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, 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
And not often said... TRUMP may be blowing' Smoke on immigration, as well..
There's nothing to convince TRUMP is honest, serious and straight forward about anything..
His History proves otherwise. Best that can be said, of TRUMP..
Is that he is TOTALLY AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION....
....THIS WEEK....
Good to know where you stand.
I think it better to change hearts and minds and not think that some re-arranging of power structures is going to somehow change the morals of society.
You’re still tapdancing. If laws were broken (stealing the sign) it should have been handled with the authorities, not by physical assault. You claimed the illegal was within his right to assault the guard, but the statute you cite is subjective.
Bottom line, you are siding with the illegal assaulting a presidential candidate’s body guard, to push your political agenda. it is transparent as is your claim to be a Trump supporter.
Yeah? And so Jim Rob is wrong?
Please reconsider your stance against Kim Davis, Ted Cruz and even Jim Robinson.....
Free Republic will continue the fight for Liberty and against godless socialism and fascist judges!
September 3, 2015 | Jim Robinson
Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2015 5:39:43 PM by Jim Robinson
I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!
more...
You mean like Donald Trump?
Trump is ahead in the polls right now because he portrays himself as anti-establishment. But he is slowly revealing himself to be an establishment guy. Surrendering on the Kim Davis issue. Surrendering on Abortion. Surrendering on Gay Marriage.
Most of his statements on issues other than Immigration are muddy at best. He said he is strongly in favor of "Women's Health Issues" as if there is anyone in the race who thinks women should not have access to healthcare. But the term "Women's Health Issues" has become synonymous with support for "A Woman's Right to Choose" (i.e., Abortion).
The more I see of Trump, the more I hear him avoid critical questions or answer them in a vague way, the more I distrust him.
Cruz may not be "electable" but then the Donald Trump who gets elected may not be the Donald Trump you elect. His positions are muddy and inconsistent. We will not know who we elect until he takes office, and frankly what I have seen in the last couple of days makes me very wary of giving him the office.
Even when I disagree with Cruz, he answers the questions that are posed to him and doesn't immediately go on the attack against the one who asked him the question.
As a candidate for the highest office, Trump should be prepared to give unto every man an answer. If he can't answer then he should admit that he doesn't have the answer. That is the honest way of dealing with a "gotcha" question. The Chicken way out is to accuse the questioner of being biased or of throwing out "gotcha" questions.
Ted Cruz does not complain when he is given "gotcha" questions. He doesn't attack the interviewer. He gives straightforward answers and sometimes I don't like his answers, but he doesn't shy away from giving them just because they might upset me.
The Supreme Court has no authority to declare that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States”. That is legislating.
Nor is there any such “fundamental right” to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever reason.
I am a Christian. We didn’t see the Apostle Paul leading a political activist campaign concerning slavery. But God addressed this evil in His own timing. When John Brown addressed it in the energy of the flesh in the 19th century he helped start a civil war. If Paul was in Kim Davis’ position, he would resign his office, he would not try to turn it into an act of civil disobedience. Romans 13 is clear. And many, many people in the New Testament era were homosexual, many of them probably in government. If Christians want to be the salt of the earth, they should learn and follow sound doctrine, not be the preachers of political mishmash.
You didn’t answer my questions. Are you willing to put up a fight against Judicial Tyrany or are you just willing to accept that every Supreme Court OPINION is the law of the land and that it is useless to try to change that?
Should Kim Davis rot in jail? Does she deserve that? Or does she deserve your support and admiration?
Whose side are you on?
The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been the purview of the States.
Since the USSC has arrogated to themselves the power to legislate why have they not issued any decrees regarding age or consanguineous limitations? Surely this is discriminatory, a violation of equal protection, etc. Since the Supreme Court has arrogated to themselves the power to legislate, the power to commandeer State legislatures, why haven’t they provided a uniform marriage code for the entire United States?
I’ll trust Ted... Rand, being a libertarian will likely take the “que sera, sera” rode when it becomes too politically incorrect to stand for the moral underpinnings which once made America a great nation.
In Kentucky a couple under 16, with a pregnant female, may marry with a judge’s permission and $5.00 payment. Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.020(1)(f)(3). In New York marriage where either party is under the age of 14 is prohibited. N.Y. Dom. Rel. § 15-a. If two Kentucky 14 year olds, expecting a child, elope to New York they will not be able to marry. In NY any person issuing a license for such marriage “shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be fined in the sum of one hundred dollars.” Why haven’t the Philosopher Kings straightened this out?
Bobby and Lucy, two deeply in love Kentuckians 13 and 14 years old, always dreamt of making it on Broadway. Unfortunately their child is condemned to illegitimacy by the State of New York.
Bobby and Lucy ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law, they ask for respect. Why hasn’t the Supreme Court granted them this?
Why haven’t the Philosopher Kings in their wise beneficence put an end to Bobby & Lucy’s exclusion from one of civilization’s oldest institutions? Why is the Supreme Court denying them the respect of marriage? Why are they condemning Bobby and Lucy’s child to illegitimacy? All they have to do is say the word.
Oh - what’s that? The Supreme Court has no such authority?
There will not always be a choice if tyranny is allowed to run it’s course. That is why the time to take a stand is now.
You are complicent by not doing so, and so is Trump.
This is one of the most convoluted defenses of sodomy I've ever seen.
You don't think the Apostle Paul was running an activist campaign? You think he would have gone along with sodomite marriage?
What is the "sound doctrine" you want Christians to follow? Please be VERY SPECIFIC.
Yes, you’ve said numerous times. Simply repeating your views is not an argument.
“Trump is falling down on this badly.”
Trump is playing this like a stradivarius!
1. He gets to use the law is the law on sanctuary cities and Hillary.
2. The law is the law and this forces people to get off their lazy asses and do something other than cheer on someone else to break the law. He is showing the thuggery of the left in this.
3. He gets to say he will change the law once he is president, but no other candidate will do that.
4. He gets to show sympathy for the clerk at some point.
I haven’t tracked who I’ve said what to. If you’ve heard it before then why don’t you refute it?
“Are you willing to put up a fight “
Exactly what kind of fight? Mouthing off on a social media web site? That isn’t fighting.
You think I’m defending sodomy? I stopped reading there. Not addressing you again. You’re too thick.
“....THIS WEEK.... “
Same with the other candidates.
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.