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 answered this numerous times. This is not the right fight. Because she is a gov't official, who needs to follow the duties of her office. It's a poor poster child.
Change will come about through either an amendment, restricing the court's jusridiction or selecting better justices. None of those come if we don't win elections, and we don't win elections when we make ourselves easy targets for the left.
Should Kim Davis rot in jail? Does she deserve that? Or does she deserve your support and admiration?
I think she is well-intentioned, but misguided. She should resign if she doesn't want to do her duties.
Whose side are you on?
I am on the side of doing what is possible. That involves taking good stands on issues that we have good arguments about and where we have an opportunity to convince people to trust us with power.
This isn't it.
The American people, by and large, have shrugged off the gay marriage thing because they, by and large, don't have a problem with letting the gay couple inherit property or make medical decisions for each other. They see it as a question of fairness, and that is how SCOTUS ruled.
Change hearts and minds if you think you can, and laws and ruling will follow. Play stompy-foot and we will lose elections and have another 8 years of business-killing regulations, abortion and a continued descent into leftism.
Well said.
Is that you Johnny B? Or is it Mitch?
This tone of criticism gets old. Find some tangential issue and accuse the person of defending it even when the overall upshot is that the person wants to see it gone.
There is so much “my way or the highway” here.
Because it is your opinion. It has no bearing on the legal reality of the world we face.
You can say “SCOTUS has no power to do this” until you are blue in the face. Doesn’t change anything.
It’s been done. How do you plan to change everyone’s mind so that it can be undone?
Fine, would excusing it be a more appropriate term.
You wrote:
If Paul was in Kim Davis’ position, he would resign his office, he would not try to turn it into an act of civil disobedience.
When it is a matter of good vs. evil, to do nothing is to stand on the side of evil.
For a poor poster child she is getting excellent support. I suppose if you want to find a better poster child you are free to, but right now this one seems to be doing quite well.
on this issue, Romans 1 is much more on point. Perhaps you should read it sometime.
Would you sign your name on a gay marriage license. Would you put your personal seal of imprimatur on such a document? Would that be God's will?
That's fine, you've been zotted.
Certainly not with your help.
Romans 13 definitely is not a carte blanche license. Once that is granted, then one understands its role. This is talking about what proper government should be like. It has become improper here and therefore God rather than man should be obeyed.
Oh wow what a cogent argument. Said your below the belt comment was wrong, but somehow you got a mod to agree that it was so right that even complaining about it is grounds for dismissal.
And we talk about tyranny here!!
Posted earlier in tbe thread but, I will jse it again.
Maybe Trump would get the picture if by SCOTUS ruling he should have to give up his wealth to a particular “group” just because of some activists judges on an activist high decided 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 just 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
Agreed. Now they are vilifying her in the media.
That’s a good point, Jane.
If Donald Trump were running for president in 1860: “Dred Scott was a terrible decision, but the Supreme Court has ruled and it is the law of the land. Time to move on.”
If Donald Trump were running for president in 1944: “Placing American citizens in concentration camps and taking away their property is a terrible thing, but the Supreme Court has ruled and it is the law of the land. Time to move on.”
If Donald Trump were running for president in 1952: “Segregation is a terrible thing, but the Supreme Court has ruled and it is the law of the land. Time to move on.”
If Donald Trump were running for president in 1972: “Killing an unborn child for the sake of convenience is a terrible thing, but the Supreme Court has ruled and it is the law of the land. Time to move on.”
“....THIS WEEK....” Same with the other candidates.
Ted Cruz has been singing the same song for decades..
LAST WEEK TOO..
Is there a case to be made for freedom?
Not mandating that people do one or the other, but letting them choose?
Is she changing any minds? Or is all her support from her natural constituency?
Good grief. You’re skating on thin ice here.
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.