Posted on 09/05/2015 6:30:43 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
What Kim Davis did was troubling. What Ted Cruz did was downright alarming.
Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, refused to issue marriage certificates to gay couples. She said she was operating “under God’s authority,” but she now sits in jail for ignoring federal authority.
Davis, at least, is facing the consequences of her actions. Not so Cruz, senator from Texas and Republican presidential candidate.
“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny,” he said. “Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. . . . I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally.”
Tyranny? Our system of government gives the Supreme Court final say over constitutional matters, and, though Cruz doesn’t like it, the court ordered states to recognize same-sex marriages. In fact, the high court specifically declined to give relief to Davis, and the federal judge who ordered her jailed for contempt of court is a George W. Bush appointee and son of a former Republican senator.
Now Cruz, who took an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution,” wants people to defy the Supreme Court’s authority? Who is the lawless one?
Cruz isn’t the only Republican candidate seeking the nation’s highest office while encouraging people to ignore its laws. Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, declared: “I thank God for Kim Davis, and I hope more Americans will stand with her.”
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, too, supported Davis, and Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) called her jailing “absurd” and said stands such as Davis’s are “an important part of the American way.” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said that “you have the freedom to practice religious beliefs out there. It’s a fundamental right.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Liars.
The court is out of order.
She’s a “lawbreaker”? What law did she break?
Once again we see why I would not insult a puppy by using the Washington Post to train it.
The comments section is packed with ignorance.
—wonder what the WaPo thinks about all the mayors and governors flagrantly violating the immigration laws with “sanctuary” policies——(sarc)—
“Our system of government gives the Supreme Court final say over constitutional matters”.
No where in the Constitution does it mention marriage.
If the Supreme Court in the first 200 years of the Republic didn’t find it, it’s not there. Irregardless of what 5 leftist sodomite-loving justices said. The Founding Fathers would cry if they knew how far this country has sank into the gutters.
The writer od this trash is trash.
Does the Post support Dred Scott?
What’s frightening is how closely we are following Bible prophecy.
Dana Milbank and the Hater of the First Amendment.
Two words cover everything one needs to know about obedience to the Supreme Court: Dredd Scott
Two items you may have missed, Millbank: One, marriage is NOT in the U.S. Constitution. Just like abortion is not in the Constitution. Two, Congress both establishes the courts, and can impeach, try and remove judges. So who has the final say over constitutional matters?
So much for your "opinion," Dana.
5.56mm
What law did she break?
No law, is the answer.
Beat me to it and unlike me you spelled the name correctly. Kudos.
But one reaps what one sows. We are reaping today, and it will continue into the future, the seeds that were so gleefully sowed November 4, 2008 and previously. We still have to reap the 2012 seeds. The blood of millions of innocent murdered unborn babies soak the ground. If you care to know how Almighty God feels toward those who shed innocent blood, read Proverbs 6: 15-19.Previous to his being elected, barrack Obama made this statement: If elected, I will fundamentally transform [change] the United States. He was and has. The finishing touches are now being applied. He also made the "The Constitution is a flawed Document" statement numerous times. No one appeared to care them. Very few, if any, care now.
We the people have the final say. As long as we ignore our place as the arbitor ofthe contract that is our constitution, then we will continue to have idiots like this to deal with
Please elaborate, thanks.
Your right. It’s the same inerrant, high court that gave us Dred Scott and prohibition.
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.