Huckabee: Romney should have ignored the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage
posted at 7:36 pm on August 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It comes at 30:45, right after he finishes wondering what the difference is between men marrying men and people marrying animals. (Er, consent?) This plays well with the base and no doubt he’ll enjoy the extra venom it earns him from Team Mitt, but I think he’s dead wrong. Where’s the line? If the governor gets to pick and choose which rulings to enforce, we’re forever on the brink of a constitutional crisis. In fact, if Eisenhower had followed this advice, schools wouldn’t have been desegregated after Brown. What he’s suggesting, actually, in the name of empowering the people is making the judiciary nothing more than an arm of the executive. If that’s the government you want, okay, but in that case you might as well go the whole nine yards and abolish judicial review by constitutional amendment. Short of that, you’re not without options. The governor can campaign for an amendment to overturn an unpopular decision or, in states where judges are elected, to get them tossed out and replaced with ones who’ll vote the way the majority wants. Exit question: The Huck approach or the Romney approach? Click the image to watch.
Update: Good question: “Note that Huckabee’s excuse for soliciting additional taxes — any additional tax schemes; they were all ‘all right by me,’ as he said — was that he was compelled by a state court decision to do so. (Actually, he wasn’t quite, but let’s pretend he was.) How come you didn’t just defy the courts yourself, Huck?”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
SaintOlaf on August 26, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Super post, SaintOlaf. I didn’t think you had it in you. ;-)
Well done, man. I may not agree with all your conclusions, but that doesn’t detract from a well-argued statement.
Marking Time on August 26, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Ah the Huckabots.
Gentlemen, all I’ll say is this. Past behavior is a good indicator of future performance, yes?
If so, can we expect Huck to let loose with about 3 times as many pardons, against the advice of law enforcement, as the previous President? How is that a good thing, or even smart?
Why are we calling someone who eschews conservative principles in favor of conflating the role of the individual Christian and the government a conservative?
Ps. What flavor was it today?
TheUnrepentantGeek on August 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Someone needs to teach Mr. Huckabee that God is love, not hate.
philnewkirk on August 26, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Dear Huck,
Please take you vitrol and hatred to another party. If we ignore the supreme court our current president would be Al Gore. I would teach you about the three branches of government, but the fact is you already know you are a liar. You disgust me.
hanzblinx on August 26, 2008 at 2:42 PM
So apacalyps – are you telling me that even though I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior that I am not a Christian because I do not support your WORLDLY choice for VP? Think carefully on that…
And as far as building the fence goes…it stands more of a chance of being built under a President McCain than it stood under a President Huckabee! Governor Huckabee has gone on the record A NUMBER of times prior to the immigration debate saying that we needed a “compassionate” immigration plan that allowed the illegals already here an avenue to stay. He came to the fence dance a day late and 10 dollars short.
Do your research before you blindly follow a candidate.
LL
Lady Logician on August 26, 2008 at 2:49 PM
wrong. the election would have ended up in congress, where the power has always been, and they would have elected Bush.
show me in the constitution where the courts have the power of judicial review…..you can’t.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 3:07 PM
another one of the ‘moral equivalent’ crowd…you know the type that always compared the USA to the USSR…get a clue.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Yes, we can: Marbury v. Madison.
Once the Supreme Court speaks, it becomes part of Constitutional Law, and every bit as binding as the Constitution itself. Even when the decision is ridiculous. That’s why it takes a constitutional amendment, or another SCOTUS decision, to overturn it.
The constitution provides for a supreme court, and outlines its function. In the 200+ years since, the Court’s decisions, and the country’s respect of them, has codified the concept of judicial review.
It’s why it took Brown v. Board of Education to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. And why it took a handful of constitutional amendments (and a civil war) to overcome Dred Scott and other Taney Court decisions.
sulla on August 26, 2008 at 3:18 PM
thats not the constitution…sigh…thats a court ruling…a POWER GRAB by the court. Jefferson disagreed quite a bit.
“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
thats the supreme court line, but its not true. The supreme court is not the final arbitor of the constitution…and in doing so they become our dictators.
really all we need is a president and congress with the guts to stand up to our black-robed tyrants.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Would it be totally out of line to note that Huck is back at getting fat?
freevillage on August 26, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Yes that would be totally out of line. It is completely irrelevant.
JC Silverberg on August 26, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Nope, these are fairly well known numbers…
Republican Primary 2008 Results
Please Olaf, check your own facts before you post a condemnation that is false.
Hawthorne on August 26, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Your statement is actually incorrect right4life. The quote by Jefferson is a private conversation with the wife of John Adams. As such it is not law. It may give insight into the thoughts of Mr. Jefferson, but that is much different from being the law.
Functionally, the statement by sulla is correct. When the Supreme Court makes a ruling it sets the standard by which all courts are instructed to interpret the law. While it does not make a new law in itself, it becomes the functional version of how the existing law is used.
The problem begins to take place when a court becomes “activist” to the point where they have no basis in existing law for the ruling they make. But since SCOTUS cases are normally continuations of existing litigation, they are already formed in a basis of existing law or the lower courts would have already dismissed them.
Hawthorne on August 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM
The Huckster needs to SHUT UP and preach, or just SHUT UP…
reshas1 on August 26, 2008 at 4:00 PM
The time to make that argument stick was during John Marshall’s tenure.
Didn’t happen.
We’re stuck with it.
Some people have tried to call the government’s bluff with the income tax amendment.
They’re called inmates.
sulla on August 26, 2008 at 4:03 PM
judicial review is NOT in the constitution the supreme GRABBED that power all for themselves…how hard is this?
yes it does become a new law….ie the Kelo case. they ignored the instructions by congress in the hamdan law that the courts didn’t have review of this law…which is perfectly constitutional…jefferson was right, now we have a despotic judiciary.
we passed that long ago. they had no basis for marbury v. madison. its all about power.
we live in a judicial oligarchy, not a republic or democracy.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 4:05 PM
then we might as well just acknowledge it, and get rid of voting, congress, and the presidency.
yeah all that matters is power…wonderful country we live in, right?
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 4:06 PM
right4life,
The power of judicial review is granted under Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution.
Hawthorne on August 26, 2008 at 4:07 PM
meat for the famished! Hoorah for Hawthorne.
trailboss on August 26, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I’m not a lawyer, and I know it doesn’t mean that….
the court ignores that as they did in hamdan….even the lawyers admit this:
link
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 4:16 PM
From the Constitution, Article II, Section 2:
sulla on August 26, 2008 at 4:18 PM
and there is no ‘judical review’ in there…why do you think the supreme court had to grab that power in marbury v. madison? hmmm??
if it was in the constitution then there would have been no need for marbury v. madison…..sigh….
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 4:19 PM
nowhere in that quote that you think allows for judicial review, does the constitution give the supreme court the power to interpret the constitution, and decide what is, or is not, constitutional.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 4:21 PM
“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.” –Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Yeah, THAT could never happen.
Fact is that every branch of the federal government has, at one time or another, exceeded its enumerated powers. There are pushes by one, pushback by another. For a time one branch may have a lopsided degree of influence.
The Constitution provides ways to deal with that: vote the bums out or impeach them.
Note that the enumerated right of impeachment and removal has NEVER been successfully applied to a President, and very rarely to a federal judge/justice. One judge impeached is now a well-entrenched member of Congress (Alcee Hastings).
It may not be RIGHT, but it is OUR HISTORY. It happened, nobody stopped it when they could have nipped it in the bud, so here we are with two hundred and four years of Judicial Review and a near-worship of stare decisis.
You can try to change it, but you cannot ignore it as though it doesn’t exist. (Well, you can, but you won’t get very far.)
sulla on August 26, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Did Jefferson fight Marbury v Madison?
Did he win?
Give it up; nobody’s going to call 204 years of precedent a “mulligan” and start from scratch.
sulla on August 26, 2008 at 4:27 PM
you can’t vote the members of the court out.
it exists, as does abortion, thanks to those black-robed jack-booted thugs, but its not right.
there are no pushbacks against the court since the days of Jackson. thats the trouble. bush should have told kennedy to enforce his own decision.
but that would take a real conservative, who is concerened with the constitution.
so now are you admitting that judicial review is not constitutional?
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 4:30 PM
then why fight roe v wade? or Kelo? might as well just give up…you know you’re going to die sooner or later…might as well just give up, and get it over with now….
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Whether you have legal point, or not, trying to undo 200 years of Supreme Court rulings and legal precedent that is so deeply ingrained, and nearly universally accepted, and now stands as a pillar in legal theory, is pointLESS.
The facts are that each branch has evolved a set of theories and precedents that establish its current authority. Getting any branch to give up ‘historical rights’… who’s going to do that? Would you have the Executive muzzle the Judicial, or the Legislative? What then does the President become? Stalin or Hitler?
The checks and balances system actually still works quite well, and in IMNSHO, judicial review is crucial to that system. Otherwise, what power does the SCOTUS have?
Arguing it here won’t change anything.
trailboss on August 26, 2008 at 4:34 PM
So how do you know? Let’s start by examining what judicial review actually is. When you have a court case that is brought to trial and eventually appealed to the Supreme Court that is NOT judicial review. That is appellate jurisdiction.
Occasionally you have actions by the government agencies that are nevertheless problematic. They do not involve current litigation but they have real impact on the lives of people. For example let’s take the case of the President of the United States refusing to disclose documents under executive privilege. As such this is the action of one of the Ministers of the U.S. government and can be reviewed without appellate jurisdiction directly by the Supreme Court upon request.
So explain to me why I am wrong. Why is the Supreme Court not able to rule on the ability of the President to protect said documents under executive privilege?
Keep in mind that if you remove this power of judicial review, you have granted every agency and bureaucrat in America a free hand to operate without a check on them. Please investigate the ability of a citizen to bring suit against the U.S. government to see what I mean.
Hawthorne on August 26, 2008 at 4:34 PM
the court has already done that, thanks. so I guess the bottom line is that the court is out master.
and you so-called ‘conservatives’ are just fine with that.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Because those are CONTEMPORARY dumb decisions that, being outrageous from the beginning, have never stopped being challenged.
Although not overturned, Roe v. Wade has been chipped away at judicially and tempered legislatively. The effort to overturn it has not subsided, and likely will not. It’s an active issue, far from settled. Kelo is still an active burr in many saddles.
The question of “judicial restraint” vs. “judicial activism” is also an active, hot topic of discussion. It’s fought every time a nominee sits before the Senate. George W. Bush made two very successful pleas to the American people to give him Senators who would work with him (just ask Mr. Tom Daschle)
But you want to argue Marbury v. Madison? Grab a broomstick; the windmill is over there. The rest of us will fight the battles that we have a chance of winning.
sulla on August 26, 2008 at 4:39 PM
I can read english.
which according to the constitution, is under the authority of congress…but the court ignores that too.
you ignore Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make sorry, they can’t review it. and the president would be right to ignore it.
has congress passed a law allowing them to do it? has congress passed any law regarding executive privilege?
lets see, we can vote out congress and the president, and not the court, but you think without our black-robed betters everyone would have a free hand? the truth is you think the supreme court are our rulers, they know best.
very sad.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 4:39 PM
your so-called ‘victories’ are short-lived then. you hope to appoint more judges who will rule against what judges already ruled on. and the problem remains, and the power remains with the supreme court….so we are still subject to their whims.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 4:42 PM
We can – and HAVE – impeached judges and removed them from the bench.
sulla on August 26, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Evacua cratera latinalem bis, Mexico procul est
trailboss on August 26, 2008 at 4:43 PM
What, exactly, is it that you are proposing? What is your solution to the usurpation of power by John Marshall?
sulla on August 26, 2008 at 4:44 PM
for malfeasance, not for a ruling.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 4:44 PM
plain and simple. end judicial review. let the congress and the president decide what the constitution and laws means, not the courts. at least we can vote them out of office, unlike the courts.
at the very least have the congress overrule any ruling with a simple majority vote.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 4:46 PM
right4life,
This statement does not exclude the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of law. It simply says they are not the only ones that can. Jefferson is saying that the court DOES have the ability to rule on constitutionality but then again there is some ability to determine that in both of the other two branches as well.
This takes place often in the normal operation of both the executive and legislative bodies. Often parts of a draft law are stricken because the legislators do not feel they will survive court review. The advisers to the President will tell him that he cannot perform certain actions because they are unconstitutional. This is normal operation of our government and THAT is what Jefferson is referring to.
Hawthorne on August 26, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Your solutions are both exceedingly simplistic and legally regressionistic. dare pondus idonea fumo
Take a small dose of current reality with your hotheaded idealism; you’ll live longer and I’ll be happier.
trailboss on August 26, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Not my problem if you can’t see that many in your crowd are just as bad as the nutjobs on the Left. Keep living in denial and spinning away, Pot.
JohnAGJ on August 26, 2008 at 4:54 PM
riiiiight.
Good luck with that.
sulla on August 26, 2008 at 4:57 PM
right4life,
Judicial review is a NECESSARY check against the powers of the executive and legislative branches. It is well established in law and has been accepted by the executive and legislative branches as correct interpretation of their function for centuries. As such it is real.
If you were to remove judicial review then you are tossing out the baby with the bathwater. In your effort to avoid the “tyranny of the judiciary” you have given tyrannical power to the other branches by destroying the checks on them. So in an effort to get rid of the pimple on your nose you have managed to cut your nose off.
The real answer to fixing judicial tyranny is to make the judges responsible for their rulings under well defined guidelines. If a judge violates those guidelines they can be impeached. In other words, enforce constructionist rulings from the judiciary or else. we do not need a second legislature, but we certainly DO need judicial review.
Hawthorne on August 26, 2008 at 5:00 PM
I never made it to law school, Hawthorne, so I’m glad you’re here. Thanks.
sulla on August 26, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Careful right2life,
Jefferson was busy in France being our envoy while the Constitutional Convention was held.
Madison — of Marbury vs. Madison fame — has come down through history as the “Father of the Constitution”. He pushed for the convention. He authored the Virginia plan which is the basis of the Constitution. He took a very active role in all the debates. He attended every session from gavel to gavel. He took meticulous notes during the whole procedings and transcribed them in detail every single night. Madison, along with Hamilton and Jay, wrote the Federalist Papers, perhaps the greatest treatist ever written of government in general and our Constitution in particular.
He accepted MvM.
Are you claiming superior knowledge and understanding of such matters than he?
Marking Time on August 26, 2008 at 5:48 PM
I do attract a crowd, don’t I? (smiles)
Spoken like the good Mormon you are. Hey! Speaking of religious nothingness … (oh, just a minute, phone’s ringing).
apacalyps on August 26, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Who was that calling…Jesus?
trailboss on August 26, 2008 at 5:59 PM
This video up top of the page here where Terry Jeffrey’s interviewed Mike Huckabee. They talked about the right to life and the nature of marriage. Both, critical for a healthy society, culture, and civilization. Just answer yes or no. Did Huckabee’s answers offend you? We’re only talking about this interview. That’s it. Forget about everything else. Do you disagree with his comments?
apacalyps on August 26, 2008 at 6:08 PM
You know, alpacalips, seems everyone else is gone for the day, but I’ll bite. Doesn’t matter what he says here, removed of the context of his past commentary. Context is everything, words taken out of context mean nothing. Just like your understanding of Mormonism. Means nothing.
trailboss on August 26, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Ok so we just go by recent answers and ignore any past statements by elected officials? Ok, what’s your beef with Mitt now?
thecountofincognito on August 26, 2008 at 6:25 PM
The hair.
Sweet jumpin’ Sejanus, the haaaaair…
sulla on August 26, 2008 at 6:33 PM
I hope so, brother. Christians should create their own party and run own candidate.
Right. Millions of Christians won’t vote for McCain/Romney. Y’know, all this resistance against Huckabee for President and VP, it’s coming primarily from the media and the elit8Hvf the Republican party, not from everyday conservatives. Having witnessed what happened. I truly believe the MSM and the GOP Establishment kept those who believe in God from being president. ie, Mike Huckabee.
I happen to think McCain is a much much better choice than Obama, but I’m not sure I could vote for either, certainly not Obama. He’s not even an option!
I really don’t think it matters at this point. Both candidates are such poor choices it appears America will suffer either way. A nation that forgets God is a nation that goes under. I think we should to pray for both men. Pray God will open their eyes (Acts 26:18) and give them wisdom. Only a miracle can turn things around at this point.
apacalyps on August 26, 2008 at 6:34 PM
And here I thought there weren’t really any Christians seriously advocating for a theocracy. It’s pretty clear to me how Huck would govern. It’s equally clear to me now that you and your compatriots are just fine with that. Very well, but one wonders why you continue to pretend to be conservatives who support liberty and freedom in government.
CS Lewis had a lot to say about people like you apacalyps, and your buddy Mike Huckabee. Since he says it best, I’ll leave it to a quote:
TheUnrepentantGeek on August 26, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Well, in the sense of being a candidate for change, yes, Mike was the candidate for all Americans. My goodness, this man is far more talented than Obama. And this “short on experience” myth you speak of. Huckabee was the most experienced out of all the candidates, Republican or Democrat, with regard to actually running a government. He is a true conservative and the only one that makes any sense when they speak. You guys blew it. It was right there in the palm of your hands, but you let it slip away.
apacalyps on August 26, 2008 at 6:48 PM
I like you already.
apacalyps on August 26, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Christians should create their own party and run own candidate.
You and all your fellow True Believers or Real Christians (TM) should feel free to do so.
Now.
Please.
…um, why are you still here?
JohnAGJ on August 26, 2008 at 6:55 PM
So I guess being elected twice as Lt. Governor before having to assume to the Governor position and then being re-elected twice to that office doesn’t count as experience? Even after Time named Huckabee one of the five best Governors during 2005? Wonder why Romney failed to make that list?
jparks1972 on August 26, 2008 at 8:32 AM
Maybe because Time Magazine is a liberal rag that nominates people like Putin as Man of the Year?
thecountofincognito on August 26, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Precisely.
apacalyps on August 26, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Nice to see you changed your usernname. It did not go unnoticed. Great first step Anna!!
apacalyps on August 26, 2008 at 7:12 PM
You obviously have some issues that need dealing with. Break on through to the other side Vance. Our door is always open for you when you’re ready.
apacalyps on August 26, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Vance, just be sure when you pass through their open door, you will for years be assailed by your welcoming hosts as a slimy flip-flopper for coming to their side.
thecountofincognito on August 26, 2008 at 7:20 PM
I’m fine with my issues, apacalyps. For one, I don’t go around reveling in damning 90% of the human race to hell, unlike some people here.
But I stand by my claim: The majority of Huck people argue mostly how evil Romney is, not why Huck would be good.
Considering Huckabee was rather soundly rejected and exposed as a major hypocrite, that’s probably your best bet, I agree.
Vanceone on August 26, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Ahh, more of the huge misinformation on how Christians respond to Romney. Once again the actual history does not back your statement. Romney was very strong with Christian conservatives in nearly every state he ran in. At the time Romney withdrew from the race he was so far ahead of Huckabee in both delegates and popular vote that there was no comparison. It took nearly a month of Huckabee spending other people’s money to catch Romney in delegates and he never did catch Romney in popular vote at all. Do some research and read the facts please.
Hawthorne on August 26, 2008 at 7:27 PM
please, you have no checks at all on the authority of the supreme court. they are the final arbitors.
“In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that ‘the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.’ If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
this is what we have, a judicial tyranny, where they decide what our laws and constitutiton means. but I know democracy and freedom are so ‘messy’ and dictatorships are so much more ‘clean’
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 7:28 PM
your solutions are just the same old bend over for our wise and benevolent masters on the court.
let me guess, you’re a lawyer!! besides being an idiot.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 7:29 PM
I’m saying exactly what I’ve said. we live in a judicial oligarchy, not a democracy, or a republic. madison was wrong. deal with it. but I think people like you are just fine with having unelected, unaccountable people making rules for the rest of us. and its easy to see why this country is losing its freedoms at an ever increasing rate.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 7:32 PM
I can see you’re a lying nutjob. but I knew that from your previous posts.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Lewis was talking about socialists.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 7:36 PM
That was wonderful! I would Kiss you …of you weren’t Porky’s girlfriend…
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on August 26, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Sorry, I don’t have to think very carefuly on that because I’ve NEVER SAID THAT. Hmm. Can you say “let’s build a straw man?” So much fun … building straw men … la la la … oh, look! There’s some straw!!
That’s really hard to imagine considering the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill that would have legalized 20 million illegal aliens
That’s been blown way out of proportion. He was a Governor dealing with a Federal immigration policy. Once he began running for President, he heard the people and recognized the problem:
“You have to secure the border and until that’s done, nothing makes sense. That ought to be done. It ought to be done with American workers, with American products, and it ought to be done immediately. 18 months ought to be the outside length of time. It’s an issue of national security, more than it is anything else.” — Mike Huckabee
Pah-leeeeeze.
apacalyps on August 26, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Ahhhh it all makes sense! Apacalyps is Jar Jar Binks!
thats why his posts are so uninteligable.
-Wasteland Man
WastelandMan on August 26, 2008 at 7:40 PM
I agree with much of what Mike Huckabee says in relation to abortion and marriage. My problem with Huckabee is his approach. I guess that I will have to lay this out in detail.
First, Mike Huckabee is a Christian and has been trained as a minister. Yet he misses so many of the important Christian teachings. He has been mean spirited and deceitful in his efforts. It is almost like he has never heard of the Golden Rule. He has ran a campaign full of efforts meant to undermine others rather than build his own candidacy. A more Christian approach is to show how you are better, but not slander others.
Frankly the man scares me. I have the distinct impression from him that he will, and already has, compromised his faith in an effort to win power. Frankly, Mitt Romney has behaved in a more Christian manner than Mike Huckabee has and that is a large reason why I support him over Huckabee. I am a man that looks at actions not words.
Hawthorne on August 26, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Seems to me McCain won Florida…
and if my geography aint too bad thats as far south as you can go…
-Wasteland Man.
P.S. yes I’m behind but 7 pages of comments YEESH!
WastelandMan on August 26, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Right. And thank you for being so honest. At least you’re honest. Mike Huckabee is against the killing of little babies and homosexual sodomites ruining the institution of marriage, and you can’t even bring yourself to saying he’s right about these issues or that you agree with him because of your blinding hate for the man.
How foolish (or dishonest) are you willing to prove yourself to be?
apacalyps on August 26, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Exactly. That’s why it works so well here.
TheUnrepentantGeek on August 26, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Huck A Buck just go away. Yor are a lier a fraud and a frist class idot.
thmcbb on August 26, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Besides being an idiot? – I being an idiot was a prerequisite to becoming a lawyer.
But thanks for the vote of confidence!
trailboss on August 26, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Huck A Buck just go away. Yor are a lier a fraud and a frist class idot.
thmcbb on August 26, 2008 at 7:48 PM
I hope that was not a typo…too funny.
trailboss on August 26, 2008 at 7:51 PM
I’d have to put huckabee, mccain, romney in that category…espcially cap and trade mccain.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 7:52 PM
How willing do you need me to be in order to pursue your Mormon-bashing fetish? I’m game.
trailboss on August 26, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Cripes this is just getting silly.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on August 26, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Typical Huckabee hater.
SaintOlaf on August 26, 2008 at 7:57 PM
You can’t “ruin the institution of marriage” – it’s an abstract concept that God created for the church. The institution of marriage where it belongs (in the church) and the legal status (created by the US government) aren’t the same thing.
One comes down to faith and covenants and the other is something for bureaucrats, tax preparers, and paper pushers to worry over.
Yet again, Huck and his supporters fail to draw any lines of separation between the role of the church, the role of the individual, and the role of the government. You guys are no better than the Jews that thought of Christ as a military leader that would overthrow the Roman Empire. It’s exactly the same impulse with a few socialist twinges and a social con party hat.
TheUnrepentantGeek on August 26, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Careful your ignorance is showing. Every time you call Christian conservatives, socialists, it shows you pay zero attention.
SaintOlaf on August 26, 2008 at 8:03 PM
+1
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on August 26, 2008 at 8:04 PM
unfortunately the two are intimately related. look at what has happened to marriage in the netherlands where they have gay ‘marriage’
However, there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in the Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favor of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.
link
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 8:04 PM
First off, you said that not me. Secondly, the Bible is the basis for American Law and it’s Constitution. The founding fathers established a constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, to enforce those laws. The way you talk, there’s a very good chance you might have needed medical assistance during the formation years of this country you live in.
What an ungrateful sod. Christians built freedom in America.
Your hate for God has clouded your judgment. I’m afraid you do not understand what you are saying, and that’s a pity.
apacalyps on August 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM
(EyeRoll) Sieg heil dude….
-Wasteland Man.
P.S. No hes not hitler he just talks like him…
Scary.
WastelandMan on August 26, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Thank you, gay John. See, we agree on stuff.
apacalyps on August 26, 2008 at 8:08 PM
+1000
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on August 26, 2008 at 8:12 PM
I didn’t like that either. Very poor judgment. Putin is a sworn ENEMY of the United States!! See the Gog-Magog war in Ezekiel chapter 38 and 39 and watch this.
apacalyps on August 26, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Gosh I hate to do this, but I have to agree with right4. Marriage makes no sense and has no real purpose outside of heterosexual reproduction. It is the best situation for children to be raised and nutured in, and has been in nearly all forms of civilization for millenia. That is its real and main purpose.
Extending “marriage” to alternative forms dilutes both the meaning and social cohesion that marriage arose to protect.
trailboss on August 26, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Dude… Way back in the begining of the thread (Yes Im still trying to catch up) they did debate it… they debated the fact: is Huckabee a schmuck for dragging Romney into an interview where it was uneeded, or is he an Ass for doing so? that has been the debate. For the most part most commenter’s have come across as 49/49 Huck is a Schmuck / Huckabee is an ass, with the other 2 percent being his ass kissing psychophants.
-Wasteland Man.
P.S. Yes, I have read every post and it is excruciatingly long.
WastelandMan on August 26, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Once AGAIN, you point to a quote by Jefferson that is not what you say it is. First you need to understand the term EXCLUSIVITY. Once again Jefferson is not saying the4 court does not have this right. He is arguing that all three branches have it in different forms. Once again they all check each other in differing ways.
You really need understand one salient point that is the pivotal flaw in your argument. I will restate it again since you ignored it the first time.
Judicial review is an essential tool in controlling the tyranny of the legislative and executive branches. You try to argue that election alone can accomplish that but that is just not true. Elections happen too infrequently to be effective in that role. By removing judicial review from the tools of the courts you have essentially given the other branches a free hand to become oppressive until then next election cycle, when the candidates will be rigged again and the same non-choice will be presented to us for the election.
You have mistaken judicial review as the reason for the problem when judicial activism is the real issue. Legislation from the bench is the fundamental enabling factor for judicial tyranny to take place. You are also correct that the lack of responsibility of the judges for their rulings and actions are also a major problem. But your resolution is misplaced.
Rather than removing an essential tool that is very often used to keep our government in check, you need to make the judiciary responsible for their actions. If you study political science the fundamental function of the courts to preform judicial review is what keeps the legislature for passing laws that can rescind our rights. Without it in place the legislature could outlaw the executive and judicial branches entirely and outlaw elections. It is all possible in your solution.
What is needed is simply to make guidelines for judicial conduct that mandates a constructionist approach on the judges. Quite literally the courts need to have their ability to issue mandamus to the executive and legislature curbed. Instead their role must be strictly to allow or strike down a law based on proper Constitutional construction. Justices that refuse to follow this set of guidelines are remove4d.
A system like this would answer virtually all of your concerns with legislation from the bench while also keeping our system of checks in place.
Hawthorne on August 26, 2008 at 8:19 PM
+1001
Cold Steel on August 26, 2008 at 8:21 PM
That I agree with.
IF you start extending marriage to gays and human/animal marriages and marriage between grown men and 14 year olds multiple partner marriages..(sorry I didn’t mean to excite you mormons/muslims)….when will it end?
SaintOlaf on August 26, 2008 at 8:27 PM
please, no on checks the courts. the law in question in hamdan, said that it was not reviewable by the courts, which they promptly ignored.
and what checks the tyranny of the judicial branch? nothing.
and we have to wait until some judge dies to get relief from judicial tyranny.
no one is doing that, other than impeachment, which is not used, how?
then those branches could do what Jackson did to the supremee court, ignore it. Jefferson envisioned 3 competing branches, none with ultimate power over the other to check the other branches…but now we have one superior branch of government, the judiciary, and the others are subserviant to it.
that would be ruled ‘unconstitutional’ and quickly thrown out.
wish it would happen, but congress and the president have shown no interest in reigning in the court.
I know my solutions would not be done at the moment, but I think its important to recognize the state we are in, before we can do anything about it.
right4life on August 26, 2008 at 8:28 PM
I did say it, and you have, I note, failed utterly to refute it. I’m aware that the US is a constitutional Republic, not a true Democracy. Your point? I’m not sure what that “medical assistance” nonsense is supposed to mean.
A sod eh? Is petty name-calling a Christlike practice?
But beyond that, what of the fact that Christians built the country that we love? The policies you and your man Mike advocate would destroy what the founders sought to build.
Your blind devotion to Mike Huckabee has utterly destroyed your ability to comprehend or acknowledge the differences between the duties of an individual believer, the duties of government, and the duties of the Church.
The founding fathers forgot more than you’ll ever know about ensuring that the faithful would have a country that wouldn’t try to destroy faith that helped create it. They understood those differences. They understood what it would mean to intermingle faith and government – that the faithful suffer when that happens. Sooner or later.
What’s more, my post-rational friend, I’m about the farthest thing from hating God you can imagine. I affirm salvation by faith alone, in Christ alone. I have long since accepted that gift and am grateful for it. Why you’d jump from my assessment of your politics to me hating God is beyond me.
I simply want to ensure that this country is as strong as it can be while providing a home for Christians to practice their faith without fear of reprisal. Intermingling the government and the church the way you and Huckabee propose WILL harm the church given time. That you don’t see that tells me you’re not seeing all the angles yet. Or you could just be loopy. Lord knows what they’re putting in that kool-aid these days.
TheUnrepentantGeek on August 26, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 Next »