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 ...
Maybe Trump would get the picture if by SCOTUS ruling he should have to give up his wealth to some particular “group” just because of some activists judges deciding it should be so. Let’s say ... for the sake of Social Justice perhaps...reparatons for oppression of the black population....would he? Does he think he is immune from this kind tyrannical practice that has recently taken place and has further empowered an activist tyranical judiciary? Does he not know what tyranny is? Maybe a little refresher on where our country came from would help?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
The right is supposed to care about the rule of law, no matter what the left does.
You mean like the 'Warsaw ghetto uprising' - or maybe the Alamo?
Ok, got it - you'll "join the fight" as long as it doesn't cost you.
The rest of your reply sounds like it came from a Salon.com contributor. There is really no point in continuing as we seem to have no common ground...
The same statute that authorizes her to issue a marriage license to a man and a woman. The Supreme Court ruling only struck down those parts that prevented licenses being issued to same sex couples.
Kim Davis is not arguing that she won't issue marriage licenses to same sex couples because the civil code prevents it. Thanks to the Supremen Court it doesn't. She says that she can't issue them because her moral code prevents it. That her understanding of God's word prevents it. That her duty to God outweighs her duty to mere civil law. That's a much higher cause than arguing over whatever man-made law says.
I like to think I would stand on my principles if I had to.
Don't we all?
Thank You Donald Trump.
Now. Finally the Trumpers here at FR will shut up and sit down!
Surely this will - once and for all - be the total proof that Trump is a fraud and is no conservative.
Right?
What point? No one at our very own Pillars of Styro will read it. If they did it would make their position pretty hard to hold.
Yea they should watch. Then again they should already know it. Obviously they do not.
Isn’t it early to be this hammered or is this a case of still drunk from last night? Sit and shut?
It will EMBOLDEN them and they will now adopt his position and call it conservative.
Not what I said at all. I don't join stupid fights. This is one.
The rest of your reply sounds like it came from a Salon.com contributor. There is really no point in continuing as we seem to have no common ground...
Your choice. I respect your choice. Good luck with your revolution against SCOTUS.
lolol. What a stupid remark. I see by all the many comments how everyone else told you off.
Show me anywhere where the guy had a sign on him saying "TRUMP BODY GUARD - DO NOT TOUCH.
He was just a guy in a suit.
Show me anywhere where the law permits a "guard" to steal a sign from a protester on a public sidewalk and walk away with it.
I wonder why you are completely ignoring the part where the illegal grabs the guard (by his weapon no less), thereby forcing the smackdown.
Your question assumes that (1) the man was an illegal; (2) that the Man knew the person who stole his sign was a "guard" and (3) the man knew the guy who stole his sign was armed and (4) he knew exactly where he had put his concealed weapon.
The New York Penal Code authorizes people who have items stolen from their presence to use reasonable force to retrieve that property and if the thief uses force against a person trying to retrieve their property that they are guilty of Third Degree Robbery.
Those are the facts.
Deal with them.
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.
If the evidence shows that the "guard" took the property without cause and prevented the man from lawfully retrieving his property by the use of reasonable force and that he was prevented from that by the use of force by the guard and that the guard was acting as an agent of Donald Trump, the billionaire, that illegal is going to be richer than you and me combined.
Oh yes, I’ve TOTALLY been put in my place! /sarc
If people withdraw their support for Trump because he’s advocating following the law,
____________________________________
False premise. The illegal and unconstitutional SCOTUS decision is not law. They can interpret and order, but not legislate laws.
That's why it's called a nondisclosure agreement.
Why would Trump be researching this loser?
You're kidding right? Nobody is this naive.
It’s like asking “can’t someone else be sheriff for 5 minutes?”
But that is essentially what has happened here.
They put Davis in jail then issued the two queers a government stamped piece of paper proclaiming them married.
The crowd cheer as if the two queers were the persecuted ones in this case. Even though they are from another state and even though they could have went any where else..they see themselves as the martyrs or victims here.
We have to give queers and freaks (3 or more people) marriage cirtificates or it’s DESCRIMINATION.
Correct? Trump is correct?
That’s not true.
As I've already pointed out, Trump CANNOT allow something to be filed if he plans to stay in the race.
How can you fight someone under the law when you opponent disregards the law?
Here is a game.
You pretend to be a conservative president with a conservative super majority in the congress willing to go along with whatever you demand.
And I will pretend to be 5 liberal supreme court judges who have no interest in following the law, the constitution, or any anything besides their liberal ideology.
You try to get some thing done and I will stop you, no matter what you do.
Pass a constitutional amendment you say? I will just rule the process you did to pass it unconstitutional.
Issue an executive order? I will simply rule your order unconstitutional.
Force the issue further? I order you and whoever I want in congress to be jailed indefinitely on contempt.
Try to remove me from office? I just rule whatever process you employed flawed and unconstitutional.
You see, when the left has 5 judges and all the power (because the president and the congress LETS them have that power by deferring to them) There is NOTHING you can do to stop them.
The ONLY way to stop an out of control supreme court is to use aggressive unconstitutional means to remove them (remember THE COURT gets to decide what is constitutional so by definition a rouge court can only be removed by unconstitutional means)
So you’re just making stuff up now about a non-disclosure agreement. Strange and pathetic.
Look at it this way.
If the muzzie was given a pass up front and was not required to handle pork or liquor, but later was told he MUST handle them or be fired, would he have a case?
You bet your Obama he would.
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.