Posted on 09/04/2015 5:12:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Another choice is tar and feathers.
Congress has been so reluctant ever to use their power to restrict the courts. I couldn’t cite an example. I’d have to look it up. Because of that we might make court override the same as presidential override, 2/3rd. They have at least tried that in the past. Before mitch McConnell at least. .
From your lips to God's Ears!!!
Absolutely.
I will accept your response to whether you are a donor to this site to mean"
NO I'M NOT A DONOR! I AM A FREEPLOADER!
Thank you for your reply.
Carry on Freeploader.
You are more than just a random surfer at FR. The site needs your cash. If you really are a conservative you don’t want others giving you welfare and pulling your share of the load.
Not your wife. . .. your conscience
The fact of the matter is simply this- when a judge/court strikes a law as unconstitutional etc, it simply ceases to be enforceable, not that is does not exist. So, in this case ( forgetting strawman arguments for a moment0 Kim Davis actually has no law to follow re issuing licenses- the KY law is void per the SCOTUS ruling- what needs to happen now is the KY legislature must re-legislate on the issue-else there is in fact no provision for any clerk to issue a license to anyone-as she maintains.
Now, the strawman re gun laws-was the gun law restrictive or liberal? If the court strikes down a law that complies with the written constitution-then that ruling is void on face value, if it strikes down a law that does not complie with the wording and clear intent of the same wording in the constitution, then it (that law)is void anyway- so yes, I can have my guns and ammo both ways. A stricken law is still the law , it is just not enforceable, so there is no law until the elected legislature addresses it, fact.
Please show me anywhere somewhere in the Constitution or federal statutes or admin rules where the fed gov is clear on the matter. Don’t go to the anti-discrimination laws-they do not address marriage or sodomy, but they do address matters of faith.
Marbury v Madison should have been relitigated many times over. It is an affront to the Republic that 11 east or west coasters all from Yale or Harvard and not an Evangelical in the bunch issue edicts based on their own personal preferences to 300 million Americans. You are a big fan of elitist oligarchies.
It would appear from the ruling that the SC limited its ruling to provisions in the KY law that specifically prohibited same sex marriage. A limitation that prohibits a marriage for reasons other than the sex of the applicant was not disturbed by the court’s findings.
“Kim Davis is willing to go to jail for her convictions. Are you?”
You aren’t in jail, so I think it is a childish question to ask.
“But what has many of our activists concerned about Cruz is an amendment that he offered to the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill in 2013. The amendment would have granted work permits to most of the 11 million illegal aliens”
“Cruz has said on dozens of other occasions that he supports work permits for illegal aliens. “
Cruz support another 325,000 foreign worker H-1B visas, displacing American workers.
Cruz tends to sign songs I don’t like.
You just want her to cave in and start issuing same sex marriage licenses. You are embarrassed of her. Admit it. You think she’s a kook.
Off your meds again? Reaching for conclusion with no facts. I think YOU are the kook, not her.
So you support her in her struggle against Judicial Tyranny?
If so, then welcome to the war.
If not, then why are you here on Free Republic?
Who or what I support is well known. To try to question it is nothing but a little girls club mentality on your part. Are you wearing the right color fingernail polish or do we need to kick you out of the club. What a dumb broad you are.
Apparently you didn't read the dissents. This ruling invalidated the marriage laws in most states. Every state that had a limitation on keeping marriage between one man and one woman has been struck down. There is a line through the statute. It is no longer valid. If gays can marry, then Muslims can marry 4 women and Fundamentalist Mormons can marry 20. Men can marry dogs. Women can marry cats.
The fact of the matter is that what the Supreme Court did was to strike down the marriage laws. There is no statutory authority for a county clerk to issue any marriage license to anyone unless that State's laws already allowed for homosexual marriage.
Do you support the decision of the Supreme Court? Are you happy in your belief that the Supreme Court re-wrote all the laws in order to include language that now allows one man and one man to marry?
Read Justice Roberts dissent. He predicted this would happen and it did.
Wow.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3332948/posts?page=428#428
Convoluted defense of homomarriage.. that’d do it.
Are you still claiming to be a Trump supporter that is suddenly distraught by him? Weak sauce, bro. Weak sauce.
Welcome to FR.
The point exactly.
I think you mean Adios. Thanks for stopping by.
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.