Posted on 09/04/2015 9:57:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We’re in a weird place as a party when Trump, the would-be strongman who’s going to smash sclerotic American government as we know it, is more of a “rule of law” guy than Ted Cruz is. And way, way more of one than Mike Huckabee is.
Trump prefers an accommodation in which gay couples can get their licenses, as the Obergefell ruling requires, and Davis can opt out so that she’s not involved in something that violates her religious beliefs. But she doesn’t want to opt out. She wants to force the whole office to opt out by forbidding her deputies from issuing licenses without her approval. As recently as yesterday, during her contempt hearing, her lawyers were warning people that marriage licenses issued today by her staff (there have already been two as of 10:30 a.m. ET) while she’s in jail won’t be valid because they lack her signature as county clerk — and she might not be wrong about that. What she’s doing, as Charles Cooke put it, isn’t so much seeking a conscientious objection for herself as demanding a right of secession for Rowan County from the post-Obergefell legal regime. Cruz and Huckabee seem okay with that. Trump evidently isn’t.
“The other simple answer is rather than going through this, [because] it’s really a very, very sticky situation, a terrible situation — 30 miles away they have other places, they have many other places where you get licensed, and you have them actually quite nearby,” Mr. Trump said. “That’s another alternative. I hate to see her being put in jail. I understand what they’re doing. It would be certainly nice if she didn’t do it, but other people in her office do it but from what I understand she won’t allow other people in her office to do it.”
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. It would be nice to have other people in her office do what they have to do.”
Smart point, but the Cruz/Huckabee take on this is that a “lawless” Supreme Court opinion doesn’t count as “law” the way a statute does. Cruz, at least, knows better, but it’s in his political interest to push that argument. I’m curious to see if he comes after Trump over this at one of the debates, sensing that it’s a rare chance for him to out-populist Mr. Populism. If he does, Trump should come back: Who gets to decide which court opinions are sufficiently “lawless” that they needn’t be enforced? We’re left with Trump, the alleged revolutionary, standing up for the long tradition of judicial review while more mainstream GOP pols argue that that tradition has been so discredited by left-wing double standards that conservatives should take the same a la carte approach to law enforcement. Let every county clerk go their own way. In hindsight, Obama should have cited his, ahem, deep religious convictions as grounds for granting executive amnesty.
Exit question via a Twitter buddy: How come no one’s standing up for the conscience rights of Davis’s deputy clerks? What if one of them enthusiastically supports gay marriage and wants to issue licenses in Davis’s stead? The state’s telling Davis that she has a duty to obey Supreme Court rulings and she’s telling her deputies that they have a duty to obey her personal religious beliefs. Why is the former less legitimate than the latter?
WHAT LAW?
Did the legislature of Kentucky pass a law legalizing gay marriage?
Did the Congress of the United States pass a law legalizing gay marriage?
So, what law are you referring to, Mr. Trump?
I want to secede from this madness myself. Where can I sign up???
Well, that should create some interesting internal conflict in the minds mod his supporters.
“The law is the law?”
That doesn’t sound so Trumpish. That sorta sounds like something a politician would say so as not to have to take a position that could upset someone. Didn’t see that coming.
*of his supporters.
But, but, those are "gotcha" questions, you third-rate loser, you! :-)
Oh yea, my previous post was of a cynical nature.
What a novel idea. A future president campaigning on following the law. I’m not sure it will catch on, in that we are so used to having a president who thumbs his nose at the law.
Trump is pro-homosexual marriage. He is no conservative. He is a liberal. The people of Alabama know this now.
“WHAT LAW?”
I believe you’ve had a little too much to think, Seek.
I fear most of TRUMPS are more concerned about ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’, than our Constitutional Rights.
Such a revolutionary
Trump more than likely supports gay marriage
How so?
Does this ring a bell?
“We are a nation of Laws.”
So if the Supreme Court says no border wall and illegals can stay, then Trump will be okay with those too
Trump does not understand the Constitution
I guess that is why he is now at 40% in Alabama today?
Not at all. Trump said it this week. That's enough to make it Gospel for most of them, until he says something different.
“ObmaCare is the law of the land and it will be funded” - John Boehner
Yep, Trump sounds like the establishment on this.
He doesn't "get" WHY she's doing this in regard to the GREATER reason behind it.
If Trump looses his luster it will be because he shows lack of understanding of the deeper issue.
I will say Cruz appears to grasp the dynamics of this woman's resistance.
And when he says so, so too will his ‘conservative’ (choke) followers.
Are you sure? The latest Alabama poll shows him pushing 40%
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.