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 can’t imagine ever living in California. And I have been there.
You want to re-litigate Marbury v Madison?
Really? lol
Not going to take anymore bait.
#392 nailed it.
IOW, if he never files the threatened suit and doesn't mention anything more about the incident, then he is already richer than both of us. :-)
When you push someone who isn’t electable and a Democrat wins as a result, that Dem will appoint as many left-wing, religion-oppressing judges to Fed courts and SCOTUS, you will have more “judicial tyrants” than you can handle!
Supporting a candidate who has a greater chance of electability, and who fights against illegal immigrants (Dem voters in waiting), you are in a BETTER position to fight judicial tyranny.
Let me put it to you this way, if YOU were Trump would you risk letting this guy telling his side of the story?
The immigrant may or may not win in court, but the ONLY WAY Trump wins is if this incident becomes a forgotten footnote.
You have a choice? Stay or quit? Sure. NOW you do. But to allow this tyranny will soon result in you having NO choice. We are just a step away from being FORCED to quit or deny our "hate-group" (religious) affiliations.
The only other option is the Black Lives Matter option (chaos), and that is no option at all.
Wrong.
“[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator.”
— Samuel Adams
“The instruments, by which [government] must act, are either the authority of the Laws or force. If the first be destroyed, the last must be substituted; ... and where this becomes the ordinary instrument of government, there is an end to liberty.”
—Alexander Hamilton
“When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void.”
— Alexander Hamilton
Because these things are so, we citizens have the right, duty and even an obligation to deny and defy judicial tyranny.
Wait until the SCOTUS rules that you should have to do something against your conscious.
Apparently you will not understand tyranny until it bites you on your own ass. Trump is falling down on this badly.
Yes, everyone who counsels following the law is a Nazi.
_______________________________
Dave. Is this a fair law? Is it even a Constitutional Law? Does it violate Natural Law?
If you had any knowledge of what our founding fathers had to say about tyrannical judges, you would sit down and shut up.
“It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
- Thomas Jefferson
I see it the same way as you.
He's showing that he's not as "in touch" as voters believe.
If you believe what you are writing, put your keyboard away. You only have one option left. Leave your house and go deal with it. I’ll be watching for you on the news, but I won’t hold my breath.
You’re just repeating yourself at this point.
“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.”
1. Doesn’t matter.
2. Doesn’t matter.
3. Doesn’t matter.
4. doesn’t matter.
The definition of reasonable force is subjective and would be decided in a court of law. Deal with it.
That might be true. You stated it as fact however, and it is not.
If Marbury v. Madison authorized the Supreme Court to issue unconstitutional decrees and make them the Law of the Land, then YES IT IS TIME TO RE-LITIGATE IT.
Mark Levin has proposed a consitutional amendment to allow for Congress and the President to override an Opinion of the Supreme Court.
I personally do not see where that is necessary. Congress controls the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all lower courts. Congress already has that power. They have just never bothered to exercise it because traditionally the Supreme Court is seen as an independent non-political referee. However in the last few decades (since Griswold v. Conn and even before) the Supreme Court has become an activist political arm and no longer an independent referee. They have joined one of the teams.
So YES INDEED, it is time to revisit Marbury v. Madison. It is time to ensure that the Supreme Court returns to its original function.
Are you unwilling to join in that fight? Are you instead rooting for this clerk to bow to judicial tyrants simply because 9 robes tyrants told her to?
Are we no longer a FREE REPUBLIC?
FWIW, one thing Congress could do is to strip the Lower Courts of any jurisdiction to hear any appeals in regard to the constitutionality of State Laws and force the Supreme Court to hear every one of them or just pass.
My guess is that if the Supreme Court had had to hear and opine on 50 different individual cases on this issue, that they would never have reached the decision they did. They would also tire of being activist as their docket would be so full that they would not have time for anything else.
Right now they let the lower courts do their dirty work and then they deny appeals as a way to avoid having to do their job.
“One option left”?
New stuff; are you a Christian? If so, you know I have an option that is more powerful than any bozo that ever donned a black robe.
Were I this official, and felt my "participation" by issuing a license was a sin, I would resign.
She has a choice.
Then why are you here deciding it for us?
I have simply posted the law and stated my observations from viewing the film. If I was a District Attorney and the film was the only evidence, I think I would have to charge the guard with Third Degree Robbery.
Did that sign belong to the guard or did he steal it. That is the issue. I don't believe you can possibly claim that the sign belonged to the guard.
What do you call it when some thug steals your protest sign and walks away with it?
Free Republic will continue the fight for Liberty and against godless socialism and fascist judges!
September 3, 2015 | Jim Robinson
Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2015 5:39:43 PM by Jim Robinson
I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!
more...
Fair? We passed that long ago.
When gay couples wanted to have their coupling recognized for the purposes of inheritance, medical decisions, etc. we didn't listen.
We wanted them to not be gay. We decried their sin.
Now they have gone all the way to SCOTUS and won, where a little bit of reasonable give and take would have settled this with some form of "civil union" a long time ago.
Constitutional? Unless you want to go back and re-litigate Marbury v Madison, yes this is Constitutional law. The SCOTUS can declare things unconstitutional and void them.
Maybe you disagree with this case. I wasn't too fond of it myself. But it is what it is. It has been decided.
Natural Law? Homosexuality voilates that. But guess what? We live in a society where we value freedom to sin over gov't coercion to live according to the religious dictates of a majority.
Which isn't even a majority anymore, really.
I favor limited gov't and freedom. Let people pair up how they will. They can be sinful and I can try to change hearts and minds. Freely. Not by standing in the schoolhouse doors and obstructing court orders.
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.