Bevin’s ravings in power grab belie oath

From the Herald-Leader:

In December, Gov. Matt Bevin put one hand on a Bible, held up the other and pledged to “faithfully execute to the best of your ability, the office of Governor according to law.”

Bevin’s recent ravings about the Kentucky Supreme Court call into question his ability and commitment to that solemn oath.

...Bevin, elected as a Republican, came out of the Tea Party movement that seeks to limit both the power and size of government. But his actions as governor have seemed aimed not at shrinking government but at consolidating all its power into his own hands.

Ky. Supreme Court: Bevin bound by law

A good editorial from the Herald-Leader:

The Kentucky Supreme Court yesterday delivered a very important message to Gov. Matt Bevin: You don’t make the law, you follow it.

It’s unfortunate that neither Bevin nor Stephen Pitt, his general counsel, understood this before disregarding the budget passed by the General Assembly and cutting university appropriations in the last months of their fiscal year.

...Bevin risks wasting his years in the governor’s office in a series of power grabs that will be turned back in the courts unless he accepts that, as Noble writes, “the governor, like everyone else, is bound by the law.”

Thomas Jefferson would barf at Bevin’s call to bloodshed

From the Herald-Leader:

It was one thing when he was a rich guy from Louisville little known outside Tea Party circles. But now that Matt Bevin is governor of Kentucky, he really should think before he speaks, maybe even jot down a few notes before taking the stage.

Bevin’s attempted clarification on Monday of comments that he made at the Values Voter Summit in Washington on Saturday suggests that he knows that he was off base, irresponsible and verging on unhinged when he declared that bloodshed may be necessary to “redeem” the country if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

...What has kept liberty alive in this country for more than 200 years is the peaceful transfer of power after elections. The idea that violence would be justified by the election of a candidate or platform you disagree with is un-American.