See, Ted, it’s crazy to keep criticizing Iran while suggesting that the US should be come LIKE Iran. Oh, never mind. Just stay in the Senate, and you can say stupid things you don’t believe with minimal harm. Deal?
Eventually, I may have to post a full list of the current Presidential candidates who have definitively disqualified themselves, by evidence of character, integrity, honesty, temperament, trustworthiness, leadership ability and core values (or, in the cases of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the absence of them), from the very office they seek. Frankly, I’m afraid that no one will be left.
Senator Ted Cruz’s recent statement about Kim Davis, the now correctly jailed Kentucky clerk who cites God’s authority to justify defying the law, is so irresponsible, dishonest and cynical that he has to be moved to the top of the list.
Here it is. My comments are in bold.
“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America…
This is a lie, and a gross mischaracterization of the facts. Kim Davis can live and worship any way she chooses. She objects to same sex marriage, and she may refuse to associate with gay married couples, refuse to attend gay weddings, make whatever statements opposing gay marriage she chooses, picket gay weddings, lobby for a Constitutional amendment and more.
What she cannot do is refuse to perform the duties of her office, and withhold from citizens the government services they have a right to receive because of her religious beliefs. It is beyond legitimate question in law and ethics that she does not have the right to do this. She has been arrested for defying a court order and being in open contempt of legal judicial authority. This is not unprecedented, this is America, and must be America if democracy and rule of law is to function.
“I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion….
Kim Davis is, as we now know, a likely hypocrite using her faith as a shield for her anti-gay bias. She has conveniently defied “God’s laws” when it suited her fancy, and will probably do so again. Standing with an ignorant bigot like Davis is signature significance for an irresponsible and pandering politician.
“In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage opinion has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s opinion was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it…
Cruz is a lawyer and very well-trained one with a sharp mind. He knows that all Supreme Court decisions except the rare unanimous ones include dissents, which have no force in law whatsoever. This is the fallacy of the “appeal to authority.” Roberts and Scalia had losing arguments, no matter what kind of rhetoric they used to defend them,. Cruz would not approve of a D.C. official who continued the District’s unconstitutional handgun ban citing the dissents to the majority Supreme Court’s decision backing the Second Amendment. For a lawyer to pretend that Supreme Court dissents should be given more weight in law than the ruling they dissent from is incompetent.
“For every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?
Irrelevant, fatuous, and a blatant invocation of Rationalizations 2. The “They’re Just as Bad” Excuse, or “They had it coming”…22. The Comparative Virtue Excuse, or “There are worse things.”…26. “The Favorite Child” Excuse…27. The Victim’s Distortion...39. The Pioneer’s Lament, or “Why should I be the first?”…and some others, but that’s six too many already. The fact that over 300 cities have been allowed to defy the immigration laws because serial administrations have been cowardly and negligent regarding all aspects of illegal immigration enforcement doesn’t argue for tolerance of more lawlessness elsewhere.
“Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?
What THE HELL does this have to do with Davis, Senator? And while we’re at it, why is Roger Goodell still running the NFL? And what’s the deal with cough drops, anyway? Why no more little Ludens boxes, only bags?
When trying to assert a legally and an ethically absurd argument pandering to the ignorant and the bigoted, by all means change the subject to distract from your argument against the rule of law and pretend that it’s an argument for the rule of law (just not in the case your statement is supposedly about.)
Wow. You’ve got gall, Ted, I’ll give you that. No scruples, but lots of gall.
“When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis.
This may be the Mother of All “It’s not the worst thing!” arguments. Yes, Ted, let’s refuse to prosecute any more crimes until they finally nail O.J. for murder and indict Hillary.
I know you’re smarter than this.
“Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their religious faith–or be sent to jail.
Utter lies, and the kind of victim-mongering the Republicans love to mock. Who believes that Christians should not serve in office? Davis’s attributing her unethical conduct including dereliction of duty and violation of her oath of office to her religion rather than her own arrogance, selfishness, bias and ignorance does real harm to faith, however, as it provides ammunition for those who distrust Christians as doctrinaire fanatics. So does Cruz’s statement.
Davis is not being persecuted by requiring her to perform the duties of her job. Like every other citizen, Christians must obey court orders or be punished, including being sent to jail.
All judges insist on being obeyed. They are funny that way. Religion has nothing to do with it.
“Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so.
1) Davis, like anyone else in contempt of court, should be in jail. If scofflaws are not punished, society collapses. 2) Straw man, Senator. Davis can still worship as she chooses. She is not being jailed for doing so. She may not impose her religious beliefs and practices on others through a government position.
“I call upon every Believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis. Stop the persecution now.”
Disqualified, Senator. Go back to haranguing the U.S. Senate; by your own words, you declare yourself unfit to hold executive government power. In the United States, the “law of God” as various individuals interpret it cannot and must not take precedence over the law of the land. You are advocating anarchy and theocracy.
Note: Mike Huckabee also made disqualifying statements about Davis, but we know he wants a theocracy. He disqualified himself long ago.
Ethics Alarms 
I don’t like SCOTUS’s decision, but primarily because I am a States Rightsist (if there is such a thing). I believe that the definition of things not mentioned in the Constitution belongs with the States. However, SCOTUS has made that decision and, right or wrong, it is now the law of the land. I am also not sure that a SCOTUS decision can be defined as wrong. Aren’t they supposed to be deciding what’s right, almost by definition? Anyway, Ted is WAY, WAY off base on this one, and he should sit down and shut up. It’s not like his poll numbers show him going anywhere.
I think you fingered the motive for this. It’s an appeal to the “silent majority” in desperation. If you are going to get hosed, lose like Lindsay Graham.
“Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith.”
The Quakers and Jehovah’s Witnesses would like to have a word with you, Mr. Cruz, on the subject of religious persecution. And after that, you can talk to my people, the Latter-Day Saints (we never got our “marriage equality”, you know).
Lying’s a sin, Ted.
I saw that interview and I had the same thoughts. Cruz is so much brighter than what he stated. Pure political pandering to the Christian Right. The Kentucky clerk SHOULD be in held in contempt for defying the court’s order. Cruz knows that and his comments were truly mind-boggling. She is not being persecuted for her religious beliefs and I wonder if her lawyers are treading on very thin ice by making arguments that are clearly against the great weight of law.
Her religious faith has no bearing and is absolutely irrelevant to performing her functions as the county clerk. If she is opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, then her avenues are to resign and then attempt to change the status of the laws. By not issuing marriage licenses, she has violated her oath to uphold the laws of the State of Kentucky (just as the Tennessee judge is in violation of Tennessee laws and the Code of Judicial Conduct), and she should be removed. By extension of her illogic, if her religion or religious conviction prevented her from drinking alcohol, then she should deny permits to bars, nightclubs, restaurants, and liquor stores, because her convictions should control over state laws and her duties to execute them faithfully. That is a recipe for lawlessness and chaos.
Sasha Volokh wrote about https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/kim-davis-and-the-limits-of-disobedience/. He writes,
“So it’s clear that Davis has no legal right to keep her government job and at the same time refuse to issue the marriage licenses. As to her moral right, we can consult Justice Scalia (see Jonathan Adler’s recent post) who wrote, in First Things, in the context of judicial participation in the death penalty:
‘[I]n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty–and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.’
“So, in Scalia’s view, you either keep your job and do your job, or you resign and engage in political action or revolution. I quote this not to pick on Scalia specifically, but because (as in many cases) Scalia has expressed a view nicely and can serve as the poster child for everyone else who holds the view.”
So did Dale Carpernter: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/03/dishonorable-disobedience/. He writes,
“Violating unjust laws and willingly going to jail for it are time-honored acts of civil disobedience. I do admire people who stand up for their beliefs and take their lumps, often even when I find their beliefs profoundly mistaken.
“But Kim Davis is not courageously sacrificing herself for her beliefs. She is keeping the benefits of her government job and insisting that pain must be inflicted on others.
“Davis is not just any person who disagrees with the law and refuses to obey it, imposing costs only on herself. She is a public official charged with administering the law and serving the public that pays her salary. Even if she said God personally whispered to her that thrice-divorced people were not entitled to a fourth marriage license, thrice-divorced people would still be entitled to fourth marriage licenses and she would have to issue them. Either that, or every functionary is a law unto herself.”
She has no legal leg to stand on and for Cruz to support her and encourage her is disheartening. Moreover, Cruz’s bringing the sanctuary city mess into the discussion is pretty bold and despicable. The two are not comparable at all. Jonathan Adler makes this point in a recent blog posting:
“The Constitution establishes that federal law is supreme. But it is also well-established that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local governments to implement federal law. What this means is that the federal government is free to enforce federal law, including immigration law, whether state or local officials like it or not. At the same time the federal government cannot dictate that state and local officials enforce that law on the federal government’s behalf.” See, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/why-kim-daviss-refusal-to-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses-is-legally-different-from-a-sanctuary-citys-refusal-to-cooperate-with-federal-immigration-law/
jvb
Comment of the Day! I’ll post shortly—I’m still sick, and need to take a nap.
Again, I am humbled. Thank you.
jvb
It’s up!!! (Cough, hack…)
That sort of thing hit me three-odd weeks ago because our winter and what is going around in it finally caught up with me. But you‘ve just come out of a long summer. What’s the story? More worryingly, if that hits you in good times, what does it bode for the coming months?
I will ask my wife to send some of her world-famous chicken noodle soup your way! That is always good for what ails the body.
jvb
Very eloquently stated, sir. This is why i come here every day.
It is not as if being disqualified for high office prevents people from being elected President…
ha
Indeed.
It is the American electorate as a whole, and not just Jack Marshall, who decides who is qualified or not.
Now consider these beliefs held by large portions of the electorate:
– Employers impose their religion and violate women’s rights if they refuse to offer health care coverage that includes contraception without co-pay.
– Citizens United means that corporations are people.
– Universities are perfectly competent to investigate rape claims
– The Department of Education Office of Civil Rights has the power to interpret law.
– Hate speech is not free speech.
– A public university’s code of conduct overrides the First Amendment.
– It is okay to interrogate Al Qaeda terrorists with pinking shears and then feed them into a wood chipper, because they are not covered by Geneva Conventions.
In various comments on Facebook and Disqus and Usenet, I have read examples of all of the above.
The “sanctuary” city mess is a straw man in the context of this argument — the county clerk is in the wrong, and removing her is justified regardless of (say) the fed.gov’s stance on immigration enforcement — but in an even larger context, it *does* matter.
We should be asking why, if this merits almost immediate intervention, the government isn’t equally zealous in enforcing its own longstanding immigration laws — not to mention bringing recalcitrant locales like D.C. and New Jersey into compliance with recently decided constitutional questions on the Second Amendment.
This is a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons — scoring political points.
And I’m not convinced that what has happened is entirely right. Does the federal government really have the right to swoop in and remove a local elected official like that? It seems like an alarming precedent to me.
That already happens in New Jersey.
When do the cops who arrested Shaneen Allen go to jail?
And yet we approve of D.C. officials who arrest some people for violating those laws, but let others flout it on TV. The common thread is that liberals don’t have to obey the law, but conservatives do.
Sadly, we, as a nation, have tolerated elected officials flouting the law for some long.
It is like crack- it is very difficult to give up.
Rationalization #1.
Are you sure he’s rationalizing it? It looks to me like he’s complaining about it.
Dead on. When the Kentucky Secretary of State refused to enforce DOMA as law, he was not jailed. It was a fatal mistake for them to make a martyr. Another clerk and Oregon judge has joined her today. The wheels are coming off the liberal activist bus. The battle of the injustice of Ogerfell is going to go down the same losing path as Roe – no matter how long it takes. 😀
I believe it was an impeachable offense not to enforce DOMA while it was good law, and for Justice not to defend it in court. But that’s 100% irrelevant to this case, and it can’t justify defiance of SCOTUS now.
Which brings us back to the illegitimacy of the Oberkfell ruling; on the bases of non-recusal, of deliberate redefinition of the Constitution and of no basis of federal jurisdiction to begin with.
Three for three, SMP: there is no duty of recusal; every case interpreting the Constitution re-defines it, and that’s the job of the court; and nobody sane and educated agrees with your anti-14th amendment theory, so it’s the equivalent of saying the moon is made of cheese.
Davis is a Democrat.
Personally, she could be a Whig for all I care. Right is right and moral is moral.
That explains why my dog was barking like crazy a while ago. You couldn’t be dog-whistling the “Moral Majority” any harder than that, pandering at it’s finest.
Personally, I support Senator Cruz and back him up on what he said for the reasons he stated. I’ve argued this issue until I’m blue in the face, so I’m not going to reiterate here. But when a group of hard core degenerates can, with the assistance of agenda driven judges who hold no limits to their power, seek to overthrow the most basic and vital institutions of this country, America is in trouble. When they think they can do it without resistance from the people whose principles founded this nation, they’re setting this nation up for civil strife. I’ve come to firmly believe that this is exactly their intention on the road to their ultimate goal; unlimited power over this country and its people. As one pundit put it, “Our ancestors would be shooting by now”. The Left is playing a dangerous game of power politics under a thin legal guise. Their own arrogance will be their downfall in time. But the longer that downfall is delayed, the worse will be the consequences to America as a whole. Patriots understand this.
You gotta do something about that blue face, SMP.
If you support defying the law for personal conscience, there’s no hope for you. Honestly, it’s time to get that cave (there are a lot of them in Kentucky) and move to it. My conscience is as good as anyone’s, and whether I convince my elf of a religions that supports my most fervent beliefs or not, I can’t just defy the laws I don’t like. There is no way that Cruz’s—I love you man, but it is pure pandering crazy—formula works. You’re saying you’d prefer to have anarchy and chaos than put up with same-sex marriage. That’s all it is.
Mammoth Caves. It’s time.
Maybe you can get these guys to come along and form a quartet….
Laws that are dictated from the bench are no laws at all. Laws based on a perverse “interpretation” of a statute that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue is a case of juristic criminality. And when the basis of decent society comes under attack by these means, it is time to take those malefactors by the scruff of the neck and hold them accountable, not to the victims of their criminality.
You’re as bad as Cruz, except that I suspect he KNOWS he’s full of malarkey. SCOTUS made no new law. It decided the gray area in involving the oldest law, the USC. That’s its job.
There is no “gray area” here. The Supreme Court invented law from the bench. I submit to you the opinions of Justices Roberts and Scalia on this case. They are pretty scathing and entirely on point.
There was also an opinion written in 1885 about this issue.
I remember seeing that referenced, Michael, but I’m hazy on the details.
Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885)
I addressed that too. Their opinion lost. They can be as scathing as they choose. It doesn’t mean their views are anything other than fodder for law journal articles until the case is overturned, which it will never be.
Their opinion actually won. The two justices who refused recusal made it so.
You’re hilarious. SCOTUS judges NEVER have to recuse. It’s their call. Which means what you think on that topic doesn’t matter.
Regardless; they had already openly and publicly demonstrated their bias. That they were not required to do so only demonstrates the innate lawlessness of the federal judiciary… right to the top.
So, should Gavin Newsom have been hauled off to jail when HE defied marriage laws? What about others who did?
Or impeached. Yes, and I said so at the time.
I keep being asked by people who I think the best candidate for president is right now. I tell them that my first, essential criterion for a presidential candidate is that they care more for the wellbeing of the country than they do for their own personal gain. Look at each candidate and ask yourself, honestly, if it came down to it, would they sacrifice their reputation or future financial gain for the good of the country and the American people? I don’t mean sacrifice their life, I mean would they make a decision that meant that they might make Wall Street mad and not get kickbacks from them later as a consultant.
I really don’t like the SCOTUS decision on redefining what marriage is. I’m not an attorney obviously but this bad decision will most likely have adverse consequences throughout our society. However, the County Clerk belongs in jail as she violated her oath to uphold the law. I’m disappointed in Cruz as I know that he has been willing to take principled stands against party leadership who have made secret deals with the ‘progressives’ in congress.
Uphold what law ? Kentucky has not yet enacted a law compliant with the SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS can’t make it law. This is between Kentucky and the federal courts – not the elected county clerks. 7 other states are also not yet complying.
Talk to Bonnie: maybe she understands the law better. Kentucky has a law allowing citizens to get marriage licenses. It doesn’t have to pass any new law. It’s law banning gay marriage is a dead letter—SCOTUS says so. GONE. Doesn’t even have to be repealed. 7 states have some officials who aren’t complying, also illegally, and they may end up jailed too. Saying other officials are acting like scofflaws, bigots and assholes doesn’t justify it. Can’t do this, Clyde. No how, no way.
Get all those holes checked.
This is public policy matter. She has the same right to protest as street protesters interrupting activities and congressmen holding up federal activities with filibusters. Liberals do not seem to like that what is good for them also works for conservatives. Oh well. 🙂
Important notes. Kentucky has not yet accepted Ogerfell as law. The judge’s threat to hold her until compliance is a violation of her 6th Amendment rights. We don’t do Soviet style gulags. The tissue paper excuse SCOTUS used to backtrack on most federal and state court decisions including their own in Baker is straining already. Does not bode well….. 😀
No, wrong. She can protest all she wants, but not while she’s drawing a public salary. There is no right not to do your job and keep that job. As a professional bank robber whose job was illegal, I can see way you would be confused.
And Ky doesn’t have to pass a thing, not one thing, to give out same sex marriage licenses. This dumb woman’s lawyers are just throwing crap on the wall hoping something sticks, and it won’t. Read the Comment of the Day on this issue. There’s no legitimate dispute.
I disagree that Cruz is advocating anarchy and theocracy.
He’s advocating theocracy, true, but also a strict set of rules set by his and only his sect, none of this “constitution” or “democracy” stuff. God’s law supersedes Man’s law, and God’s law is whatever Cruz pere et fils say it is.
Anarchy? No. Fuhrerprinzip.
Evidence:
“The wealth of the wicked shall be stored for the righteous”
To be precise, the inevitable result of what he is advocating is anarchy and chaos. He knows it too.
Apparently, you and Zoe are in disagreement as to whether Senator Cruz is an anarchist or a fascist! Did either of you stop to think that this is the traditional treatment that those on the radical fringes met out to those who are Christian constitutionalists? To those who want an all-powerful State for America, stalwarts for a free republic must appear anarchistic. Likewise, those who think that religion and moral restraint have no place in the hedonistic commune that they would like to establish, those like Ted Cruz must indeed seem like a horde of goosesteppers! However, those two sides have had their political fantasies tried before and saw them fall into ruin. America’s revolution works… when the radicals don’t make “progress” into undermining it. Consider to whom the Founding Fathers- where they here- would bestow their favor.
Actually, “the wealth of the wicked shall be stored for the righteous” is more of a Communist than Fascist principle.
“The pastor [Huch] referred to Proverbs 13:22, a little while ago, which says that the wealth of the wicked is stored for the righteous. And it is through the kings, anointed to take dominion, that that transfer of wealth is going to occur.” – Rafael Cruz, August 26, 2012
Dictatorship – not of the Proletariat though, and by the First Citizen, but by a King, anointed by the Priesthood. A Caliph.
Not One People, One State, One Leader, but One God, One Faith, One Leader.
Not the Bourgouisie, the Jews, Bolsheviks, or the Kulaks being liquidated, but the “unrighteous”, the unbelievers whose wealth is the rightful booty to be taken in conquest by the mujehadeen.
Sorry, wrong religion, theocrats of this stripe all look the same to me.
Fascism – the unholy union of big business with state violence – doesn’t look too bad in comparison, much as decapitation isn’t as bad as having bowels drawn and burnt before your eyes.
Wrong. I know he is an opportunist, a liar and a cynic, because he ISN’T an anarchist, but is deliberately claiming to embrace a theory antithetical to the Rule of Law. And I was clear on that point in the post.
Jack, I’d argue here that the goal is the RESTORATION of the rule of law.