By your reasoning George Bush should right now be defying the Supreme Court, ignoring Roe vs Wade and he should enforce a ban on abortion by executive order. By all means lets enforce morals by shredding the constitution and rule of law. Great idea! :(
Resolute on November 28, 2007 at 7:37 PM

.
Your Roe v. Wade example is irrelevant to this discussion, as it struck down an existing law, and obviously was a US Supreme Court matter.
.
In US Court matters, the better analogy is a ruling like Beck in 1988, which in essence said that unions can’t withhold dues for political purposes. To put that ruling into effect, legislation has to be passed, which has happened in only a few states and not at all at the federal level in the intervening 19 years. Therefore, Beck is unenforceable by a president, who can only nibble at the edges with notifications and the like, as Bush 41 and Bush 43 have done. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, issued EOs that nullified Bush 41’s EOs, and said he would do nothing to enforce Beck or inform workers of their rights. Clinton was perfectly within his rights to ignore Beck, and actually was constitutionally bound to not enforce Beck, because Congress had passed no law in response to the Supremes’ decision.
.
Individual workers can still bring actions against unions withholding dues for political purposes, and will presumably win, but that’s the extent of it. In most states, until real laws signed by real governors or real federal legislation signed by the president are passed, that’s as far as anyone can legally go with the Supremes’ Beck ruling.
.
Analogously, the Goodridge SSM case ruling specifically required the MA legislature to pass legislation amend or replacing an existing law that specified that marriage is one man, one woman. It did NOT throw out the existing law. The legislation never acted. The one-man, one-woman law is still on the books, unchanged. The legislation has passed no other related legislation. Yet Mitt Romney unilaterally instituted SSM in MA. He had not authority to do it, and violated his oath of office by doing it.

Tom Blumer on November 28, 2007 at 5:01 PM

You accuse others of “lack of seriousness”, yet you seem to have no grasp of the logical consequences of your statements. By your reasoning George Bush should right now be defying the Supreme Court, ignoring Roe vs Wade and he should enforce a ban on abortion by executive order. By all means lets enforce morals by shredding the constitution and rule of law. Great idea! :(

jaime on November 28, 2007 at 3:53 PM

O.M.G.

The question was in four parts.

1. He hasn’t led a sufficiently conservative life for you?

2. Doesn’t have enough experience?

3. What do you think will happen if he’s elected?

4. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s protege’ on the bench?

The first and second were clearly rhetorical; The third question is the one that an answer; The fourth was an illustration of what sort of ludicrous and hysterical concerns you might have. A guide of sorts!

Can you answer it now, Jamie or is it too darn difficult?

What do you think will happen if he’s elected?

As for this unintelligible response:

I NEVER shrink from a challenge.

Who challenged whom? [He hasn’t led a sufficiently conservative life for you?]

What does the bracketed sentence have to do with the question? You challenged me HERE:

But I don’t think you really wanted an answer, did you? It’s probably just that you get verbally pushed around at home and you come on here to let off some of your frustration. That’s OK, Dear. If you didn’t have the fortitude to make it all the way down to the end of the linked article, I linked the clip directly on YouTube so you don’t have to bother your little head about it. Just click.

.

Perhaps you’ve heard of judicial fiat. It’s the same reason we have legalized abortion on demand, sent to us from the Highest Court in the land in 1973. SSM was imposed on Massachusetts by judicial fiat, not Governor Romney.

Kennedy on November 28, 2007 at 8:19 AM

Perhaps you can show me where judicial fiat resides in Massachusetts’ Constitution.
It does not reside in Ohio’s, which is why the Ohio Supremes “order” did not force the Legislature to redo school funding, or the governor to redo it in the absence of a law passed by the legislature.
The fact remains that Mitt Romney was compelled to do nothing wtih SSM until an enabling law was enacted. One never was, and one hasn’t been to this day. Yet HE imposed SSM on MA.
The last paragraph of your latest response demonstrates your fundamental lack of seriousness, and total absence of a coherent argument.

Bigotry. It’s not just for Democrats in the Klan anymore.

BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Go screw yourself. I know Mormons. I know ex-Mormons. I know something of Mormonism.

When you embrace racist, sexist lunacy, you call your own character and judgment into question. Mormonism is racist, sexist lunacy. QED.

Buy Danish on November 28, 2007 at 12:56 PM

I asked you a simple question

He hasn’t led a sufficiently conservative life for you?

Must be a matter of style.

I NEVER shrink from a challenge.

Who challenged whom? [He hasn’t led a sufficiently conservative life for you?]

jaime on November 28, 2007 at 9:30 AM

What an insufferable horses’ ass you are! And quite the mind reader too, aren’t you? /Sarc.

I asked you a simple question and instead of responding directly you answered with a snarky “try to keep up” and then linked to another post as if that somehow provided a satisfactory explanation.

I am fully aware of charges that Mitt is a flip-flopper. My question was very specific and is still unanswered:

He hasn’t led a sufficiently conservative life for you? Doesn’t have enough experience? What do you think will happen if he’s elected? Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s protege’ on the bench?

Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 6:49 PM

When someone says “try to keep up” the implication is that a commentator is not following a thread. Well gosh, irony of ironies, it appears that it is YOU who is not “keeping up”, as evidenced by the fact you couldn’t answer a very simple and direct question, and then proceeded to pile on falsehoods and irrelevancies:

1. “The article was posted yesterday” (What article are you talking about? Do you call Allahpundit’s blog posts “articles”? If that’s it, you have a lot of nerve calling me the village idiot). Although, if the truth be told you have a lot of nerve under any circumstances, but I hesitate to bother you with cold, hard facts.

2. “You didn’t watch the video” (false)

3. A new charge which is impossible to justify – that if I were pressed to describe what Hucksters “other views are” I’d respond by saying “try to keep up” (and with that I’d presumably follow your example and link to another Huckabee thread and pretend that served as an explanation!)(Also false)!

Actually, Jamiekins, I’d say his other views are buying into global warming propaganda, giving the children of illegals rights to attend college on the taxpayer’s dime, and so forth. Seriously, why on earth would I not respond, since it is so freaking easy to answer?

4. I must not forget to mention your obnoxious psycho analytical BS that I am “pushed around at home”! (I will not dignify with a response).

All this because I asked a very simple question that you have yet to answer! Nope, by clicking on magic blue lines which show past statements made by Romney I am supposed to divine what you think will happen in the future if Mitt is elected!

Okay, I’ll play. How about this?: The Log Cabin Republicans won’t be happy? Yep, since you haven’t responded I think I’ll go with that one since neither that video or anything you say make any predictions about the future. Indeed, I can say with 100% certainty that my prediction will come true! Aren’t I amazing! Too bad you don’t have my mad skillz!

P.S. I NEVER shrink from a challenge. See this thread and my conversation with Spirit of 1776 for incontrovertible evidence.

My faith in democracy has never been lower. It’s starting to look like a candidate’s actual record and policy positions are far, far less important than his bankroll, pandering ability, joke telling skills, and hair.

Substance? Who cares as long as they have style?

Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Right on. They are all sorry in one way or another.

Buy Danish on November 28, 2007 at 12:20 AM

I can see you were a little muddled and dizzy last night, Toots.

Look at the nonsense in your post:

Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Try to keep up.
jaime on November 27, 2007 at 9:06 PM

With this? Note the time Jamiekins:

Oh no he didn’t: Mitt links Rudy, Hillary to “New York State of Mind”
posted at 7:06 pm on November 26, 2007 by Allahpundit

Not that that new thread has anything to do with the comment I made to you anyway.

But I’m happy that, of all the things I said, you chose to focus on this facet of Romney’s character: Romney only talks the talk and he’s never walked the walk. The term flip-flopper doesn’t do him justice. He’s thrashing around like a tarpon in need of a lip gaff. All media is replete with examples. I pointed out an obvious one out of courtesy.

Let’s use one of your own comments earlier in this thread as an example:

I think the Huckster will lose momentum once people find out his other views, but that could be wishful thinking.

Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Now, if someone asked you a series of addled questions like “what do you mean his other views? He hasn’t led a sufficiently conservative life for you? Doesn’t have enough experience? What do you think will happen if he’s elected? Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s protege’ on the bench?”, I’ll bet your answer would be something like “try to keep up”.

But I don’t think you really wanted an answer, did you? It’s probably just that you get verbally pushed around at home and you come on here to let off some of your frustration. That’s OK, Dear. If you didn’t have the fortitude to make it all the way down to the end of the linked article, I linked the clip directly on YouTube so you don’t have to bother your little head about it. Just click.

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts, in its ruling, “told” the legislature to come up with a law in 180 days.

The Legislature never passed a same-sex marriage bill. Never. So Romney NEVER vetoed anything; if you have a post-Goodridge link that shows otherwise, I’d love to see it. Romney never had a law to implement, but he imposed SSM anyway. This is not arguable. The SJC did not order Romney to do anything, so Romney had nothing to “defy.”

So what you’re saying is that Romney imposed same-sex marriage by not vetoing a non-existant bill. I assume he was going to use invisible ink as well.

Perhaps you’ve heard of judicial fiat. It’s the same reason we have legalized abortion on demand, sent to us from the Highest Court in the land in 1973. SSM was imposed on Massachusetts by judicial fiat, not Governor Romney. The fact is the only thing Romney could do to curb it was argue for legislation that made SSM licenses in Massachusetts avaiable only to Massachusetts residents, in order to avoid making the Bay State “the Gay State.”

But these minor details really aren’t important to you, you’ve got an anti-Romney crusade to go on. Damn constitutional principles, Romney is responsible for not overturning a renegade court and an entrenched legislature with his super-strength and heat vision.

The Legislature passes bills. Romney vetoed them and was overridden.
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts, in its ruling, “told” the legislature to come up with a law in 180 days.

The Legislature never passed a same-sex marriage bill. Never. So Romney NEVER vetoed anything; if you have a post-Goodridge link that shows otherwise, I’d love to see it. Romney never had a law to implement, but he imposed SSM anyway. This is not arguable. The SJC did not order Romney to do anything, so Romney had nothing to “defy.”

If not following the constitution you’ve sworn to uphold is comical, laugh away. A President Romney will have you in stitches, while we descend further into rule by personal whim instead of the rule of law.
Perfect parallel: The Ohio Supremes declared the state’s school funding mechanism unconstitutional about 5 years ago, and “ordered” the legislature to come up with something new that is more “fair.” The legislature didn’t. School funding in OH hasn’t changed. Ohio’s governors followed the Constitution by doing nothing. I guess an OH Gov. Romney would have just imposed something, and you’d be okey-dokey with that. Baloney — that’s not how it works.

Tom Blumer on November 27, 2007 at 10:51 PM

That blog advocates stabalizing rule of law by, get this, the executive branch should ignore or overrule the judiciary on its whim. Yes lets fault Mitt for not becoming dictator of MA in order to impose his values when the Legislature and Judiciary are aligned against him!

Your link and ideas are almost comical.

Notice the linked article was posted yesterday, Danee-poo. You didn’t even watch the clip of Romney at the end, either,
jaime on November 27, 2007 at 10:45 PM

Jamie Jackass,

Which “Linked article”? Allah provide numerous links. The one dated November 23rd which was most definitely not “yesterday”?

What video are you talking about? The Log Cabin Republican’s ad? I saw that. So what? Is that what you mean by “not walking the walk”?

Go back to the post from the link you provided, and you tell me what article that was posted yesterday that I’m supposed to know about. Okay, sugar?

Not that I am under any obligation to read every thread that appears here, but I digress!

In the case of SSM, he unilaterally, and without proper legislative authorization, instituted it in Massachusetts, effectively creating his own definition of marriage and imposing it on the Bay State.

Tom Blumer on November 27, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Wow, I didn’t know Romney was all 3 justices in the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Take a course in constitutional law.

The Legislature passes bills. Romney vetoed them and was overridden.

Once again, another anti-Romney troll who doesn’t even understand the US Legal system.

The answer in both cases is that Mitt acquiesced. With subsidized abortion, he expanded it further than it already was when he signed RomneyCare — AFTER that supposed “epiphany.”

In the case of SSM, he unilaterally, and without proper legislative authorization, instituted it in Massachusetts, effectively creating his own definition of marriage and imposing it on the Bay State.

Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 10:18 PM

Notice the linked article was posted yesterday, Danee-poo. You didn’t even watch the clip of Romney at the end, either, which bears directly on:

True, Romney only talks the talk and he’s never walked the walk

jaime on November 27, 2007 at 6:32 PM

which was what your original inane question referenced.

As long as you’re here, Danish, you’re depriving a village somewhere of an idiot

Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Try to keep up.

jaime on November 27, 2007 at 9:06 PM

With this? Note the time Jamiekins:

Oh no he didn’t: Mitt links Rudy, Hillary to “New York State of Mind”
posted at 7:06 pm on November 26, 2007 by Allahpundit

Not that that new thread has anything to do with the comment I made to you anyway.

You know, generally speaking when one says “try to keep up” it means that the commentator is not keeping up with the existing thread.

Jackazz.

Simply: I find Mormonism sufficiently disgraceful a system of belief that I question both the character and the intelligence of anyone who subscribes to it, to the extent that I will not vote for them for any position of public authority.

Fortunately, Mitt’s such a two-faced piece of crap that his faith isn’t even the deal-breaker for me.

Centerfire on November 27, 2007 at 9:28 PM

Bigotry. It’s not just for Democrats in the Klan anymore.

Simply: I find Mormonism sufficiently disgraceful a system of belief that I question both the character and the intelligence of anyone who subscribes to it, to the extent that I will not vote for them for any position of public authority.

Fortunately, Mitt’s such a two-faced piece of crap that his faith isn’t even the deal-breaker for me.

Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Try to keep up.

Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 7:21 PM

I didn’t ask you, did I? Why bother since I can predict your response before your write it!:

Pull string on the I don’t ♥ Mitt Talking Points Doll and out comes a prerecorded message.