Skip to comments.Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’
Posted on 09/04/2015 5:12:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Bottom line, host Joe Scarborough said, is that if Supreme Court makes a decision, thats the law of land, right?
You have to go with it, Mr. Trump said. The decisions 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, its a very
tough situation, but we are a nation, as I said yesterday, were 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Has anyone asked Ben Carson is opinion on the issue? He has already backed up his bus on immigration.
This whole thing will be great for Jebbie, that is who will reap the real reward from this being an issue.
That is dumb. Check the posting history.
You are exactly the type MSM outlets like NYT or WaPo are trying to target with their hit pieces....
The majoritys decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Courts precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial caution and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own new insight into the nature of injustice. Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
By law her signature must be on every marriage license issued in her county. She is not legally allowed to delegate that task to anyone else. She is simply following Kentucky law. She is not signing any marriage certificates. Technically since Kentucky's marriage laws are void, she really has no authority to issue any marriage licenses anyway.
Kentucky could change the law if they are so inclined.
You fight the fights that you can win now (immigration, economy), and fight for more when youre in a position to do so.
This morning I briefly had “Good Morning America” on the TV, because our early morning local news, which is an ABC affiliate, had just ended.
GMA opened with the statements from Huckabee and Rand Paul concerning the Kim Davis matter, but they didn’t mention Ted Cruz, and if I’m not mistaken he was first to get out in front on this.
They are scared crapless of Cruz.
Gee whiz, P-Marlowe, you’ve been here for 15 years on Free Republic as an anti-Trump troll and no one ever figured it out. Lol.
We do, of course, get to ignore hundreds of posts in support of Trump and Cruz. You aren’t allowed to cite those.
They are simply proof of the conspiracy. /sarc
Yeah...lies, all lies, right? That’s how liberals respond when confronted with hard facts...even those right out of the horse’s mouth.
I don’t need these current affirmations of Trump’s liberalism. Unlike some of his fans, I’ve researched him and I know what he is.
He’s trying to talk the conservative line, but, being liberal himself, he constantly slips up, and the real Trump comes out.
Your argument is one of moral equivalency. That is a bad argument. The actions of the clerk in Kentucky are just and proper; the hypothetical case of the Muslim food inspector would threaten public health. And remember, the "law of the land" is only a standard to be used when liberals like the status quo. That is why there are 12 million (or 30 million) illegals walking around in public today in the U.S.
That part of the Supreme court has no authority to define marriage do you not get? In the USMC I was taught to disobey unlawful orders. The Supreme Count ordering states to perform same sex marriages is an unlawful and immoral order. It is my duty to resist lawlessness. It sad to is so many uniformed people posting ill informed opinions that have no basis in fact.
Please note, I said, ‘if’. Current leadership has to go. Conservative congress-critters should boycott the caucus and stand in the way of everything until their is a change of leadership.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate on this issue. Personally, I view gay marriage as an abomination to God - and feel sad that our country is going to reap the judgment for the SC ruling on this issue. Having said that - I also wonder if issuing a marriage license to those who have been married 3 or 4 times isn’t also against the laws of God? The Bible has much to say on this subject as well. So, if one is to object to issuing a license to homosexuals, then one must also object to issuing a license to those who are contemplating another marriage - possibly the spouse leaving one person for another. In the Old Testament - homosexuals as well as adulterers were to be put to death. We are now living under an era of grace where all can come to the foot of the cross for repentance. So, in fairness, if I objected to issuing a marriage license to a gay couple, then I would also have to object to issuing one to those who have had multiple marriages. I’m sure there are those who will disagree with this, but, it’s just my thoughts on the subject.
AMP 1 Corinthians 6:9:
Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
He has been a troll for many issues besides Trump. Guys in on the long con. these liberal lawyer types get off on it.
The truth is that business leaders are supportive of homosexuals. Not just Trump.
They don’t have families and have few friends.
They spend more of their free time on work.
I am not surprised that Trump is supportive of gay marriage.
By electing Trump, gay “marriage” (garriage) will have another 8 years as the law of the land.
By electing Trump, gay activists will have the opportunity to use the courts to put more Christians in jail.
And you defend the other troll. hilarious. Hey, how is Cruz doing in the polls lately? We haven’t chatted for a while.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 328.
From legal dictionary, "Saving Clause"
The provision in a statute, sometimes referred to as the severability clause, that rescues the balance of the statute from a declaration of unconstitutionality if one or more parts are invalidated.
A good point.
But are adulterers using the courts to put Christians in jail?
I understand full well your position. I just disagree with it as a practical manner.
Let me ask you this: if the SCOTUS is implementing rulings with no basis in any lawful power, what is the remedy?
Doesn’t that indicate a complete failure of our system of gov’t?
Your opinion is at odds with the reality of the exercise of power in the country today. How do you suggest we restore the SCOTUS to its rightful place?
The people that are backing the Supreme Court erroneous decision on same sex marriage must also have been 100% behind the Dred Scott decision. That was a good one wasn’t it. They are not infallible, they are not gods. They are political animals doing as they were told. BY who?
This court has made enough political decisions to make me believe that the corruption inside the belt way is total and complete. Their interest is to control the rest of us and to hell with any laws.
She should not be in jail. This is a religious freedom issue, period.
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.