Trump Has Become the Tone-setter for Today’s GOP By George Will

[mystery-ak]

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/423783/print

 Trump Has Become the Tone-setter for Today’s GOP
By George Will — September 9, 2015

“I remember, when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum’s Circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the program which I most desired to see was the one described as ‘The Boneless Wonder.’ My parents judged that that spectacle would be too revolting and demoralizing for my youthful eyes, and I have waited 50 years to see The Boneless Wonder sitting on the Treasury Bench.”

— Winston Churchill in the House of Commons, referring to Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, 1931

Donald Trump, whose promises are probably as malleable as his principles, promises to support the Republican nominee. Some of his rivals for the nomination, disoriented by their fear and envy of him, are making the GOP seem like the party of boneless wonders.

Some, who loudly lament how illegal immigrants damage the rule of law, have found a heroine in Kentucky. A county clerk, whose devotion to her faith is not stronger than her desire to keep her paycheck, chose jail rather than resignation when confronted with having to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court and the Constitution regarding same-sex marriage.

Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, and Scott Walker think her religious freedom is being trampled. So does Ted Cruz, who surely knows better. He clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and must remember the 1892 case in which a Massachusetts policeman claimed that rules restricting political activity by police violated his constitutional rights. Rejecting this claim, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court wrote that the officer “may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.”

continued

[evadR]

Oh George, give it up.
Go play baseball.

[evadR]

WHO AM I?

I'm pompous, arrogant, full of myself, a narcissist and I don't give a whit about the little people.

Donald Trump you say.

No, I am George Will.

[alicewonders]

Unborn babies have no constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

American citizens have no constitutional right to have protected borders.

Calling members of your party "whacko birds" doesn't set the tone for the GOP.

Ignoring pot entrepreneurs in states that are defying federal law while jailing those in states that defy gay marriage laws is not inconsistent and proof of an agenda.

The GOP promising to fight Obamacare and stop Obama's daily encroachment of our freedoms and then rolling over to allow him free reign without as much as a fight is righteous.



What say you George?

 

[Bigun]

Some, who loudly lament how illegal immigrants damage the rule of law, have found a heroine in Kentucky. A county clerk, whose devotion to her faith is not stronger than her desire to keep her paycheck, chose jail rather than resignation when confronted with having to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court and the Constitution regarding same-sex marriage.

BS George!

WE are the ones standing up for the Constitution and the rule of law!

[aligncare]

Unborn babies have no constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

American citizens have no constitutional right to have protected borders.

Calling members of your party "whacko birds" doesn't set the tone for the GOP.

Ignoring pot entrepreneurs in states that are defying federal law while jailing those in states that defy gay marriage laws is not inconsistent and proof of an agenda.

The GOP promising to fight Obamacare and stop Obama's daily encroachment of our freedoms and then rolling over to allow him free reign without as much as a fight is righteous.



What say you George?

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant challenges to Will's questionable wisdom. You rock, alice!

[Bigun]

Regarding the matter of a county clerk in Kentucky...

I know it's tempting to look at this case as a question of those who believe that marriage should only be between one man and one woman, both of the age of consent, not too closely related... and those who believe that marriage can be whatever you want it to be (two men, two women, a man and three women, etc.)...
That IS an important question for America to decide.... but frankly, it is NOT the question of the day, where the Kentucky Democrat County Clerk is concerned. Let's take religion and marriage ideas out of it for a moment, and consider the case from 40,000 feet. It's not as easy a call as it may appear.
Remember first that she's an elected official of the state of Kentucky who takes an oath to uphold the laws of the state of Kentucky.
Now, be aware that Kentucky has a state law that clerks can only issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples. Period.
The Supreme Court has said it's illegal not to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Period.
The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court standing on this issue, but there is a law, passed by Congress and signed by the president and therefore binding, that says the federal government cannot interfere with state laws defining marriage (The very bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton during his first term).
To add to the complexity... under the Constitution, Art 4, Sec 1, each state's acts (it's unstated, but this includes marriage) must be recognized by each other state. So that does not force one state to allow holding a homosexual marriage just because another state does, but it does require the one state to recognize another state's homosexual marriage. Okay, that should be a compromise we could live with....
Under the Constitution, Art 3, Sec 2, the Supreme Court is legally able to adjudicate issues concerning powers granted by this Constitution and no more. So if a state passes a law on something that the federal government has no say over, the Supreme Court must say "sorry, I can't speak to that." (remember Bush v. Gore in 2000? SCOTUS admitted that the federal government has no say on the management of local elections, so the state's election law and courts must handle it. Same thing here.)

We have this crazy idea in the United States nowadays that the Supreme Court is the highest court for every issue. It's actually not. It's the highest court for federal issues, and each state's supreme court is the highest court for state issues.


The problem isn't that the county clerk is deciding to disobey a law. That's what the press and the Democrats and the gay lobby and the anti-religion lobby want you to believe. But that's not really it.
(and I must admit that my side, the conservative Christian side, isn't entirely right in presenting it as entirely a religion and social issues crusade either. I'm always tempted to turn the day's news into a key argument for one of my issues too. We have to try to resist such temptations!)

Bottom line:

The problem is that if the clerk obeys the supreme court, she's in violation of a federal law and a state law.
And if the clerk obeys the federal and state laws, she's in violation of a supreme court ruling.
This is a very complex legal problem that goes to the very root of the nature of our federal republic.
No matter what the issue is - employment law, contract law, child custody, a city's home rule powers - on any issue at all, we need to pay attention to the "controlling legal authority."
And that is hopefully the only time in my life I ever find myself quoting even a short phrase from Al Gore.

John F. Di Leo

Mr. Di Leo understands this and has it 100% correct!

[alicewonders]

Mr. Di Leo understands this and has it 100% correct!

Absolutely right Bigun!  I think it's a mistake to couch this in religious freedom terms - that's not really the crux of the issue.  This is a watershed moment for state's rights and the lawlessness of the Federal Gov't, including the Supreme Court.  You are so much more well-versed in the legal aspects - but a legal illiterate like me can see that this is as plain as the nose on my face!

Of course, the media is painting it as a rogue Christian red-neck opening defying the law because of her "bigotry" - there are even plenty of people on this site that are looking at it in those terms. 

That is not the essential issue here.

[Politics4us]

As Mark Levin has pointed out, Will opposed Ronald Reagan in 1980. I heard George Will say on the Bob Grant Show in 2008 that Obama was a prodigy. We all saw that clip of Will behind the scenes claiming that Palin wasn't worth the risk after the Couric interview. He said that Herman Cain only ran for president  to sell books. He asked a few years ago, "Can we trust Sarah Palin with nuclear weapons." He defended John Roberts' vote on the Affordable Healthcare Act Ruling. He can call Donald Trump a clown all he wants, but his record is one of the Republican Establishment that is not concerned about winning or conservative principles.

[Bigun]

Absolutely right Bigun!  I think it's a mistake to couch this in religious freedom terms - that's not really the crux of the issue.  This is a watershed moment for state's rights and the lawlessness of the Federal Gov't, including the Supreme Court.  You are so much more well-versed in the legal aspects - but a legal illiterate like me can see that this is as plain as the nose on my face!

Of course, the media is painting it as a rogue Christian red-neck opening defying the law because of her "bigotry" - there are even plenty of people on this site that are looking at it in those terms. 

That is not the essential issue here.

It most certainly is a watershed moment and we had better win this one!

[aligncare]

As Mark Levin has pointed out, Will opposed Ronald Reagan in 1980. I heard George Will say on the Bob Grant Show in 2008 that Obama was a prodigy. We all saw that clip of Will behind the scenes claiming that Palin wasn't worth the risk after the Couric interview. He said that Herman Cain only ran for president  to sell books. He asked a few years ago, "Can we trust Sarah Palin with nuclear weapons." He defended John Roberts' vote on the Affordable Healthcare Act Ruling. He can call Donald Trump a clown all he wants, but his record is one of the Republican Establishment that is not concerned about winning or conservative principles.

Thanks for mentioning all those points. They are dead-on accurate.

[Free Vulcan]

I'm sorry George, but looking at Sanders support on the other side says there's something more going on here than the limited pic you've frame.

[DCPatriot]

WHO AM I?

I'm pompous, arrogant, full of myself, a narcissist and I don't give a whit about the little people.

Donald Trump you say.

No, I am George Will.

Seen it up close back in the 80's.  He used to wear ONLY bow ties back then.   That ugly brown suit.  Arrogant twit.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Absolutely right Bigun!  I think it's a mistake to couch this in religious freedom terms - that's not really the crux of the issue.  This is a watershed moment for state's rights and the lawlessness of the Federal Gov't, including the Supreme Court.  You are so much more well-versed in the legal aspects - but a legal illiterate like me can see that this is as plain as the nose on my face!

Of course, the media is painting it as a rogue Christian red-neck opening defying the law because of her "bigotry" - there are even plenty of people on this site that are looking at it in those terms. 

That is not the essential issue here. 

 :thumbsup3: