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 ...
I read that the first two times you posted it to others.
I completely agree with her position against homosexual “marriage,” but no matter how you interpret it — nor how many times you hit “CNTL+V” to paste it, she has a duty to fulfill as assigned. This has to do with her personal faith-based beliefs, so she could’ve avoided this mess had she assigned this duty to someone else. You are aware she wouldn’t even agree to delegate that issuance to a subordinate, aren’t you?
By law her signature will be on any marriage license issued from her office.
And who the Hell are her "Higher ups"? The Federal Courts? Who elected this judge? Where does he get his authority to force this woman to issue marriage licenses? How is this a Federal issue when she is simply not issuing any licenses to anyone?
Then why even bring up a religious liberty argument? I get the feeling she originally decided not to issue due to religious objections, and her lawyer came up with that argument after the fact.
Paul sucks he keeps looking for local “solutions” but fails to see that the left is waging all out war on Christians. Huckabee on the other hand gets it and is doing more then just putting out talking points.
Great post. I know it won't change the mind of many of the Trump supporters, but hopefully some of the more reasonable FReepers will understand that Trump is no conservative.
When Trump was first asked about Kim Davis at his press conference yesterday he said he didn't know enough about it, which sounds very similar to "it's above my paygrade."
But Paul’s solutions are very workable. He does see that what they’ve done jailing this Christian is counter-productive. I don’t know Paul’s religion. Do you have any insight on that?
Donald Trump is a dangerous ignoramus.
"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."-- President Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address
Or she can make a public stand and be punished for opposing the law.
That’s civil disobedience.
Under what statutory authority does she have such a duty?
Name the statute that says she has a duty to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples?
The Kentucky law authorizing her to issue marriage licenses was STRUCK DOWN AND IS VOID. She has no legal authority to issue any marriage licenses and neither does any other county clerk in Kentucky.
It’s worst than that, Christians will be barred from owning small business too.
Yes.
Actually, her argument IS her religious liberty. There might be legal issues that also support her, and the fact that the Kentucky law was struck down is a huge one. But she didn’t go out there saying, “The Kentucky law was struck down...”
She said “they’re forcing me to violate my faith.”
Now, that is EXACTLY what Justice Scalia, Alito, and Roberts predicted. It would make violators of Christians.
I find it honest that she’s simply stating what’s happening to her.
Do you know if she or her lawyer has made that argument?
Freegards
Bingo. She isn’t arguing that there is no statute enabling her to issue licenses. She is arguing that her god doesn’t allow her to do this and that her god wants her to stay in this position and obstruct the administration of the state.
That’s just crazy.
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.
Yeah. And then he proceeded to copy Jeb Bush's lawless, ignorant position, word for word. The very lawless, ignorant position that cost Terri Schindler Schiavo her life more than a decade ago. And the same position that continues to allow the daily slaughter of thousands of innocent, helpless babies in the Planned Parenthood killing centers.
Her job is to issue these licenses. She is refusing to do so.
She is getting paid by taxpayers, and deciding to not do so because of personal objections, NOT because the Kentucky legislator hasn’t rewritten their marriage laws yet.
I dont like gay marriage either, but that isnt an excuse to not do your job. She doesn’t have to do it with a smile on her face. Hell she doesn’t even have to look at these people.
Do you think they should have have local referenda on all SCOTUS decisions we don’t agree with?
Laws are passed by legislatures, not made on the basis of rulings of any judge. When a law is struck down, the only thing occurs is that the current law ceases to be enforceable, not that a new one has taken its place. Remember the separation of powers doctrine?
Using the logic you put forth, a legislature can resolve that a ruling by a judge or court is null, or a chief exec can decide that a law or a ruling by legislature or a court is null- the end result is chaos, not the rule of law.
All I ask for is that the court provide the good Clerk the written text of the law that directs her to issue same sex “marriage” licenses. Here in MO, we amended our constitution to declare that a marriage is an act that only involves a single man and a single woman, however, our clerks to a person are following the scotus ruling and violating the law as written. Lawlessness. Also, here in MO, same sex “couples” are not allowed to file joint or HOH income taxes ( as they can be neither per our laws) yet the admin and its agencies are violating the law by accepting such returns. Why should anyone follow the “law” if the actual written codes are not being executed by the very officials that are sworn to so do?
Well, we do because it is the law of the land. A judge or court does not make law, they only interpret what laws are enacted.
Dred Scott did not end slavery or return of runaway slaves, it only set the stage for the laws to be changed-they were immoral, unlike the laws we are tossing out to the curb in courts today-it is the courts who are immoral and unfit to hold office. And, that, friend, is the way it is, 2015.
Tolerate that!
Best;
That’s one of the most ignorant posts I’ve ever seen on FR.
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.