It is Mike Huckabee’s deeply-held religious belief that Al Gore should have been president

Mike Huckabee is running for president again, taking his message of God, Guns Grits and Gravy to the voters in hopes that they’re ready to party like it’s 1958. And he’s got a message for anyone who isn’t: You’re not God, so your opinions don’t matter.

That includes you, “Supreme” Court.

In his announcement speech, Huckabee called out those who have “surrendered to the false god of judicial supremacy,” implying that the court’s likely affirmation of marriage equality later this summer can simply be nullified by those who disagree with it. This drew the interest of Chris Wallace, who yesterday asked Huckabee if he was really ready to throw out centuries of precedent and ignore Supreme Court rulings he doesn’t like.

Here’s the video, via RawStory:

Per Huckabee, judicial review is all fine and good, BUT WAIT: “The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Branch, and for God’s sake it isn’t the Supreme Being.” So the Supreme Court can say whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean that what they say, you know, matters.

Mike Huckabee, via Wikimedia Commons

Mike Huckabee, via Wikimedia Commons

It’s a matter of balance of power. If the Supreme Court could just make a ruling, and everybody has to bow down and fall on their faces and worship that law — that isn’t a law because it hasn’t been yet passed — then what if the Supreme Court ruled that they were going to make the decision as to who was going to be the next President, and save the taxpayers and the voters from all the expense and trouble of voting, and they’ll just pick a president. Well we would say they can’t do that. Why can’t they do it? They can’t do it because it’s not in the law.

First off, that totally happenedQuite recently, as a matter of fact. If Mike Huckabee really wants to tell Republican primary voters that Al Gore should have been president, he’s more than welcome to do so, but I don’t think they’ll be too keen.

But beyond that, to his actual point, the Supreme Court isn’t “making” laws when they decide cases like Brown v. Board of Education or Bush v. Gore or Obergefell v. Hodges. They’re evaluating lawsuits that make appeals on existing laws within the context of our Constitution and relevant precedent. If (and probably when) the Court rules this summer that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, they won’t be passing any new laws; they’ll be invalidating laws that have been passed elsewhere.

Just because you (incorrectly) think that God doesn’t like it doesn’t mean you get to ignore it.


Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

24 Responses to “It is Mike Huckabee’s deeply-held religious belief that Al Gore should have been president”

  1. Max Mills says:

    Did he miss the “checks and balances” stuff in elementary school social studies?

    The SC’s rulings are not evidence of them being the Supreme Branch. The check the Executive has on them is that it appoints them. The check the Legislative has on them is that it can create amendments and so on if they want the constitution to be different in response to the SC interpretation of it.

    How is this guy running for President

  2. Skye Winspur says:

    I think Huckabee has a point about “the false god of judicial supremacy,” but his anti-gay rants are just incoherent and do not exploit it at all.

    The Supreme Court has never been at the vanguard of moral progress in American history. It is not in the business of societal transformation. Even in the 1950s and 60s its pro-civil rights decisions came after much popular protest against segregation and institutional racism. (Read some of Ida B. Wells’ writings to see how long this was in the making.) Waiting for the Court to overturn injustice rather than organizing local and national movements of resistance is a hopeless strategy, and one that liberals have indulged in sometimes. (A heavy emphasis on choosing the “right president” who will inevitably appoint the “good justice” who will make everything right: this is one aspect of it.)

  3. White&Blue says:

    “So the Supreme Court can say whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean that what they say, you know, matters.” Unless the Supreme Court is ruling in favor of conservatives, in which case the Supreme Court immediately becomes infallibly right and should be obeyed without second thought.

  4. DianaTKing says:

    ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ $73.. per-hr @mi15//

    ,,

    ➨➨➨https://AWorldStarHipHopSallu.com/hill/top

  5. gary47290 says:

    I wonder what Messr.s Huckabee, Cruz or Jindal would say if the courts simply threw out all marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples (that is, outlaw marriage, much as they outlawed the death penalty in 1972, until new / valid laws were passed), and then left it to the legislature to remedy the problem?

  6. FLL says:

    Even in the Republican primaries, Huckabee will do very poorly. He’s speaking to a bygone era. “God, guns, grits and gravy?” Give me a break. Young and middle-aged voters in the Deep South will reject his message. The South is changing, and it’s not in Huckabee’s favor.

  7. David Shedlock says:

    The author of the article you sent me to did not reach any conclusions as to why the greater number of blacks had rejected ballots. It is irrelevant to the question at hand. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court not pick our president.

  8. BeccaM says:

    Huckabee is speaking to his own audience: People whose memories don’t even go back to the presidency before the current one, and who have been carefully trained by Fux News and wingnut media to become experts at double-think.

  9. emjayay says:

    He also went on about the Supreme Court making laws. The closest they came was maybe Brown v the Board of Education, and I’m sure ole Grits and Gravy and Guns wouldn’t have liked that one.

  10. emjayay says:

    Not to mention the butterfly ballot, where many old democratic Jews from NYC voted for Pat Buchanan.

  11. goulo says:

    That’s pretty bizarrely clueless that he would use a “hypothetical” example of the Supreme Court deciding who would be president as an example something the Supreme Court can’t and shouldn’t do…

  12. nicho says:

    Wrong. That bullshit has been debunked many times — but thanks for playing. Gore won. Cheney/Rove stole it.

  13. UncleBucky says:

    If it were my assignment, I would do it. But we have those who can do this without a blink of the eye…

    http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/

    Why not spreadinghuckabee?

  14. UncleBucky says:

    Clearly Huckleberry is NOT doing first hand research on the US Constitution. He is merely relying on the scripts given to him by people who never did that research themselves, OR who who ignore the US Constitution.

  15. mirth says:

    Huckster is too stupid to realize how stupid he is. I almost feel sorry for him. At the same time I wholeheartedly thank him for his contributions this prez go ’round. Anything he has to say drives one more nail into that fetid teabagger coffin and, unknowingly, because he’s too stupid to get it, he hands us the shovel and smiles goofily while we dig.

    Go Mike!

  16. 2karmanot says:

    Huksterby is being persecuted, blood of the lamb etc……..a good Christian martyr I tell ya’ll.

    SEND MONEY!

  17. Butch1 says:

    He knows full well that election was rigged in Bush’s favor.

  18. The_Fixer says:

    Well, let’s see. I don’t believe in a god, don’t care for guns, hate grits (yuck!), and gravy is best eaten infrequently, if at all. So, Huckleberry Hound has no appeal for me. I don’t want the country to fall further back into the abyss of church-influenced state, so he’s certainly out for me. His pitch is not acceptable in my world.

    Of course, Jon, you’re completely correct in your analysis – one can’t ignore Supreme Court decisions that you don’t agree with. And yes, they are not “legislating from the bench”, as our wing-nut opponents characterize it.

    Based on his demonstrating his lack of governmental knowledge, Huckleberry Hound is no more qualified to be president than the guy down the street who shakes his fists at the sky while ranting about black helicopters and chem-trails.

  19. therling says:

    “Recounting ALL the votes.” Yeah, right.

    “Black precincts had more than three times as many rejected ballots as
    white precincts in last fall’s presidential race in Florida, a disparity that persists even after accounting for the effects of income, education and bad ballot design…”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12NUMB.html

  20. therling says:

    I propose that we do for “Huckabee,” as was done for “Santorum,” in that
    when one Googles his name you get a definition of the term that
    describes the cover-up and apologia for child sexual abuse.

  21. David Shedlock says:

    Bush would have beaten Gore, no matter what the Courts decided. They only decided on the validity of the Florida delegate counting methods and their insistence on counting the ballots over and over until Gore had enough votes to win. But Bush had other means of winning. The US House was not bound to accept the Florida delegates, because they had passed the deadline. Even the liberal Miami Herald, in its own study of the votes, that Bush had won, if the recount had been done in any fair way, recounting ALL the votes.

  22. Robert says:

    Huckabee is saying anything & everything now, in an attempt to deflect from his public support & condoning of the Dugger child molester. He’s finished now, it’s over Mike, hang it up.

  23. olandp says:

    Huckabee is a boob.

  24. Indigo says:

    Huckabee makes up stuff.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS