Mike Huckabee, February 7, 2017

Having demonstrated in 1,042 state and federal elections since 2009 that voters reject Democratic policies, the Democratic Party is turning to its last resort to thwart the will of the people: courts stacked with liberal judges. However, they may learn that he who lives by the lawsuit dies by the lawsuit. The DNC is now being sued by Vincent Tolliver for violating his First Amendment rights by ejecting him from the race for DNC chair over his comments about Islam.

Tolliver said Rep. Keith Ellison should not be DNC Chair because as a Muslim, he subscribes to a religion that openly condemns gays; indeed, in some Muslim countries, being gay is punishable by death. In barring Tolliver, interim chair Donna Brazile declared, “The Democratic Party welcomes all Americans from all backgrounds. What we do not welcome is people discriminating against others based on who they are or how they worship” (I could say, “Tell that banana oil to all the Christian bakers and wedding photographers,” but I’ll refrain.)

Tolliver refused to back down and instead lawyered up. He claims the DNC’s attempt to prevent him from “freely expressing known and indisputable tenets of lslamic law” is an unprecedented violation of his right to free speech and “a glaring contradiction to the 2016 Democratic Platform, that ‘as Democrats, we respect differences of perspective and belief, and pledge to work together to move this country forward, even when we disagree.’” If he believes that still holds, he obviously hasn’t been watching the news lately.

This lawsuit shines a spotlight on a problem Democrats will facing more and more often. Just a couple of weeks ago at the Women’s March, we were treated to the jarring contradiction of feminists condemning Trump as a sexist while welcoming with open arms migrants whose attitudes toward women are hardly “enlightened.” As we’ve already seen in Europe, the liberal impulse to embrace unfettered immigration and multi-culturalism is causing rising violence in liberal states that have been overrun with migrants who refuse to assimilate to the liberal ideals that allowed them to come in. While liberals have no problem with insulting devout Christians and telling them to abandon their faith to comply with the state, the rigid tenets of political correctness force them to condemn as bigots anyone who criticizes the beliefs of devout Muslims, because they’ve been put under the protective umbrella of “diversity.”

This lawsuit perfectly encapsulates the dilemma facing today’s Democrats. They are simultaneously hostile to religion while treating any criticism of Islam as apostasy. They claim to champion free speech and free thought while coming down like a ton of bricks on anyone who dares to freely express an unapproved thought. They’ll likely tie themselves into knots and strangle to death before they figure out how to deal with it.

In fact, there is a very easy way to deal with this: Let Tolliver, Ellison and all the other candidates run and speak freely. Then if you find Tolliver’s views unacceptable, reject him and give the job to the one who makes the best case. It’s called the Free Marketplace of Ideas, and it’s how this country used to work, before “Progressives” came along and “improved” it by adding censorship, thought crime, job bans and lawsuits. Then again, I can understand why today’s Democratic Party is so hostile to the Free Marketplace of Ideas. It hasn’t exactly been kind to them in recent elections.


Three Equal Branches Of Government, Mike Huckabee

The Trump Administration isn’t yet three weeks old, and already, it’s clashing with the courts. His opponents paint that as overreaching or incompetence. His supporters say it’s to be expected when you have a reformist Republican who sticks to his guns and keeps his promises and a far-left opposition that’s abusing the court system to block everything he does because it’s all they have left after the failure and unpopularity of their policies caused them to lose both of the other branches. Some suggest that Trump and his camp welcome this confrontation, while other Republicans are more cautious and warn him not to get into a fight in the courts.

I have a more contrarian view. I’m kind of glad somebody from the executive branch finally remembers what everyone should’ve learned in 9th grade civics: that there are three equal branches of government. Neither the Supreme Court nor any part of the judiciary is a supreme branch of government. It’s an equal branch, and it doesn’t have the power to overturn both the legislature, which passed completely constitutional immigration and national security laws going all the way back to the 1950s, and the executive branch, which is duly elected by the people to enforce those laws and specifically invested by federal law with the power to block certain groups of people from entering the country when it deems them to be a security risk.

If the decision blocking Trump’s temporary suspension of immigration from seven terrorism-plagued nations is allowed to stand, then the court is claiming that a single judge in Washington State, appointed by a President to preside over one district, has the power to make a national decision that affects the entire country and goes against both the Congress and the executive branch. Does anyone think that makes sense, based on even the most rudimentary understanding of what terms like “co-equal branches,” “division of power” and “checks and balances” mean?

No, that only makes sense if you want to continue to allow what the left has been doing for decades: playing politics with the courts and treating unelected judges as if they’re some sort of demigods in black robes. I’m thrilled that we have a President who recognizes that he does have specific powers under the Constitution and the laws, and is standing up to attempts to use the courts not to police those powers, but to usurp them.