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.
I prefer to set up the lawsuit I am more likely to win.
If you think that analogy is applicable to anything I’m saying, obviously you’re not getting a very clear picture of what I actually think.
Maybe I’m a failure at communicating. Maybe you’re just hearing what you want to hear. I don’t know.
I don't have any problem with that. There is always room for prudential judgement, tactically.
As long as that approach isn't used as an excuse for cowardice or a craven unwillingness to sacrifice something to do what's right.
Which isn't uncommon.
No, it's how you are communicating that makes for unnecessary strife. When you use absolutes and unqualified statements lacking alternatives, the reader is forced to take you literally. Thus:
EVERY (twice), EITHER (with no other possibilities), as low as it CAN go (as if there was no possibility of a defensible hazard or way it could be easier), FOR ONCE (as if FRC had never listened before)... Each of these statements is exclusive, placing its object in a position or condition that is logically unlikely. Each invites argument by exception which you apparently find frustrating. Yet by closing the box, you exclude solutions outside the box, and are thus forced to struggle out of an unnecessarily difficult position. Struggles don't go over well.
I don't recommend that style of discourse. It carries the risk of making enemies where you could have enlisted allies.
Actually, my “either” was simply an addition, an expansion, to the very narrow range of options you offered for dealing with the problem - a grand total of one option.
And you didn’t like that.
You’re just nit-picking and fault-finding.
Talk about unnecessary strife.
Considering that I merely responded to your query in order to be helpful as it seemed you wanted the feedback, isn't that the character of what you just wrote? I'm trying to tell you that when you leave no room for acceptance of alternatives, it is natural for people to take exception or simply not want to deal with you. If you don't care, that's fine, but when you list what you state to be the only alternatives when others exist, you just may get that response.
I left other alternatives. You simply choose not to see them.
In fact, you started to nitpick and fault-find as soon as I offered alternatives to the one solution to the problem you offered.
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.