Todd Starnes, Fox News’ professional hysteric, is very upset that Judge David Bunning doesn’t think that his personal religious views should determine public policy or overturn the rule of law. He can’t believe that Bunning would rule against the views of the Catholic Church to which he belongs, or that he would enforce a Supreme Court ruling that he disagrees with rather than pretend that it doesn’t exist.
What gets me about Judge Bunning, I saw a profile piece over the weekend and they said that he is a devout Catholic man who opposed the Supreme Court’s decision on this issue. So what does that tell me, Crane? It tells me this man is not a man of strong character if in fact he ruled against the basic tenets of his own faith. So I think we are dealing with a lot of unscrupulous characters here.
Actually, it says the exact opposite. It says that Bunning understands his role as a federal judge, which is to enforce the law even when he disagrees with it. That’s Kim Davis’ job too, of course, but she’d rather play martyr. This line of argument reveals a great deal about Starnes and many other supporters of Davis. They really do believe that their religious views supercede the constitution and the rule of law, that if they disagree with a ruling they are entirely free to ignore it. Judge Bunning does not believe that because he’s not a theocratic dominionist, which is what Starnes is.
There are so many levels of irony here as well. What is the constant conservative critique of judges? That they’re substituting their personal views for what the Constitution actually requires. And what is it they’re doing here? Demanding that their personal religious views be the single factor that determines what the Constitution requires. And demanding that they be allowed to ignore the rule of law whenever they disagree with it — but only them, of course, not those dirty Muslims or anyone else.