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?
RE: Well that’s too bad, because if you cant here, then you sure as hell cant in a court room.
There’s one thing we can all do — SUPPORT KIM DAVIS and refuse to submit to Judicial tyranny.
Then can we agree to stop referring to Trump as a conservative, because until this election cycle, the social conservatives on this very site have reminded us time and time again, one cannot be a conservative if one is not a social conservative.
I don’t care for Trump, I think that’s pretty clear.
But can we at least be honest about what he is and what he is not?
Reagan wouldn’t have passed THAT test.
Really? Democrats have no need to explain their proud violation of the law, so often in fact, it's hard to keep up on current events. Nothing will change one way or another. This attitude is exaclty what criples the GOP right now. They are afraid of the consequences of their actions as it relates to the media or how democrats will respond. They keep thinking that they can win favor and avoid unfair bias and scrutiny. It ain't ever gonna happen. So how about just standing on principles and governing within the powers of the constitution and for the good of the nation? Let's try that and see how it goes.
Oops. forgot to sign it.
Darth Lenhart - Chief Inquisitor
HUAC 2016
It is generally accepted that once SCOTUS rules, it is the law and will be enforced as such, Constitution, Religious Freedom and common sense notwithstanding.
We just have to understand that the gov’t is working against us as with Roe, RKBA and others.
The Supreme Court is the the Super Legislative Branch.
In RR’s day, hard libs were further right than the average Freeper is today.
lol
RE: It is generally accepted that once SCOTUS rules, it is the law and will be enforced as such
So, how was the Dredd Scott decision enforced?
Look we know you are being an ass, so why hide it.
“Black people fit into the non-annulled marriage laws because they were husbands and wives, and the marriage laws were about husbands and wives.”
So? The states set marriage laws however they wish, remember? And many restricted blacks and whites from marrying, until SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional.
And the question is were those states that restricted it without marriage laws PERIOD after that ruling, and none were issued for anyone until a revised law was passed? And the answer is no.
I dont like what SCOTUS did with gay marriage, but this lady has no legal leg to stand on when it comes to this excuse of there being no law for her to follow.
Chattel slaves were treated under property laws nationwide until that was changed by constitutional amendment.
I’m happy she took a stand in line with her conscious, but it is a stand that has no legal backing, so she is up on a high wire without a net.
As always, point out my error. You have yet to find one.
Well stated. I am glad she has done what she has done, however. She has shown a light on a couple of conservative issues.
You miss the point, which is that the USSC heretofore worked by deletion. The anti-miscegenation provisions were taken out by deletion, therefore the entire law did not need to be deleted.
Try that with husband and wife and see what you get! Husband and wife are baked into traditional marriage law in a way that anti-miscegenation never was.
That is true, I cannot find ONE.
RE: , so she is up on a high wire without a net.
Only if fellow Christians and true conservatives in this country abandon support for her.
And remember, if we do, WE ARE NEXT.
You misspelled “Any”.
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.