Posted on 09/04/2015 5:12:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Dumbest statement on this topic I have seen.
That is the losing argument in the case.
Now that the case has been decided, the only option is to change Constitution.
Yeah, Mitch, heard you loud and clear.
Tomorrow: Yes, let’s dump Trump based on TWO issues.
Next Day: Yes, let’s dump Trump based on a few issues.
Compromised principles on display for all to see, folks!
BTW, it’s not only one issue.
Trump doesn’t want to tear up the Iran deal-—he wants to “police” it.
He’s lauded Planned Parenthood as doing great things for “women’s health”, and believes abortion is only a small part of what they do.
Earlier he said it was time to move on from the queer marriage issue.
He had a close working relationship with Al Sharpton, wanted to make Charlie Rangel Secretary of HUD, donated $25,000 to Terry McAuliffe’s Virginia gubernatorial campaign, etc., etc.
Every day more evidence of Trump’s liberalism and his lack of fitness for the presidency emerges. And every time, his most devoted fans dismiss it and say, “Who cares, it’s one issue.”
That just doesn’t wash anymore.
Now stop it Dave. You are messing up a well crafted Dump Trump thread.
Nope Trump jumped the shark and it is going to cost him the support of conservatives, tea party folks and evangelicals. Ben Carson will be in first place a week from now in Iowa.
Thank you for the answer.
I am not clear on the mechanics of it, but my opinion is that the “unconstitutional” bits are void, but the rest of the statute is intact. The “female” bits are a dead letter.
I could be wrong.
In any event, it is a limited argument. The legislature must correct the language at some point.
People are upset at the SCOTUS ruling and are applauding disobedience to it. That’s fine, but it is ultimately futile. SCOTUS has ruled as it has and this is not going to trigger some mass movement to amend the Constitution.
The USSC has no authority to declare “The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.”
This commandeers the legislative process of the States. There is no fundamental right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose.
Judges are not Legislators
1971. I found Jesus in a Christian Coffee house on Beach Blvd. I was baptized by the hippie freak Lonnie Frisbie.
From Chief Justice Roberts' dissent in the recent Obergfell ruling:
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s 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?
I totally agree with your post. Thanks for saying better than I would have.
“Nope Trump jumped the shark and it is going to cost him the support of conservatives, tea party folks and evangelicals. Ben Carson will be in first place a week from now in Iowa. “
Likely not. But emotionalism can make you think anything you want.
I don’t read anywhere Trump agreeing that she should have gone to jail.
I didn’t read anywhere that Trump said no matter what, she should have issued those licences herself. He could have delegated it to someone else.
I’m against abortion, so I am not going to apply for a job at Planned Parenthhod, and if I did, expecting to keep my job if I refused to perform abortions. I would rightfully be dismissed from my job.
What Davis should have done, and what Trump was advocating, was that she could have delegated the responsibility to other clerks in the office, and her job and rights would not be affected. She could have resigned from her position if she felt it violated her religious beliefs. She was not forced to stay.
I don’t agree with a lot of laws, nor many SCOTUS decisions. Even with the strict gun laws after the Heller 2A decision, I am not going to waive a gun around in liberal states like NJ or NY in an act of “Civil disobedience” and expect to not get arrested.
You fight the fights that you can win now (immigration, economy), and fight for more when you’re in a position to do so.
You missed that opportunity when Newt outlined a plan to shut them down during the last election.
You are.
Obamacare was not passed with a saving clause, so if any part of it is found unconstitutional, the whole law is void.
Do you not remember the arguments here on why it was so important that the employee mandate be found to be unconstitutional? If the court had so ruled, then the whole statute would have been voided and the matter sent back to congress to fix.
The Supreme Court does not have a line item veto.
LOL!
skippyjonjones
signup
11-21-2014
These mouthy little retread trolls just won't learn.
OK, thanks.
I would say that 1, that is a dissent not a court order. And 2, “invalidate” is not necessarily saying that the entire statute is voided.
In any event, the state laws must be changed, so this argument is limited in time. This clerk’s argument is still that God forbids her to do these newly defined duties of her office.
Ask Jim.
No kidding... I imagine you know how he turned out. Of course Samson didn’t do too well either for one who judged Israel for decades. I would sincerely love to hear more of your story. Lonnie was long gone and I was already saved by the time I made my way down to Costa Mesa Calvary Chapel in 1976. This is personal, so no need to answer, but are you still ‘on fire for Jesus’?
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.