Posted on 09/30/2015 11:35:42 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Carly Fiorina’s recent interview with Jan Mickelson on WHO Radio on Friday is getting some attention namely because of what she denied.
“Here in Iowa when you say Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land that sets us off because Iowans got bludgeoned by court decisions here, and we went through Civics 101 and we don’t accept propositions that court decisions are the law of the land,” Mickelson said.
“Actually, with all due respect Jan, I think that is a quote from someone else, not from me. I know there are many Republican candidates, Kasich among them, who have said those exact words, but there is no doubt, there is no doubt that we have a problem with our judiciary,” Fiorina responded.
MIckelson later circled back to the original question after she discussed the importance of appointing the right judges, “so you never said that?”
“I am not aware of having said that. I am aware of other candidates saying that. I think this probably came up with the recent decision on gay marriage. My comment on that was we must exert enormous energy towards protecting religious liberty in this country, and that means every state has to pass a religious freedom protection act. We have had those pass in many state, and I stood strong and defended Indiana when everybody was piling on Indiana, but it is clear we have to pass those laws at the state level, as well as, the federal level,” Fiorina said.
She did refer to a Supreme Court decision as “the law of the land,” and that comment was made in the context of the Supreme Court decision on marriage that at the time was still a month out from being released.
How do I know this? She said it to me.
Watch the video of her saying it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6Ge6sIEicU
“I think the Supreme Court ruling will become the law of the land, and however much I may agree or disagree with it, I wouldn’t support an amendment to reserve it. I very much hope that we would come to a place now in this nation where we can support their decision and at the same time support people to have, to hold religious views and to protect their right to exercise those views,” Fiorina told Caffeinated Thoughts after a Dallas County Republican event in May.
“I think this is a nation that should be able to accept that government shouldn’t discriminate on how it provides benefits and that people have a right to their religious views and those views need to be protected. We need to protect religious liberty in this country,” Fiorina added.
Now granted she said this before the Supreme Court ruled on marriage, but her statement is pretty clear. “I think the Supreme Court ruling will become the law of the land.” The way it was framed it appeared she believed that regardless of how the court ruled.
Mickelson’s question wasn’t about her opinion about whether she agreed with the ruling or not. It’s about whether she believes the judicial branch is supreme. She is asked a lot of questions and gives a lot of interviews so I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt that she probably forgot.
That said she owes Jan Mickelson’s listeners some answers about her view of the judiciary.
Obviously.
Frankly, personally, I wouldn’t buy a used car from the woman.
You are right in that they have both liberals who flip-flopped on many issues to try to appeal to conservatives. But they are still liberals.
The quote: "You have to go with it. The decision's been made, and that is the law of the land". ~ Donald Trump
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Didn’t she say it in reference to the Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis?
Is he implying that there are other cases and controversies where the SCOTUS ruling has a broader effect?
I don’t think so. I think he’s just pointing out that all the court is legitimately empowered to do is to decide individual cases that come before them, in line with the Constitution and with all constitutionally-valid laws passed by the legislative branch. That’s it.
Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I don't see anything in there that says a person can "choose" to kill another person because they are inconvenient, the person's father is a criminal or any other reason.
I think she did, yeah. On a separate occasion than the one recorded by this writer.
There ya go.
You are entitled to your opinion, but don’t tout it as being a fact.
The federal government, whether SCOTUS, Congress, and/or the President, are certainly NOT the ultimate arbitrators of all constitutional questions. The states are. (Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Art VI, Cl 2 U.S. Constitution).
If you get that, you’re one of a precious few that does.
This is the basis for IMMEDIATE state resolution and nullification of unconstitutional federal acts and decisions.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/150302
But so far, not enough people get this. Part of the problem is people have somehow let go of the Constitution, the ONLY legal bastion of freedom against federal tyranny, as the Supreme Law of the Land.
Yet another adherent to the philosophy of “settled law” and, by extension, a denier of the separation of powers and the Constitution as the foundation of our laws.
Yep. They are legion, unfortunately.
Food for thought my FRiend. Thanks for sharing that.
Actually, the people are the final arbiters.
“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree.” —Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:207
“The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.” —Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779. FE 2:221, Papers 2:526
“The information of the people at large can alone make them safe as they are the sole depository of our political and religious freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810. ME 12:417
You’re very welcome.
I know of few things that are doing more to destroy the republic than the judicial supremacist fallacy.
i fail to see why we are getting so involved in this as Christians.
Our job is to accept Jesus and to spread his word. We can bring the word to man but cannot make him read it. It is not for us to judge them because we do know that they will be judged when it counts the most.
If it is an interpretation of law, then so be it. We cannot change this sin by committing more sins (judging, lying). All we do is hurt the credibility of the Word.
I am not saying that we need accept them but to just ignore them. They are committing an afront to God, but not to my faith in God for I know he will deal with them in due time.
I'll add that to my list once I'm able to find myself fully convinced. I'm not far.
Well, frankly, I think you’re naive if you think they’re going to leave you and yours alone long enough for you to simply ignore them.
God created the institution of human government, as a restraining influence on evil, and to punish evildoers.
We just happened to fall heir to one of the best forms of that government ever devised at any time in history.
The homosexuals and their morally-corrupt enablers are well on the way to destroying that blessed form of republican self-government.
You will be made to care, no matter how non-judgmental you think you are.
Sounds great.
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.