Sheriff Clarke just used this R word to forecast the fallout from Supreme Court Ruling

Western Journalism ^ | 6-29-15 | Norvell Rose

[afraidfortherepublic]

Last week’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision declaring same-sex marriage to be a constitutionally protected right in all 50 states is setting up battle lines across the country, with many church leaders and some state officials indicating they will stand firm in protecting the religious liberty of those who find the high court’s decision morally offensive.

There’s even a high-profile law enforcement figure who has taken to social media with a warning about the “cultural rot” associated with the court’s declaration that gay marriage is legal across the country, despite what individual states and their residents might say. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, well known and highly regarded in conservative circles, made a bold and provocative prediction on his Twitter feed over the weekend, saying that today’s anger over the Supreme Court decision will turn to rage, then revolt.

Given Sheriff Clarke’s very public positions on support for the Second Amendment, for America’s police forces, and opposition to numerous policies of President Obama and his liberal supporters, it’s little wonder that his tweet drew a lot of passionate responses from his more than 64,000 followers. Quite a few respondents encouraged Sheriff Clarke to become a prominent leader of the opposition, so to speak, beyond his frequent criticism of the sharp left turn the country is making.

[X-spurt]

Until we have both Houses of Congress and POTUS, Article 3, Section 2 is moot.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[Mr. K]

I wish I was as articulate as Sheriff Clarke

[terycarl]

.but we don't impeach judges And it has made us everything we are today. I hope you like it.

I don't like it at all, but apparently you underestimate the liberal left....they would throw every judge out of office who didn't comply with the radical left and their ideas....Pelosi would say that we had to impeach him to find out what his opinions were......no thanks, I can live with a few bad decisions (they can be reversed if we get off our asses)but if repubs sit on their hands like they did in the last election, then we can count on more of the same.

[terycarl]

“Don’t you think that it would set a very dangerous precedent to impeach judges because you didn’t like their decisions?” That is not the case here. It is imperative to remove judges who act criminally, illegally, unconstitutionally, and unethically. It is not a matter of what people “like”.

He did nothing of the kind....he was certainly wrong in my opinion, but he had every right to issue that decision....there was nothing illegal nor unconstitutional about it.

[unlearner]

“He did nothing of the kind....he was certainly wrong in my opinion, but he had every right to issue that decision....there was nothing illegal nor unconstitutional about it.”

Who is “he”?

I was writing about 5 supreme court judges who I said acted “criminally, illegally, unconstitutionally, and unethically”. Maybe you thought I was referring to someone else? Or perhaps you think the homosexual marriage ruling is wrong but legal?

Two of the five had performed “homosexual marriages”. That alone makes it unethical that they did not recuse themselves from this case.

Nothing in the Constitution gives these judges the legal authority to rob the people or the states of their rights.

This edict, and that is what it is, has no more moral authority than if they had decided to order the rounding up of Christians and Jews to be locked in internment camps.

All judges, lawmakers, mayors, governors, and law enforcement should refuse to cooperate with their edict. Unfortunately, most will comply just like the Germans did when they were “just following orders”. However, that argument did not work as a defense at Nuremberg. It will not work as a defense in this case either.