# Newt Gingrich's latest entry in the shoot-off-your-mouth contest \[re: judges\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 19, 2011, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716 "2011-12-19T07:41:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/61 "2011-12-20T05:46:09Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > Thank you for your concern, but I am in in the current universe. The Democrats would not have to be in control to undermine the legitimacy Of Bush’s presidency, they could have just acted like the birthers except with some actual reason to back it up. Imagine if the leaders of the party had used the sort of incendiary language that conservatives do. Al Gore himself, acting as President of the Senate, ruled speakers out of order as they rose to speak against certifying the electoral college results. The Senate Democrats could have filibustered every bill and ground the country to a halt. > > He’s running for President, trying to figure out what he will do if he wins is pretty much the point. Al Gore would have only been president of the Senate until Jan 20th when his term expired. Since George Bush hadn’t been certified, Denis Hastert would have become president of the United State until the election results were certified. You also seem to assume that the new Senate would have kept the filibuster rule, which seems unlikely under the circumstances. This would mean that the Senate would enact legislation by a simple majority like the House. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/62 "2011-12-20T05:47:22Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > We’ve had rulings that outlawed school prayer, we’ve had ruling that outlawed the cross, we’ve had rulings the outlawed the 10 Commandments. Republicans live in moon land. The notion that Christians are a persecuted class in an America where crosses and the Ten Commandments are “outlawed” is psychotic delusion. Unfortunately it appears that a lot of people want to vote for fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/63 "2011-12-20T05:56:02Z")
Kinda wish you’d made it clear that I was quoting Gingrich there. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/64 "2011-12-20T06:11:09Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Who exactly is supposed to drag these judges into the hearings? The Sergeant at Arms? And I suppose Newt has no problem with dragging representatives into court to explain their bad legislative decisions either. As far as I can tell, Congress has no way to physically compel someone to appear before them, but they can declare the person in Contempt of Congress. The rules there are a little complicated. [http://www.answers.com/topic/contempt-of-congress](http://www.answers.com/topic/contempt-of-congress) It isn’t clear to me that the President can do much of anything to a federal judge unless he wants to file criminal charges against the judge. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/65 "2011-12-20T06:22:23Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > The last time I heard of anyone doing that was when the Nazis invaded Norway in 1940 and arrested the judges who had awarded the 1935 Nobel Peace Prize to the German pacifistic journalist, Carl von Ossietzky, who had exposed Hitler’s secret rearmament. Do you have a cite for that? Because I’ve never heard that before. And the Nobel Peace Prize isn’t even awarded by ‘judges’, but by by a Nobel Committee appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. The only Judges commonly appointed there is that there is usually someone from the International Court in the Hague, but that didn’t exist until after WWII. And [NobelPrize.org](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/tonnesson/) says: > [@](#): > > Indeed, the award of the prize to the anti-militarist Carl von Ossietzky in 1936 had so infuriated Hitler as to make him forbid all Germans to receive any Nobel prize. Yet, during the occupation none of the committee members were troubled as such by the Germans, and the Nobel Institute was not forced to close. So I think this might be a bit of hyperbole. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/66 "2011-12-20T06:27:51Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Al Gore would have only been president of the Senate until Jan 20th when his term expired. Since George Bush hadn’t been certified, Denis Hastert would have become president of the United State until the election results were certified. Oh yeah, I guess you’re right. Having a couple of months of uncertainty on who would be the next President and someone who no one voted for temporarily serving as President wouldn’t have been a crisis. Just the same old same old. ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/67 "2011-12-20T08:34:07Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Do you have a cite for that? Because I’ve never heard that before.[… … … …] Sure I do. I’m quoting here from \*How Do They Do That?, \*by Caroline Sutton, Published originally 1981; sotftbound edition, "…and the neighboring Norwegians–five prominent men appointed by the _Storting_ (parliament) in Oslo–award the peace prize. (This last arrangement arose because Nobel wished to have closer ties with his neighbors.)… “The five Norwegian judges designated to award the peace prize in 1935 were a brave and steadfast group. They insisted (despite protests from pro-Nazi novelist Knut Hamsun and from Hermann Goering) on selecting Carl von Ossietzky, who had exposed Hitler’s secret rearmament. Not only was the outspoken pacifist and newspaper editor thrown into a concentration camp, where he died of tuberculosis, but the judges themselves were arrested when the Nazis invaded Norway.”–pp. 48-49. All right, maybe they were “judges” only for the sake of selecting the Nobel Peace Prize winner–but I never heard the people who awarded the other Nobel Prizes so described. In any case, Gingrich’s rhetoric puts me in mind of Hitler anyway. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/68 "2011-12-20T10:11:53Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > Sure I do. I’m quoting here from \*How Do They Do That?, \*by Caroline Sutton, Published originally 1981; sotftbound edition, > "…and the neighboring Norwegians–five prominent men appointed by the _Storting_ (parliament) in Oslo–award the peace prize. (This last arrangement arose because Nobel wished to have closer ties with his neighbors.)… > “The five Norwegian judges designated to award the peace prize in 1935 were a brave and steadfast group. They insisted (despite protests from pro-Nazi novelist Knut Hamsun and from Hermann Goering) on selecting Carl von Ossietzky, who had exposed Hitler’s secret rearmament. Not only was the outspoken pacifist and newspaper editor thrown into a concentration camp, where he died of tuberculosis, but the judges themselves were arrested when the Nazis invaded Norway.”–pp. 48-49. > > All right, maybe they were “judges” only for the sake of selecting the Nobel Peace Prize winner–but I never heard the people who awarded the other Nobel Prizes so described. In any case, Gingrich’s rhetoric puts me in mind of Hitler anyway. ☹ Newt’s shape seems more like Goering, though. 🙂 But this quote raises even more questions about that author’s accuracy. For example, this implies that Hamsun & Goering tried to prevent the judges from giving the prize to von Ossietzky. But the Nobel prize committee keeps their deliberations, actually even the list of who’s been nominated, very, very secret. So I don’t see how they could have protested, when nobody except the committee knew he was being considered. And it wasn’t “Hitler’s secret rearmament” that he exposed – that was in 1929-1931, years before Hitler came to power. It was under von Hindenberg that this secret rearmament was done. And she says that von Ossietzky died in a concentration camp, which isn’t correct. He was actually transferred out of the camp to a Berlin hospital, where he died about a week later. (Though from the tuberculosis that he got in the camp, and which had gone untreated there.) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/69 "2011-12-20T15:12:42Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Newt lost this lawyer’s vote today. Today? Don’t tell us you were okay with the orphanages 15 years ago, the janitorial duties for poor kids last month, etc. Newt has been a narcissistic delusional sociopath for a long time. And how about the extorting millions from Freddie Mac for “not lobbying” against Freddie Mac. But he calls extortion “consulting”. The idiots at Freddie Mac should be charged for participating in that bit. Please tell us you weren’t going to vote for Newt long before yesterday. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/70 "2011-12-20T16:03:45Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Please tell us you weren’t going to vote for Newt long before yesterday. I haven’t committed to a candidate yet. Odds are it will be the GoP nominee, unless Gingrich gets the nod, in which case I’ll do something silly, like vote for a third party candidate, or cast a write in vote for myself. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/71 "2011-12-20T16:04:31Z")
What are your views on returning god to our schools, candidate **Oakminster**? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/72 "2011-12-20T16:30:00Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’ve added some more text to the thread title to clarify the subject. The original title wasn’t specific enough when you’re dealing with Newt? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/73 "2011-12-20T17:56:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What are your views on returning god to our schools, candidate **Oakminster**? _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._ ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/74 "2011-12-20T18:03:20Z")
God is in Congress? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/75 "2011-12-20T19:00:07Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I haven’t committed to a candidate yet. Odds are it will be the GoP nominee, unless Gingrich gets the nod, in which case I’ll do something silly, like vote for a third party candidate, or cast a write in vote for myself. Answer the question! Prior to yesterday, were you going to consider Gingrich for your vote? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/76 "2011-12-20T22:12:16Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Answer the question! Prior to yesterday, were you going to consider Gingrich for your vote? Shhh! He’s being driven my way, please don’t push him back. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/77 "2011-12-20T22:21:15Z")
The funny part is that I’m sure one of Gingrich’s other goals if elected President would be to appoint as many conservative Justices as possible, especially to the Supreme Court. It would be ironic indeed if the judges who ended up getting summoned to explain themselves before congress by this precedent were Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/78 "2011-12-20T23:12:36Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Today? Don’t tell us you were okay with the orphanages 15 years ago, the janitorial duties for poor kids last month, etc. Newt has been a narcissistic delusional sociopath for a long time. And how about the extorting millions from Freddie Mac for “not lobbying” against Freddie Mac. But he calls extortion “consulting”. The idiots at Freddie Mac should be charged for participating in that bit. Please tell us you weren’t going to vote for Newt long before yesterday. > [@Oakminster](#): > > I haven’t committed to a candidate yet. Odds are it will be the GoP nominee, unless Gingrich gets the nod, in which case I’ll do something silly, like vote for a third party candidate, or cast a write in vote for myself. > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Answer the question! Prior to yesterday, were you going to consider Gingrich for your vote? The defendant must answer the question, or be held in contempt of debate! ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2011, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/79 "2011-12-20T23:22:58Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I haven’t committed to a candidate yet. Odds are it will be the GoP nominee, unless Gingrich gets the nod, in which case I’ll do something silly, like vote for a third party candidate, or cast a write in vote for myself. Could you really vote for a Republican who could get himself elected Governor in Massachusetts and then President by rest of the country? 30, 40 years ago, I could see it, but in the current political climate? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/80 "2011-12-21T03:33:36Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The defendant must answer the question, or be held in contempt of debate! The question was adequately answered above. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716.md?page=5)