I agree. Kasich’s statement is an implicit rebuke to the outrageous statements made by Cruz, Jindal and Huckabee. And, typically, Walker won’t commmit yet.
Good for Kasich (and Graham), although it’s just discouraging that taking a position which should go without saying has to be noteworthy. Every single one of these candidates should have come out immediately and stated that the law must be followed.
Perhaps, but then you might also want to give him credit for not furling his umbrella in the middle of a rainstorm.
No magnanimity toward the Kasich from me, today. I exceeded my quota of magnanimouses about 3:30PM MST. Maybe tomorrow. We’ll see.
When the KY clerk gets her daily meals of bread and water, does she spread her bread with KY Jelly?
Based on my admittedly limited experience, KY Jelly could only have improved the mystery meat sandwich they hand out to the pre-arraignment crowd in the Manhattan Criminal Court Building.
My metaphor for Kasich is the part Burt Lancaster played in “Judgement at Nuremberg”…that of Janning, who was slick, upright, palatable.
And Complicit.
No matter whether the ReThuggs manage to elect a Krazy or a Bland One, SCOTUS will have new Justices who (with the Insane Ones already on the Court) would rule on Rights issues such that I would be going around to the back of restaurants to get served. And we would go Downhill from there.
Old Man Bush (the Compassionate Conservative) gave us Clarence Thomas.
And btw, how disgusting is that? They’re saying it’s not enough that she be protected from having to violate her “principles” – by pulling that stunt, they’re explicitly saying her/their “principles” override everyone else’s, and making a full rear-guard action against the law itself. Not that we didn’t know that’s how they feel; but it boggles my mind that they have the balls to flat-out make that assertion.
I don’t want to hear about how awful it is to compare the mentality of these retrograde wannabe-theocrats to that of ISIL or the Taliban: the only reason their actions are distinguishable from those lunatics is that they’re not in a country with civic structures weak or radical enough to give them the space for it. And in the parallel universe in which this era’s GOP holds complete power for a few generations (never this one, O please god), any difference would all but vanish. Not a Christian, but I read a lot, and it seems to me that if Jesus ever did come back, they wouldn’t be thrilled with what he’d have to say about their ugly, hateful crap.
Great post.
A cautionary tale.
Quite possible, he is indeed the sanest of the insane, and would get centrist support. On the other hand, a Mr. Jon Huntsman was of similar cloth…and for some reason got no backing. But Kasich might be more known nationally than Huntsman was… definitely should be interesting.
I’m pulling for Trump. He stands no chance in the general, so I want him to win the Primary…
This can’t be stressed enough, and to everyone we know. Tomasky’s Cafe piece of a while ago noted that we don’t just elect a president but a whole party, with all that implies for every government agency as well as the courts. We need to find a way to make the low-info voter who “votes the person,” or the college kid who might sit it out if Bernie’s not the nominee, truly understand the significance of that.
Knock wood to Trump’s standing no chance in the general; in my more fearful moments I can imagine him being precisely the kind of candidate to bring out all those lowest-information white folks who never vote. Remember Jesse Ventura – and that was freaking Minnesota…
So Kasich is letting the others fight over the crazy base of the party and hopes to capture the sane members?
What if there is some face saving solution, say, if she agrees to let the subordinates provide licenses? In that case, she should still not be let out of jail. We don’t let a burglar or drug dealer out of prison just because they agree to stop breaking the law, do we? She should be sentenced for a reasonable period until or after the legislature fires her.
Unfortunately, no one has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. I think Democratic candidates should get equal time. They used to, you know. Not that long ago.
Oh, don’t get me wrong…i completely agree. Sadly, it’s not the times we live in anymore. Rupert “Asshole” Murdoch has changed the news mechanism forever. It’s a giant tabloid now. I call it National Enquirer News. Completely partisan, completely ratings driven.
The thing is that these religious wackos can do both. They can be zealots and follow the law to the fullest at the same time. By signing her name on the marriage certificate she is not making a statement concerning her religion, she is merely confirming the union and making it a legal and binding contract as per her job and her oath to her job. Her personal whims have no place or standing in this endeavor.
Kim Davis in no way violates her religious beliefs by doing her job and she can not make that argument factually, only emotionally.
Kasich is a two headed beast in this instance as he attempts to show sanity by agreeing with the law of the land but hedges by saying that the woman shouldn’t be jailed because of the law of the land. Which is basically saying, I’m on the right side of the law but I disagree with myself. W-T-F?
Well, he’s not as wrong as most others, but to say that she shouldn’t be in jail is pandering, illogical and cowardly; and certainly not right.
I understand the impulse to give these jerks credit for saying something that sort of makes partial sense. Resist the impulse; it validates pandering and bad thinking.
As opposed to the fraudulent votes from Ken Blackwell’s Diebold voting machines?
You overstate the case, a lot. It is not absurd that she’s in jail–if you know the law.
Adam Liptak had a piece recently in the NYTimes about how Thomas seems to lift many of the phrases in his 9:0 opinions straight from the appellate briefs. Goes with my observation that Thomas doesn’t seem to write many majority opinions on issues that are not gimmes except the one where he wrote on what he wanted the issue to be instead of what it was and Kagan lambasted him for it in her four member dissent.
Yes,both of them.