No, NOT a letdown. I definitely see Trump’s reasoning here. By claiming that the Kentucky county clerk has to follow the law, Trump can later claim that the MANY sanctuary cities have to obey immigration law. I definitely see this happening.
I am going to need a neck brace if I read that again.
That’s nice thinking. But Trump better make some kind of reasoning like that soon, because right now he’s losing me big-time.
Brilliant! I love it when a plan comes together!
Trump is being consistent. You can't attack Obama for not enforcing the immigration laws while excusing someone who violates a law you don't support. I would like to see mass rejection of the SCOTUS decision thru nullification. There aren't enough prisons to hold us all.
Thanks for pointing this out. Now if everyone would actually have to follow the law, not just conservatives.
As for the Iran deal....who knows how totally awful it is but there is probably a way to break the contract - there usually is. To me it’s reasonable to explore this avenue first. This is The Donald’s wheelhouse.
There are those who play checkers. There are those who play chess. The checker players among us support her. The chess players are willing to let it play to it’s end before acting.
How many of 0dungo's people have been cited for CONTEMPT just like the clerk? 4? 5?
Immigration is law made by legislatures. The homo marriage nonsense is “law” made by judges. You don’t see a difference?
And what of the Iran deal?
Trump is starting to show the typical political traits of trying to have things both ways. No thanks.
Cruz, Jindal, Huckabee, Santorum are still in it for me.
Good thinking.
Congress cannot make any laws which violate the First Amendment, as the court is attempting to do.
The existing State statute was overturned by the lower court, leaving no law.
The court rules on the constitutionality of laws, it does not write laws. The SCOTUS refused to hear the case--so it wasn't even the Supremes who passed down a ruling.
Congress CAN pass a law requiring NO ONE be forced, for the purposes of employment, public or private, to engage in any activity which violates their religious beliefs, but then that would conflict with Obamacare (abortion and abortifacient provisions, for starters), queer training in the schools, funding Planned Parenthood through tax payments, and so much more.
How about we start with immigration laws? Then we can have a court opinion become a law by the legislature.
We have gay marriage now because God I knew someone legally issued gay marriage licenses and then courts made decisions illegally not based on laws. You and Trump don’t see the contradiction and not only liberalize count and that’s the way it is I got you
No, NOT a letdown. I definitely see Trump’s reasoning here. By claiming that the Kentucky county clerk has to follow the law, Trump can later claim that the MANY sanctuary cities have to obey immigration law. I definitely see this happening.
Exactamundo, FRiend. Trump has taken this tact on a few issues now. Iran, Putin, social issues, etc. He’s framing the debate for when he is POTUS. By striking a “moderate” pose he diffuses the sure to come moonbat attacks.
Bottom line is everything is gum flapping now in the POTUS race. Nothing a candidate says right now is anything more than posturing.
PJ, by the time we get to the primary, you will be exhausted trying to defend Trumpisms...:-)
No, NOT a letdown. I definitely see Trump’s reasoning here. By claiming that the Kentucky county clerk has to follow the law, Trump can later claim that the MANY sanctuary cities have to obey immigration law. I definitely see this happening.
I agree