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?
It was a “guesstimate” of the total people here that we are in accordance with. A very small percentage of the total.
Yes we’ve done that here in NC too. But I’m not talking about Laws I’m talking about people taking action! I see more action from Black Lives Matter than from your and mine opinions and heart felt values that Marriage is between 1 Man and 1 Woman!
You and I should thank god for Trump because at least he has the guts to speak to SOME of the Truth we believe in while the rest of US, myself included sit on our asses and just let these thing steamroll over US because we are scared of losing our Jobs etc if we speak up.
So I’ll admit it in this area I’m a coward to speak out because in my business and circle I have too much too lose! God be with you Kim and maybe you can start a movement for the rest of US.
will trump lock up government officials who refuse to enforce immigration laws? All those mayors/governors and their sanctuary cities
What LAW did the clerk break that now has her in jail? She is in jail because a judge gave her an order and she refused to follow it based on (authentic) religous convictions.
“The Law is the Law.” What law was written and approved that is being referred to since “We are a nation of Laws.”?
We have regulations that are considered laws that are written by beuracrats that have authority because of some referenced legislation (see Obamacare, EPA, IRS, etc.). What have we in this case? A court ruling?
It’s not lost on me that what she did qualifies as “Contempt” if a judge so deems. But her protest certainly brings to light the ideological basis of the judge’s order. More importantly, it sheds an interesting light on the role and power of the Supreme Court with regards to establishing laws by ruling and then enforcing them from the bench. No more do we need congress or an Attorney General. Now lawyers can file a suit, get it to the Supreme Court, get a law by ruling on it and then have lower courts enforce them with the power they assume in a courthouses.
For Trump to side step an opportunity is not like Trump. It does not fit the MO he has quite effectively established in a short time as a candidate. I am in the “glad to have Trump now camp”. But I still have lots of reservations based on his pretty recent past political positions. Mix that it with his extreme opportunistic nature, and I wonder what his values are and for how long he will remain loyal to them.
Don’t fret. The Freepers and other staunch rock ribbed conservatives that browbeat people into electing the lesser evils that now stand silent will soon leave to DC to hold feet to fire as promised.
Because otherwise they would be outright liars.
There lurks a potential problem here, and not with Trump.
Since the recent government implementation of marriage has been pretty lax about divorces, that potentially raises other questions. Why don’t we need to be biblically strict about that, but need to be biblically strict about same-sex unions. That isn’t the ultimate killer question, and there are answers, but it doubtless will arise in the national discussion.
God please bless America, not because it at all deserves it, but because it needs it. Those who go down to death do not praise the Lord.
I suppose he is looking at it longer range. If he advocates violating the law now, when he gets to be president, what if someone on the left uses that to justify their conduct?
One is the rule of law. There is a legal process to turn it around. We have to elect Senators that will impeach Supreme court Justices. Or we elect Presidents that will appoint good judges and wait for the bad ones to die. Or we elect congressmen that will take marriage out of the jurisdiction of the courts.
What law was broken? Help me out here.
Its easy for a politician (and non-politician candidate) to say he favors traditional marriage. Its another thing to say he will defend it.
The clerk sits in jail; Trump is probably sad about that but won’t back her or the principle she is defending.
This is not that different from the Planned Parenthood issue. Trump is I think sincerely shocked at what we now know about them, but he can’t bring himself to shut them down.
So, he doesn’t like abortion, but won’t stop it either. Fine, its not his issue. Doesn’t like chopping up babies and selling the meat, but isn’t prepared to de-fund the good stuff that they do.
The Federal court overrode the state courts and you know that. The Supreme Court ruled gay marriage was legal and the law of the land. You can argue states rights all you want, but that's been tried before. The SCOTUS is basically an unelected Royal Court. The only way to avoid these sorts of decisions is impeaching the judges and putting ones we prefer on the bench (not possible at this time), a constitutional amendment limiting the power of the court (lengthy process that probably would fail), packing the court with more right minded justices (not possible at this time), or simply electing a President who nominates consistent, ideological conservatives to the bench.
That's been my problem with Trump from the outset, he isn't a person grounded in conservative ideology. We should be striving to elect someone who actually understand how important nominating judges with a long history of actual conservatism. As of now, many people are ignoring the importance of this and getting behind Trump - who is a populist protectionist with some conservative positions, but no history of being an ideological conservative.
Saying that, Trump is right on the law here. Davis is taking a stand, but the law isn't on her side and she will have to pay a price for standing for what is right rather than what is legal.
Looking around for precedent, was there any other time in American history (such as dealing with racial discrimination) that the USSC conjured positive law into existence like this, rather than nullifying provisions in statutes?
I think either a lot of people need to reread FR’s mission statement or someone should change it.
Because obviously we seem to be at odds as to why we are all here to begin with.
Last I knew FR was God and Country. In that order.
This and the planned parenthood comments are two divergences in his campaign from my own preference
A soliloquy about religious freedom would have been nice
He’s surrounded by tacticians with no anchor like Cohen
He needs a Franklin Graham in his ear too
RE: Which SCOTUS ruled to be unconstitutional. Which means if Kentucky is still part of the U.S., then it cannot prohibit it (like it or not), not that Kentucky can still keep that until they get around to repealing it.
Which means the SCOTUS made Kentucky marriage law null and void, which means Kim Davis cannot issue a marriage license for a law that the SCOTUS made null and void.
Which means she violated no law.
Kidding aside, if he has to have a televangelist tell hin right from wrong, WTF are conservatives doing backing him? Shouldn’t a president have a moral compass of his own that works?
We can pretend can’t we?
Just like we pretended Sarah Palin would run and rationalized away her missteps
They are all weak to us
I’m just counting his misspeaks
“I think either a lot of people need to reread FR’s mission statement or someone should change it.”
It has been posted on my home page for many years.
Maybe we should have it begin every thread. OK by me!
But is this issue the first one on which the court has presumed to produce positive law out of whole cloth? The traditional mode has been to nullify statutes. Then perhaps there could be a colorable Federal cause to hold a state legislature responsible to produce a certain kind of statute to take its place. But to hold a clerk responsible for conjuring an unwritten statute? That is to ask the clerk to engage in a meaningless farce.
Oh, San Francisco, you don't want to obey the immigration laws? Well, like the Kentucky county clerk, your officials are now subject to arrest. Oh, and NO federal funds to your city while you disobey the law.
The trouble is that SCOTUS has ruled against this country's judaeo-christian tradition, and created a tension between Christian tradition and the traditional deference to SCOTUS, part of our tradition of deference to the Constitution and the rule of law. SCOTUS should have found a way to avoid doing that; several justices did, after all.Nobody can say that it’s nice that the elected County Clerk is in jail, or that it isn’t “a sticky situation.”But this could be the first time Trump has gotten wrong-footed. First comment he’s made since announcing that TEA party types haven’t had reason to cheer.
SCOTUS should read the postlog of the Constitution:
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.
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.