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's not nonsense in a legal sense, as I pointed out earlier.
SCOTUS struck down all prohibitions against interracial marriage in 1967. Some states did not repeal or rewrite their laws to reflect that reality until much later. Were all the marriages approved by those states after the court decision, but before the repeal/rewrite of the applicable part of their marriage laws, null and void?
Of course not. And this is but one example of something that happens across the country every single day.
Funny how equal protection doesn’t apply to rich people who pay higher tax rates!
What is equal about a rich person paying 30% and a poor person paying 0% ?
Why should age be any limitation? Why should there be any consanguineous limitations?
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan acted as legislators, an act infinitely beyond the authority of the Court.
What would "the fight" look like for you Dave? Would you risk going to JAIL - like this woman?
Although, I'm starting to get the impression that at least some on here don't believe a person has any legal rights unless they can prove citizenship.
I would be willing to bet that NYC issued a permit for protesters outside Trump Tower yesterday because the NYPD is typically really good at shutting down such gatherings if they don't have permits.
The definition of marriage was untouched.
Society has never recognized marriage between members of the same gender. Marriage has always meant a union of opposite genders.
The nature of humans requires opposite genders for humanity to survive. Homosexual unions can not - by their very nature - produce offspring. The USSC has arrogated to itself the authority to alter the definition of marriage.
Comparing homosexual unions to bans on interracial marriage *is* nonsense.
It seems to me that the clerk IS applying the law EQUALLY.
She isn’t denying marriage licenses to ONLY gays. She stopped giving them out to EVERYONE.
If the people of her state, dont like her actions, they can remove her at the next election or the state legislature can remove her.
But is not the FEDERAL courts business.
I understand that completely. I also completely understand how incorrect that is.
Please contact Davis's legal team and the judge with your interpretation.
You’re full of it. Show me in the penal code where it says the illegal can use physical force against the guard. Seems like you’re glossing over that for some reason. I wonder why you are completely ignoring the part where the illegal grabs the guard (by his weapon no less), thereby forcing the smackdown.
I guess we’ll have to wait for the lawsuit that will inevitably be filed by the illegal. That is, unless he wants to stay in the shadows.
Romney 2012. History repeats.
Well who could have seen this coming?
Oh wait...
Let me repost another reply to this post of yours because after reading it again I think it deserves more than what I said before:
The case of refusing marriage licenses to gays is categorically different than all other refusals on any other grounds. Let’s take your hypothetical as an example.
A clerk cannot reasonably refuse to issue a license to a couple she may suspect are divorced from a previous marriage. Why? Because a given clerk cannot know the reason a man and woman may have been divorced before. They may have found their previous “marriage” didn’t exist by a finding of nulity via a (Catholic) Church tribunal. Or, their previous spouses may be dead.
The bottom line is that a given man and woman presenting themselves to a court for legal marriage is not necessarily immoral and a clerk cannot possibly know their previous history in order to make a “moral” judgement about whether or not they should be given another license.
This is categorically different than two men or two women presenting themselves for “marriage”. There is no way, according to God’s Law, that they can be married. For this reason, a clerk CAN make a moral judgement about whether to issue them a license.
We are a nation of laws, but ultimately our laws must be founded on (or at least not in conflict with) God’s Law or else they are meaningless. If or when they are in conflict, men of good conscience MUST take a stand, or else we have chosen a legal system that is de facto Godless. By definition immoral. In other words, worthless.
I realize (from your last post to me) that illegal immigration is your make or break issue. I do not deny that it is an important issue, but it’s important because ultimately illegals break a law (immigration law) that is not in contradiction with God’s Law. I submit for your consideration and the consideration of all who read this now, that no one issue means anything, if it does not have as its basis a man who is in submission to his Creator. A man who proposes “law” apart from God is lawless, subject to the whim of the State, society or both. So there must be consistency in every man who proposes law, consistency based on the Lawgiver, or else there is nothing but subjectivity ruling the day.
There must be a foundation upon the eternal for this country, or else make no mistake, we will reap the whirlwind.
This is a million times more important. Freedom of Religion is the whole damn reason America exists.
Dream big! ;-)
And here you are defending his position that Kim Davis should resign because the Supreme Court has issued a 5-4 OPINION that gay marriage is now the LAW OF THE LAND.
Your freeper page says Conservatives should stand on principles and here you are condemning a woman for doing just that.
In your world are we a nation of Laws or a nation ruled by nine robed tyrants?
Unless I am very much mistaken, the man holding the sign has already been paid a significant amount of money and signed a nondisclosure agreement.
Has it occurred to you that if there was ANY evidence that the protester was an illegal alien Trump would have released that evidence by now?
We are going to reap the whirlwind regardless of what Trump says or believes on this issue. In fact, in the Bible, an invasion from foreigners is a curse upon a nation. So, we are seeing that. No, we have no way of knowing why a person divorces another - it doesn’t matter really - it is just as wrong as same-sex marriage. All sins can be forgiven and that include homosexuality. In fact, Paul addresses the Corinthians with a statement that some were former homosexuals. So, regardless of the reasons for divorce and remarriage the Bible has much to say about it.
“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?”
First off, my opinion is not a court of law.
From the article it sounds like we’re talking about some real, red-blooded Americans here, huh?
‘This is a real f****** immigrant’ and ‘Go back to Europe!’
‘We need to spread the philosophy of the Aztec people!’ one of the protesters yelled. ‘We need to spread the ideas of the Mayan people!’
Second of all, just because the article says the “immigrant” has been here for thirty years, that doesn’t mean he has been. They wouldn’t have an agenda now would they?
Finally, you don’t get to assault someone then cry about it after you get smacked. Typical liberal bull. And yes, the illegal should have followed the law. I know it’s crazy because they don’t follow any of the other laws but it is what it is. Not understanding what is so radical about that.
“Unless I am very much mistaken, the man holding the sign has already been paid a significant amount of money and signed a nondisclosure agreement.”
Haven’t seen this anywhere.
“Has it occurred to you that if there was ANY evidence that the protester was an illegal alien Trump would have released that evidence by now?”
Why would Trump be researching this loser?
Thank you
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.