Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president

[Rhythmdvl]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Because we don’t observe the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. And because it might be handy to have judicial review in place if Congress decides that redheaded gay Jewish people are subject to immediate deportation, or something.

We don’t, but that doesn’t mean it has/had to be this way. And in that bizarre of a scenario, what stops nine unelected and appointed for life justices from coming to the same conclusion?

[Mr.Moto]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Have you read Marbury v Madison?

Yes - the decision states that Marbury had a right to his commission as a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but that the Supreme Court had no power to force President Madison to give Marbury the commission. In fact Marbury never received this appointment.

That seems to jibe with Gingrich’s argument above.

[John_Mace]

@Rhythmdvl

Exactly.

You quoted me out of context in a way that changes what I said. No “exactly” about it.

There are three branches, but the idea that the judiciary would serve as a check on congressional authority to pass a law does not *necessarily *follow from the Constitution.

Well there is this, from Article III:

@US Constitution

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States…

[Rhythmdvl]

@John_Mace

You quoted me out of context in a way that changes what I said. No “exactly” about it.

Oops, sorry–I meant “exactly” as in you’re right, that is an accurate characterization of my point. IF constitutionality is inherently part of the law-making process (from drafting to voting), then as you said “any law passed is, by definition, constitutional.”

Well there is this, from Article III:

If people had any idea where Marbury would lead at the time, there are arguments to be made that jurisdiction and interpretation are separable from the concept of judicial review. That is, consider lower court cases that still need to interpret what a law means but because of higher court rulings take the constitutionality of a law as given.

[PrettyVacant]

@Chessic_Sense

Note to Europeans: It’s an election year. Ignore pretty much everything said into a camera or to a crowd.

He seems pretty clear:

"I will issue an instruction on the opening day, first day I’m sworn in

I will issue an executive order to the national security apparatus that it will not enforce Boumediene and it will regard it as null and void because it is an absurd extension of the supreme court in to the commander in chief’s (authority)."

I guess the best you can say is he pretty much knows he won’t ever be in the position to follow that through, which mean it’s just vacuous grandstanding …

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Mr.Moto

Yes - the decision states that Marbury had a right to his commission as a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but that the Supreme Court had no power to force President Madison to give Marbury the commission. In fact Marbury never received this appointment.

That seems to jibe with Gingrich’s argument above.

It didn’t say the Supreme Court didn’t have the power to force [Secretary of State, not President] Madison to give Marbury the commission. It said the Supreme Court didn’t have the power to force Madison to give Marbury his commission under the original jurisdiction provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789 because the Act was unconstitutional.

If Marbury had sought a writ of mandamus from a lower court and the case had reached the Supremes on appeal, they could have issued one.

Of course, the whole point of Marbury is that it was a political decision. Marshall knew Jefferson would ignore the Court if it issued the writ, so he ruled in his favor in order to avoid a constitutional crisis (and at the same time expanded the court’s influence by establishing the principle of judicial review).

None of that has a damn thing to do with Gingrich. The fact that Jefferson would have ignored SCOTUS doesn’t mean we’d let a president get away with doing so today.

[John_Mace]

@Rhythmdvl

Oops, sorry–I meant “exactly” as in you’re right, that is an accurate characterization of my point. IF constitutionality is inherently part of the law-making process (from drafting to voting), then as you said “any law passed is, by definition, constitutional.”

OK. No worries.

If people had any idea where Marbury would lead at the time, there are arguments to be made that jurisdiction and interpretation are separable from the concept of judicial review. That is, consider lower court cases that still need to interpret what a law means but because of higher court rulings take the constitutionality of a law as given.

Well, I’ve said before that it would be better if we had something explicitly in the Constitution that defined how Judicial Review worked. Maybe we even need something like a veto power in Congress (super majority can nullify a SCOTUS decision). As it is, SCOTUS can essentially amend the Constitution and both sides seem to think it does so at least occasionally.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

We do have veto power in Congress. It’s called the amendment process. It just happens to require the state legislatures.

[Rhythmdvl]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It said the Supreme Court didn’t have the power to force Madison to give Marbury his commission under the original jurisdiction provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789 because the Act was unconstitutional.

…

[S]o he ruled in his favor in order to avoid a constitutional crisis (and at the same time expanded the court’s influence by establishing the principle of judicial review).

Marbury is one of the most accidentally (?) elegant pieces of jurisprudence there is. By ceding authority to act it took the tremendous power of judicial review.

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

We do have veto power in Congress. It’s called the amendment process. It just happens to require the state legislatures.

I explicitly left out the state legislatures for this particular activity. It’s not designed to amend the constitution, but to prevent the SCOTUS from doing so.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Mr.Moto

Yes - the decision states that Marbury had a right to his commission as a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but that the Supreme Court had no power to force President Madison to give Marbury the commission. In fact Marbury never received this appointment.

That seems to jibe with Gingrich’s argument above.

Oh I understand. Gingrich is saying that he would be happy to start a constitutional crisis any time the supreme court issued a decision that didn’t jibe with his politics.

If we intend to be a nation of laws as we have been for over 200 years then we really don’t need despots in the white house.

[Saint_Cad]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Oh I understand. Gingrich is saying that he would be happy to start a constitutional crisis any time the supreme court issued a decision that didn’t jibe with his politics.

Considering some of the decisions that SCOTUS has given us:
Kelo
Citizens United
Slaughterhouse Cases
Etc.

Would that really be a bad thing?

[Rhythmdvl]

@Mr.Moto

Yes - the decision states that Marbury had a right to his commission as a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but that the Supreme Court had no power to force President Madison to give Marbury the commission. In fact Marbury never received this appointment.

That seems to jibe with Gingrich’s argument above.

IIRC, the ruling said he didn’t have the authority to force the issue, not that he didn’t have the power. There is a significant difference between the two.

The Gingrich argument above suggests he wouldn’t recognize their authority (under the assumption that he could do so because they would also lack the power).