Huckabee: Romney should have ignored the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage

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?”