#kim-davis

[eyeoftheseer]

Vestiges of Christianity- The Kim Davis Controversy: Should Christians Defend Her Position or Refute it?

[sullivanamy-blog]

Pataki: ‘Wow ... We’re going to have a president who defies the Supreme Court?’

There was a surreal moment halfway through the GOP’s undercard debate Wednesday in which two of the candidates found themselves defending the rule of law in the United States.

It came during an exchange that underscored the gulf between two factions in the modern Republican party — let’s call them the sanity caucus and the by-any-means-necessary caucus.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum kicked off the discussion by invoking Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who went to jail a week ago because she would not comply with a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. “How many bakers, how many florists, how many pastors, how many clerks are we going to throw in jail because they stand up and say, ‘I cannot violate what my faith says is against its teachings?’” asked Santorum, who won the Iowa caucuses in 2012 and ultimately captured around 250 delegates in the GOP primaries that year.

(It’s worth noting that there is no U.S. law — federal or local — that would require any houses of worship or clergy members to marry same-sex couples, or would the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.)

Calling the court order that Davis rejected an “unconstitutional verdict,” Santorum went on to say, “We need a president and a Congress to stand up to a court when it exceeds its constitutional authority.”

That comment provoked former New York Gov. George Pataki, who had argued earlier in the debate that Davis should have been fired for refusing to do her job as an elected official.

“Wow,” said Pataki, looking astonished. “We’re going to have a president who defies the Supreme Court because they don’t agree?”

“I hope so,” interrupted Santorum. “If they’re wrong!”

“Well, then, you don’t have the rule of law,” Pataki responded, throwing up his hands.

Pataki made his own argument for religious freedom: “This is America!” But, he continued, “when you’re an elected official and you take an oath of office to uphold the law — all the laws — you cannot pick and choose or you no longer have a society that depends on the rule of law.”

The two repeated the debate a few minutes later when Santorum brought up Martin Luther King Jr.’s support for civil disobedience and Pataki reminded him that King was a private citizen who was prepared to break the law to send a message to elected officials, not an elected official himself.

The exchange — along with the fact that Gov. Bobby Jindal essentially aligned himself with Santorum, and Sen. Lindsey Graham with Pataki — let viewers see for themselves which GOP candidates would govern as all 44 presidents so far have, recognizing the balance of powers in the U.S. government and the rule of law, and which are at least willing to argue that their principles might justify tossing out 236 years of democratic history.