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?
RE: 9 Black Robes DO NOT MAKE THE LAW!
Make that 5 blacked robes.
Oh come on! The American public did not rise up in any meaningful fashion when the SCOTUS RULED Gay Marriage is the Law of the Land.
I think everyone was beat down. This was a 20+ year battle.
It wasn’t like it happened over night.
‘Gay Marriage’ was forced on people. First State by State. The majority of States overwhelming voted against gay marriage..including California.
State by state they were strong armed to “except it”.
With a lopsided liberal SC making the final decision.
Of course, the best solution, in my not so humble opinion, would have been to do away with government ‘marriage’ altogethr. The government is incable of being non-discriminatory. Because as it gives special favor to a one it is discriminating against another group.
The best solution is for GOVERNMENT to get out of “marriage” altogether.
It is not necessary for GOVERNMENT to have ANYTHING to do with “marriage”
Marriage is a non-government, non-political person ceremony.
He is also pro-rule of law.
This is a difference of opinion on tactics not principles.
“Look we know you are being an ass, so why hide it.”
Boo Boo: “ I don’t think Jesus is gonna like this, Yogi “
We are now indeed a country of men, not of laws. All bets are off.
We are not ruled by the men and women in black robes and its insane that people are saying something is “the rule of law” that is the product of the abuse of power and violation of the constitution.
What should be done is that these judges should be shown the law up close and personal.
PLEASE PLEASE
The above seems to be calling for some form of anarchy. This argument has been on going since Madison v. Marbury. From that case it has been stated numerous times, “he who has the power to interpret the laws is the law maker”
.
>> “What a novel idea. A future president campaigning on following the law.” <<
.
Only of that (false) Law destroys real marriage to create a toy for sodomists!
That is what Trump is defending here.
Were it a law destroying all insider trading, I’m sure he would be solidly on the other side.
.
I guess it was a goofup when they put “answer a fool according to his folly” in the Proverbs. I so missed that. My bad, Lord.
Sorry it’s Marbury vs Madison
Why didn’t any federal judge ever insist that the politicians who flouted our immigration laws - the “sanctuary city” people - either comply with the law or face jail time? Why do they only come after opponents of gay marriage?
The American mode is to rise up over an example of a cause.
Well it just appeared.
.
We once were a nation of laws until Marbury vs Madison.
Now the courts can re-write any law they wish, to suit their fancy.
Trump, being pro-pederast marriage, loves this departure from the constitution.
As has been said, Trump would dismantle the constitution way faster than Obingo has.
.
“Well, I would say that this fight that Kim Davis is going through ( something she did not start ) is worth it as well.”
Just remember that the sequence was Dred Scott -> Civil War -> Civil Rights Act/14th Amendment. Not saying it’s not worth the fight, just keep that in mind.
There is a very easy solution to this — GO TO A JUDGE ( one judge in the county was willing to do the signing ) or go to a neighboring county ( there are 120 counties in Kentucky ).
The gays INSIST however in coming to Kim Davis.
This is the same as the Colorado gays who INSIST on going to the Christian Baker for their cake when they knew he would refuse and there are hundreds of other bakers out there who would be willing to do it for them ( and the Christian baker even referred them to a few ).
It’s not about getting a license, it’s about the HUNT
---
Exactly, they're TARGETING clerks based on knowledge of their religious beliefs -- or put another way, religious persecution.
Few are talking about the fact that the Supreme Court ruling should have been 4 to 3 against -- two of the justices should have recused themselves for conflict of interest because both of them had previously performed same-sex marriages. I'm sure if you haven't heard who they are you could guess which ones!
Look, I’d love to be charitable, but it is a head scratcher how is it even POSSIBLE here. Maybe the un-lionheart is right. Just ignore him. Because he’s just going to be a fount of arrogant taunts. I need to switch over to DON’T answer a fool according to his folly.
So when President Obama holds himself above “false” law its not okay, but if future President Trump submits to “false” law its also not okay? It seems to me you are advocating that its okay if we do it but not okay if the other guy does it.
Dredd Scott was the law of the land until the 14th amendment. It took 22 years and a civil war, but eventually the legal process was used to correct the law.
So where are you going with this? Are you suggesting it’s time for civil war?
.
The KY clerk has chosen the law! (and the constitution)
The SCOTUS has chosen to foster rebellion.
Trump being a far left democrat, is well in step with this demolition of the constitution.
.
We had Jim Crow laws —>Rosa Parks -—> Martin Luther King Jr. -—> Civil Rights Act of 1964.
We can follow that model.
Embracing evil will lead to embracing more evils and that’s a good an explanation as any of the Civil War. Slavery made the people hard hearted and that took away from any otherwise conciliatory attitude.
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.