Replies

“He could have ignored and refused to implement” This is nonsense. Pointless grandstanding would have played right into the hands of the liberals and obscured the point. The judges made a ruling. If it was wrong, you impeach the judges and/or you correct them via constitutional amendment. To not follow the court orders is to fail to live up to the oath of office to execute the laws; leaving you on no solid ground to point out how the judges were failing to live up to *their* oath of office in over-reaching on their ruling.

“He opted to implement gay marriage even though the Court lacked the power to order it.” And you have law degree credentials and have *done this yourself* to prove it can be done? Of course not.

This refusal to follow the law as defined by court order is the strategy Judge Roy Moore used ... and where is he and his statue now? Did it work? No, of course not.

“If he had been a conservative and a constitutionalist, like Fred Thompson, he would have ignored the unlawful ruling.”
BS. Shows us a statement from Fred Thompson declaring that. You can’t because Fred Thompson would surely not agree with this lunatic point of view. He’s too good of a lawyer to agree with such a bad idea that contravenes conventions of the powers of each branch of govt.

Listen. You might learn something. If the state supreme Court orders taxes to be raised, does the governor send out his revenue officers to collect the money “appropriated by the Supreme Court”? How foolish would that be? It is a separation of powers issue. I do not expect you to understand it, but one coordinate branch of the government cannot usurp the functions of another. The state Supreme Court had no authority (under the state constitution) to change the law on marriage as it did (a legislative function) and to order the governor to enforce it (an executive function). Romney compliantly allowed it to do both, either through ignorance or (more likely) political opportunism, becasue it gave him an issue to promote.

When you mention Roy Moore, your ignorance shows again. What court ordered Moore to remove the ten commandments?? It was a FEDERAL court, so the issue was not one of separation of powers between equal branches of government which Romney confronted, but of the Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the United States Constitution. Since you obviously never heard of it, let me put it in simple terms for you: it basically provides that federal law supercedes state law. Thus, the state Supreme Court (and Roy Moore) had to follow the ruling of the federal court to remove the commandments.

Your apparent zeal for the FMA masks your slavish defense of all things Romney. He could have said there is no legislation and refused to enforce it. Even the Court recognized that it had usurped a legislative function and that its ruling was unenforceable.

If you wish to call my arguments “nonsense” and “lunatic” I highly recommend that you brush up on your knowledge of constitutional law, because it is woefully inadequate. I repeat what I said. Had Romney followed this course, which the Alliance Defense Fund and other Christian conservative groups urged upon him, “gay marriage” would never have gotten underway In Massachusetts. Mitt Romney blew it, but you continue to apologize for him, and you now have an issue to demagogue. Enough Christian activists in Massachusetts remember what he did. This is his record and he cannot run from it.

I am not optimistic that you will understand this. I can explain it to you but I can’t make you understand it.

Regardless of the gay angle, the court was making law, which is what leftist liberal judges have been doing since FDR. Everyone knew it. Romney could of fought it. He might of won. But he didn’t. He let the judges run rough shod over the Constitution.

I think he didn’t fight because it wasn’t efficient. The is the bad part of the businessman/financial part of him. It’s hard to get behind someone that won’t fight. A fight that doesn’t even get mess your hair.