Mike Huckabee is still in the throes of last week's hissy fit over the Supreme Court's decision to allow lower court rulings on gay marriage stand.

This offends his delicate sensibilities because liberty to Huckabee means we should all live just the way he says we should, because he is the Dictator of All Morality and Human Behavior.

Yes, that's sarcasm. But in his latest rant above, he suggests that the entire country needs to revisit their civics lessons to understand that the Supreme Court's ruling just means we should all rise up and override it somehow. He would like all his fellow haters to "grow a spine."

But the bigger issue is the betrayal of our Constitution and the surrender to a small group of unelected black-robed jurists who can't make law nor enforce it. Now, if you believe men should marry men and women should marry women, then get the people's representatives to vote for it, the chief executive to sign it, and then have the courts agree with it.

I'm utterly disgusted with fellow Republicans who want to walk away from the issue of judicial supremacy because it's politically volatile. Here’s my advice: Grow a spine! Show a modicum of knowledge about the way we govern ourselves! And lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way!

In my civics classes, I learned that voters accept or reject positions of candidates and the voters' verdict determines the outcome of elections. What some Republicans are coming to understand is that when they exclude gays, or women, or make hate the centerpiece of their candidacy, they lose. As a result, they can either leave politics altogether or adjust their positions according to the will of the majority of those they represent.

This is why Mike Huckabee is not president, nor was he the nominee in 2008, much to his chagrin.

Lest you think that Huckajesus always hates the Supreme Court, let me correct that misimpression. He loves the Supreme Court when they rule the way he wants them to, such as in the Hobby Lobby decision.

There he gave them all attaboys for voting to put employers in women's vaginas. Such a Christian man he is, isn't he?

He also had no objection to Supreme Court judicial activism when he called upon the court to completely nullify the Affordable Care Act, because if they didn't, their poll numbers wouldn't be very good. This is the guy who thinks others need civics classes?

Here's the full transcript if you can't bear to watch his mewling:

I wonder sometimes, do we still teach civics in school? Are Americans, even elected officials, lawyers and judges utterly ignorant about the structure of our government and how it functions?

I assume everyone citizen knows that we’ve got three branches of government and each equal to the other. The founders took extraordinary measures to prevent too much power being grabbed by one person or group. The system they created is sometimes cumbersome, but it's based on the longest-used Constitution in human history.

The Congress controls the purse, the money; the Executive branch controls the sword, and the judicial branch watches over and offers opinions as to the Constitutional compliance of the other two.

My friend Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel and Dean at the Liberty University School of Law points out in his outstanding book Judicial Tyranny: "The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the liberties of the minority against the majority. However, our constitutional makeup does not give the minority veto rights over the majority; the major political and social questions of our day has by constitutional design been given to the majority through the legislative process. Continually taking away the right of the majority to shape their culture will ultimately result in rebellion. To take away the right of the people to debate the question leads to an oligarchy (or government of the few) and results in tyranny."

This week, the Supreme Court declined to take up cases from the court of appeals regarding same-sex marriage in a number of states where the people had already voted to affirm natural law marriage of a man and a woman. In these states, typically, a single robed judge decided that his opinion mattered more than the collective votes of the people themselves.

The Supreme Court refused to hear these cases, despite the confusion that exists due to its own Windsor decision last year which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. Several governors and other elected officials reacted by saying, "Well, that's it. That is the final word." Horse apples! The Supreme Court is not the supreme being. Yes, it’s the highest court within one of the three branches of government, but it isn’t superior to the other two.

In recent years, the doctrine of judicial supremacy has trampled both the Constitution and common sense. The court can certainly rule on an issue, but unless the legislature passes enabling legislation and funds it, and unless the Executive branch signs it and enforces it, it is certainly not "the law of the land," as is often exclaimed with authority by voices that belong to people that, I wonder, did they pass 9th grade civics? The law of the land requires agreement of all three branches.

Now, this is not just about same-sex marriage, with which I frankly disagree with. I, by the way, hold the same view that President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden held until just 2 years ago - that it was inconsistent with nature and nature's law.

But the bigger issue is the betrayal of our Constitution and the surrender to a small group of unelected black-robed jurists who can't make law nor enforce it. Now, if you believe men should marry men and women should marry women, then get the people's representatives to vote for it, the chief executive to sign it, and then have the courts agree with it.

I'm utterly disgusted with fellow Republicans who want to walk away from the issue of judicial supremacy because it's politically volatile. Here’s my advice: Grow a spine! Show a modicum of knowledge about the way we govern ourselves! And lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way!

[ad]