Carly Fiorina pandered to religious conservative voters by falsely claiming that she never referred to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage as legally binding.
The Republican presidential candidate appeared last week on Jan Mickelson’s conservative radio program, where the Iowa broadcaster asked Fiorina to defend her statement that Obergefell v. Hodges and other decisions were “the law of the land,” reported Right Wing Watch.
Mickelson, who has called for enslaving undocumented immigrants, warned Fiorina that Iowa conservatives who “went through Civics 101” might find her statements controversial — so she just lied.
“I think that is a quote from someone else, not from me,” Fiorina said.
The former Hewlett-Packard CEO, who is known for her “adventurous relationship to the truth,” suggested that many of her GOP rivals had made similar claims about the court’s role in the separation of powers, and she singled out Ohio Gov. John Kasich specifically for having “said those exact words.”
Kasich has, in fact, affirmed the judiciary’s role in settling constitutional disputes — which has been accepted in American jurisprudence since the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling.
But the problem is, so did Fiorina, once upon a time.
“I think the Supreme Court decision will become the law of the land, and however much I may agree or disagree with it, I wouldn’t support an amendment to reverse it,” Fiorina told the Iowa conservative blog Caffeinated Thoughts back in May, before the court issued its ruling on marriage equality.
“I very much hope that we will come to a place now in this nation where we can support their decision and at the same time support people’s right to hold religious views and to protect their right to exercise those views,” Fiorina added, just for good measure.
However, now that she’s doing well in GOP presidential polls, she flipped-flopped on her view of the constitutional separation of powers.
“I am not aware of having said that,” Fiorina again claimed after Mickelson circled back for a follow-up. “I am aware of other candidates saying that.”
“I think it probably came up with the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, and my comment on that was, we now must exert enormous energy toward protecting religious liberty in this country, and that means that every state has to pass a religious freedom protection act,” she continued. “We have those passed in many states, and I strongly defended the one in Indiana when everyone was piling on Indiana. But it’s clear that we have to pass those laws at the state level, as well as the federal level.”