Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump on Kim Davis: I hate to see her being sent to jail but the law is the law
Hotair ^ | 09/04/2015 | AllahPundit

Posted on 09/04/2015 9:57:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

We’re in a weird place as a party when Trump, the would-be strongman who’s going to smash sclerotic American government as we know it, is more of a “rule of law” guy than Ted Cruz is. And way, way more of one than Mike Huckabee is.

Trump prefers an accommodation in which gay couples can get their licenses, as the Obergefell ruling requires, and Davis can opt out so that she’s not involved in something that violates her religious beliefs. But she doesn’t want to opt out. She wants to force the whole office to opt out by forbidding her deputies from issuing licenses without her approval. As recently as yesterday, during her contempt hearing, her lawyers were warning people that marriage licenses issued today by her staff (there have already been two as of 10:30 a.m. ET) while she’s in jail won’t be valid because they lack her signature as county clerk — and she might not be wrong about that. What she’s doing, as Charles Cooke put it, isn’t so much seeking a conscientious objection for herself as demanding a right of secession for Rowan County from the post-Obergefell legal regime. Cruz and Huckabee seem okay with that. Trump evidently isn’t.

“The other simple answer is rather than going through this, [because] it’s really a very, very sticky situation, a terrible situation — 30 miles away they have other places, they have many other places where you get licensed, and you have them actually quite nearby,” Mr. Trump said. “That’s another alternative. I hate to see her being put in jail. I understand what they’re doing. It would be certainly nice if she didn’t do it, but other people in her office do it but from what I understand she won’t allow other people in her office to do it.”

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. It would be nice to have other people in her office do what they have to do.”

Smart point, but the Cruz/Huckabee take on this is that a “lawless” Supreme Court opinion doesn’t count as “law” the way a statute does. Cruz, at least, knows better, but it’s in his political interest to push that argument. I’m curious to see if he comes after Trump over this at one of the debates, sensing that it’s a rare chance for him to out-populist Mr. Populism. If he does, Trump should come back: Who gets to decide which court opinions are sufficiently “lawless” that they needn’t be enforced? We’re left with Trump, the alleged revolutionary, standing up for the long tradition of judicial review while more mainstream GOP pols argue that that tradition has been so discredited by left-wing double standards that conservatives should take the same a la carte approach to law enforcement. Let every county clerk go their own way. In hindsight, Obama should have cited his, ahem, deep religious convictions as grounds for granting executive amnesty.

Exit question via a Twitter buddy: How come no one’s standing up for the conscience rights of Davis’s deputy clerks? What if one of them enthusiastically supports gay marriage and wants to issue licenses in Davis’s stead? The state’s telling Davis that she has a duty to obey Supreme Court rulings and she’s telling her deputies that they have a duty to obey her personal religious beliefs. Why is the former less legitimate than the latter?



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; kentucky; kimdavis; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-266 next last
To: Raycpa

NOPE. She was elected by the PEOPLE. They pay her salary. This judge is not her authority as it pertains to her job. He also is not her superior in the workplace.


121 posted on 09/04/2015 10:47:41 AM PDT by DrewsMum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

Sure as hell wouldn’t hurt.


122 posted on 09/04/2015 10:47:42 AM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
I believe Dems have suffered for passing Obamacare in pretty much every election except POTUS 2012.

Correct, sir! And they didn't suffer in 2012 because the GOPe brilliantly ran the one candidate who couldn't fight on that ground.

123 posted on 09/04/2015 10:47:44 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Gonna have to agree to disagree. Trump has been hammering home “we are a nation of laws etc...” he can’t follow that up by saying this woman should ignore the law (or court order etc...) Ignoring the law is what the illegals and democrats do. I don’t like it, I don’t think she should be in jail, but that is for her lawyers to figure out. trump didn’t stir this shitpile, she did.

And for the record, the woman everyone is lining up behind is a four-times divorced registered Democrat. Kind of a weird standard bearer for this situation.


124 posted on 09/04/2015 10:48:26 AM PDT by skippyjonjones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

And Freepers were whatever kind of “God” they could conjure up that tickled their ears apparently....


125 posted on 09/04/2015 10:48:30 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

If this immoral order stands, you can bet that the next one will be even more immoral.

And having accepted this one, we will be told we dare not reject the next one.


126 posted on 09/04/2015 10:48:44 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

“What LAW did the clerk break that now has her in jail?”

She stopped issuing marriage licenses, which is her job. She was ordered by a judge to go back and do her job, which she said she could not do for religious reasons. She was held in contempt for refusing a court order and put in the pen.

Now we have this corny excuse (after the fact) that because SCOTUS ruled bans on gay marriage unconstitutional that there is “no law” in Kentucky for issuing any marriage licenses and therefore she has committed no offense.

There is no ideological bias. She simply stopped working. That’s her choice. But she has no ground to stand on that she just was minding her own business and was chucked into jail because she was a Christian.


127 posted on 09/04/2015 10:49:01 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
Look I criticize Trump all the time, but he is right. The law is the law. The law sucks, the Supreme Court was wrong, but they've ruled and until we replace the justices (circuit, appeals and SCOTUS) so we get right minded decisions we are going to have to put up with laws we don't like.

What law was broken? I don't know about a law that says "Do what a judge tells you or go to jail."

128 posted on 09/04/2015 10:49:33 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (You couldn't pay me enough to be famous for being stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
"What law was broken? Help me out here."

SCOTUS ruled that gays have a constitutional right to marry. We all think that was overreach. But the constitution gives the judicial branch that authority to make that ruling.

So we need to impeach those justicies, But in the meantime gay marriage is the law of the land.

A judge in light of the SCOTUS ruling specifically orderd her to issue the licenses. She disobeyed the judges order. The judge has the legal right to hold her in contempt of court which he did.

In truth, the laws are a mess because of the Supreme court ruling. Kentucky laws are clearly written for a man and a woman to be married not this abomination that SCOTUS has favored.

129 posted on 09/04/2015 10:49:36 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

You would trade the core reason for America’s founding? Freedom of Religion?

REALLY?????


130 posted on 09/04/2015 10:49:38 AM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

We agree.


131 posted on 09/04/2015 10:50:18 AM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: cynicalman

No it isn’t the law of the land. The Supreme Court constitutionally can not make laws. It is not authorized just to make shit up and insert its elitist beliefs into the constitution. Yes they have gotten away with it but its beyond time that it stops. There is no more a requirement that states issue gay marriage licenses than there is a requirement that they license Easter bunnies. YOU KNOW IT and I know it. Quit being an idiot. We are not ruled by the men and women in black robes and its insane that people are saying something is “the rule of law” that is the product of the abuse of power and violation of the constitution.

What should be done is that these judges should be shown the law up close and personal.


132 posted on 09/04/2015 10:50:55 AM PDT by Maelstorm (America wasn't founded with the battle cry give me Liberty or cut me a government check!".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
Cruz would be in contention for POTUS right now, if Trump hadn’t injected himself into the race.

Cruz's polling average was about 8% when Trump entered the race, not much different from where he is now. It's not Trump's fault that Cruz isn't connecting with voters. If Republicans wanted Cruz, he'd be polling higher.

133 posted on 09/04/2015 10:51:00 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: skippyjonjones

No, she refused to dish out from a crap pile and call it food.


134 posted on 09/04/2015 10:52:02 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: VideoDoctor
Exactly correct, Trump doesn't get it and I don't think he is a Christian. Cruz however agrees with me on just about everything, including the Kim Davis persecution.

I support Cruz.

135 posted on 09/04/2015 10:52:59 AM PDT by Licensed-To-Carry (Every time you vote for a democrat, you put another nail in the coffin of the USA.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Trump should say what you just said. He is sounding like Jeb Bush with the law is the law and we jut need to move on. Those a not fighting words those are surrender words.


136 posted on 09/04/2015 10:53:07 AM PDT by jpsb (Believe nothing until it has been officially denied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
I would trade a few gays getting married for deporting the MILLIONS of illegals. And an important start is making the sanctuary cities OBEY the law.

You get it too.

137 posted on 09/04/2015 10:53:10 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

RE: Can you cite any precedence where a state kept a law on the books that was ruled unconstitutional, and enforced it until their state legislator got around to repealing it? I would love to hear where it has happened and worked.

We don’t need to go through all that. THAT IS IF WE REALLY FOLLOWED THE CONSTITUTION.

For one, the constitution is SILENT on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Therefore, since it is silent, we have the 10th amendment.

The 10th amendment tells us that :

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

Since it is reserved to the States, then Kentucky should GET TO DEFINE ITS ONE LAWS ON MARRIAGE.

It just so happens that Kentucky has and currently, it PROHIBITS same-sex marriage.

Kim Davis is trying to UPHOLD Kentucky Law ( a law 5 black robed judges are usurping ).

Whereas, in Dred Scott, the justices defied natural law and presumed a “right” for whites to own blacks, the court’s 2015 Obergefell decision likewise defied natural law and presumed to deconstruct and redefine the institution of marriage.

Both decisions are illegitimate, and here’s why. For the U.S. Supreme Court to justifiably overturn some law duly passed by the United States Congress, its opinion must be deeply rooted in one or more of the following:

A clear reading of the U.S. Constitution;
Some prior court precedent;
History and the Common Law;
Our cultural customs or traditions;
Some other law enacted by Congress.
As the high court’s four dissenting justices rightly observed in Obergefell, the “five attorneys” who invented this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage,” failed, abysmally, on each and every requirement.

The same was true of Dred Scott.

And so both opinions should be summarily ignored.

Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to “check” judicial activism, up to and including when justices illegitimately legislate from the bench: “[T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Our Republican-led Congress, from a regulatory standpoint, has the absolute constitutional authority to smack down this rogue Supreme Court. Unfortunately, to date, it has either been unwilling or unable to do so.

Still, it’s not Republicans alone who must halt this judicial imperialism. Every Freedom-loving American, to the extent that such animal yet exists, must also join the fight. After the Dred Scott opinion, they did.

They ought to do it in regards to what 5 lawyers of the Supreme Court did as well or we lose our freedom.


138 posted on 09/04/2015 10:53:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (What is the difference between Obama and government bonds? Government bonds will mature someday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Yes, quite so.


139 posted on 09/04/2015 10:53:28 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No it did not anymore when SCOTUS ruled that bans against interracial marriage were unconstitutional did any state prohibiting it all of a sudden have no marriage laws.

Until you can cite for me where they were marriage licenses in those states CEASED until a new law was passed, then you are just playing hard and fast looking for a legal loop-hole that isnt there.


140 posted on 09/04/2015 10:54:06 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-266 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson