.
I wish I knew and/or remembered more of my classes. I have to bow out to those who have more legal knowledge on this.
I have always believed that the Supreme Court ruled on lower courts based on actual law and on the constitutionality of said law. And that the way to change a law was to challenge it at the Supreme Court or ammend the Constitution regarding that particular law.
I do remember reading in Trump’s 2000 book “The America We Deserve” that he thought there should be term limits on the Justices. It was a library book and returned so I can’t reference the page or the exact quote, I thought when reading it what a great idea it was.
I would remind you of the South prior to the Civil War.
How did that work out for the South?
They thought they had solid reason to do what they did. Some of us are rather sympathetic to some of that reasoning.
Where slavery came in, I would have to disagree, but as for states rights I think there were valid arguments.
Civil insurrection starts a snowball rolling down hill gaining size, momentum, and critical mass. Once it gets going, you can’t stop it.
I believe you avoid that type of situation.
I don't think you can rationally say that his statement about the decision being the "law of the land" is somehow superior to the statement of Ted Cruz who explained that legally the decision only applies to the litigants.
Roe v Wade
Other civil rights rulings...
We can argue “the law” point and I would probably agree with you. Effectively the SCOTUS has ruled, and we now have a legal finding that is going to be applied.
While we argue the finer points, the courts are moving ahead.
I am trying to address the reality of it. If I used some grammatically incorrect terms, I think you know what I mean enough for us to understand where each other are coming from.
Most of the causation of the civil war can be traced to actual shooting skirmishes in the territories and some states caused by the Dred Scot decision.
This in my view, was a major impetus to the Civil war. One wonders that if the civil war had been avoided, if what we see today with racial tensions might not exist to the degree it does.
Yup...I addressed that in a previous post.. but to repeat it.....I t has only gotten worse, has it not..?
Makes me nervous when someone starts implying I have legal knowledge. As a person without legal training, I try to address issues as a laymen using common sense. A lot of folks think I don’t have any, so it makes it just that much more difficult. :^)
I believe you are right. The SCOTUS does review and issue opinions on lower court rulings. When it has done so, that is effectively the final word. If Congress can come up with legislation to nullify the SCOTUS ruling, that’s one way of undoing damage. The SCOTUS can also pick up another case and rule on it in such a manner as to modify or even change it’s prior ruling.
The latter generally takes a generation or so to take place, because the court’s makeup will have to change before a new different ruling will come down.
Those who do have a legal background should shoot this down or make addendums where necessary.
I’m not sure what your line of reasoning is regarding today’s racial tension. I don’t have a basis to agree or disagree based on the information you provided.
Once the ruling on Roe Vs Wade came down, abortion was legal in every state. There wasn’t a separate case submitted state by state to confirm that.
SCOTUS rulings apply to the entire judicial system.
Fair enough....
Here is a question.....Is there a possibility that without Dred Scott, and my assumption that the civil war might have been averted, would there have been a 14th amendment? Would there have been a KKK?
If not, then how would that have translated to today’s race relations and the very decision we are discussing here.
Because the 14th was what they used so therefore race relations are connected to the gay issue and has been since they pushed it out as a civil rights issue. One could remotely connect abortion as well...as it was also touted as a civil right.
Yeah they did apply it broadly, just as they are doing in this case, but in point of fact and the law, the decision should have only affected the litigants.
Unfortunately, there is and has been since Dred Scott and others, a legal misinterpretation that give scotus broad power to essentially write new law and amend the constitution.
Now we have come full circle...
Our members of congress no longer read our letters nor accept our phone calls anymore. Yet I can bet you the ones who own their souls can call them on private lines we pay for and be answered personally by their representative whom is such either by where they reside or whom they bought off and get an answer within a few rings.
Again I repeat what I have said. Our government has lost the fear of our vote because voting has been allowed to be fraud ridden and have lost fear of our wrath and outrage. Look at what you are posting. Would they fear you? Would they even respect you? NO! But they will use you well.
I'm not saying overthrow the U.S. government. No indeed. But we need to start A.S.A.P. taking back on local and state levels what powers rightfully belong to us from the federal who unlawfully and unconstitutionally took them. If it offends the feral federals so be it. That's what we elected Sheriffs for.
The issue the Clerk is in jail for is the same as The Apostle Paul whom BTW was told by The Law of the day to stop preaching was he not? Did Paul obey? No! Nor should we bow to the god of government which demands we surrender our conscience before GOD in obedience to it's decrees. As one other posted stated USSC rulings were intended to be solely for specific cases before them and nothing more. Now the USSC & Federal Courts have assumed for themselves a new level of back door bastardized legislative powers by judicial fiat. So who do we go too?
What stopped this from happening before? Our leaders feared our wrath that's what. Why do you think they want firearms regulated and eventually taken away? In the early days of the founding of this nation some argued that all should obey the king because he was the king and if they went against him it would not be a good outcome. Show me where the working legal framework exist that is still honored & recognized by our government. I can't find it anywhere.
I support the time honored tradition of running corrupt officials out of town on a rail and public shunning of corrupt officials elected or otherwise. Our news media instead makes them celebrities and has turned the political process into a stinking beauty pageant where substance means nothing and Ego & Charisma rules. Such has been our federal elections since 1994. Such as they are headed this time as well.
In case you were sleeping in 1996 we lost control of our nation in a bloodless coup. It was the last time our two parties actually stood in true opposition on platforms. A Republican congressman from Ohio organized & lead a movement to unseat the Speaker and have the liberals within the GOP combine their agendas with that of the Democratic Party. Can you guess that congressman's name?
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.