# 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:** 5
**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 21, 2011, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/81 "2011-12-21T03:42:25Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > The question was adequately answered above. Objection sustained! Next question. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/82 "2011-12-21T04:11:39Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The defendant must answer the question, or be held in contempt of debate! If this be reason, make the most of it! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/83 "2011-12-21T04:42:49Z")
How many rulings that are condemned by conservatives as “activist” amount to _restrictions_ on freedom as opposed to expansions on freedom? ---
**Author:** ![opossum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/2bfe46/32.png) [@opossum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/opossum)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/84 "2011-12-21T04:54:41Z")
> [@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. This is the part I find most interesting. If Chairman Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee (for example) wanted to have a hearing on whether Justice Alito was practicing judicial activism, subpoenaed him as a witness and he didn’t show up, then persuaded the rest of Congress to hold Justice Alito in contempt, what happens next? The Senate (Article I) refers it to DOJ (Article II), but if DOJ proceeds with it Justice Alito would have the opportunity to quash the subpoena before – guess what – another (Article III) judge. Checks and balances. Of course, Congress can impeach and remove judges without a hearing or involvement of the other two branches for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but members of Congress themselves are subject to removal for no reason at all every 2 or 6 years. As for Gingrich I hope that if he is elected, Congress ignores his suggestions and stays away from involving itself in the individual lawsuits and prosecutions decided by the judicial branch. ---
**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, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/85 "2011-12-21T07:38:07Z")
> [@opossum](#): > > Of course, Congress can impeach and remove judges without a hearing No they can’t. The House can begin impeachment proceedings, but there is a full blown trial on the merits in the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/86 "2011-12-21T14:26:42Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > How many rulings that are condemned by conservatives as “activist” amount to _restrictions_ on freedom as opposed to expansions on freedom? I’m still trying to figure out which case Newt was referring to when he said school children weren’t allowed to pray in school. I know the school itself can’t lead the prayer, but which in which case did an activist judge say the students themselves couldn’t pray? ---
**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 21, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/87 "2011-12-21T15:02:04Z")
I assume he’s talking about Lee v. Weisman, where SCOTUS decided that students couldn’t lead prayers either. Well, they can, but the school can’t say “prayer time” and leave them to it; they have to do it on their own time. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/88 "2011-12-21T15:50:33Z")
Half of me hopes that Newt can take teh nomination from Romney, the other half wants him to flame out early so that ht he can be replaced by Ron Paul or Santorum. For now I’m following the bird in the hand philosophy and rooting for Newt. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/89 "2011-12-21T16:03:44Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I assume he’s talking about Lee v. Weisman, where SCOTUS decided that students couldn’t lead prayers either. Well, they can, but the school can’t say “prayer time” and leave them to it; they have to do it on their own time. He is talking about a ruling by a Texas judge last June. [http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-03/us/texas.school.prayer\_1\_graduation-ceremony-appeals-court-emergency-appeal?\_s=PM:US](http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-03/us/texas.school.prayer_1_graduation-ceremony-appeals-court-emergency-appeal?_s=PM:US) ---
**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 21, 2011, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/90 "2011-12-21T16:43:25Z")
I don’t know why he’s complaining about that one; it was overturned immediately. The system worked. ---
**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 21, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/91 "2011-12-21T16:48:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t know why he’s complaining about that one; it was overturned immediately. The system worked. Because judges who disagree with Newt should lose their jobs, not just get their decisions overturned. How can we as the public trust a system which allows judges to keep their jobs after making rulings clearly in antipathy to the satisfaction of Newt Gingrich? What’s next? Representatives, generals, journalists? It is only through the omniscient gaze of the Newt that we have endured in these hellish conditions so far. ---
**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 21, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/92 "2011-12-21T16:51:35Z")
Blessed be the name of Newt. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/93 "2011-12-21T16:51:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t know why he’s complaining about that one; it was overturned immediately. The system worked. So in that case, you agree that the district judge was in error, and was properly corrected by the appeals panel? ---
**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 21, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/94 "2011-12-21T17:02:43Z")
In part. I think he was correct in finding that a a school-sponsored benediction violated the Establishment Clause (regardless of who actually gave it). I think he was wrong in finding that student speakers couldn’t ask the audience to bow their heads and such. I also don’t think the original plaintiffs should have had standing, but that’s another issue. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/95 "2011-12-21T21:50:02Z")
There is an interesting article by Eric Posner in Slate where he agrees with some of what Gingrich said and disagrees with him on others. he makes some interesting points. [http://www.slate.com/articles/news\_and\_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/newt\_gingrich\_and\_the\_supreme\_court\_the\_liberal\_scholars\_who\_support\_his\_critique\_on\_judicial\_supremacy\_.html](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/newt_gingrich_and_the_supreme_court_the_liberal_scholars_who_support_his_critique_on_judicial_supremacy_.html) Dahlia Lithwick has another, less interesting article on this topic in Slate. [http://www.slate.com/articles/news\_and\_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/what\_logic\_could\_possibly\_be\_behind\_newt\_gingrich\_s\_crazy\_attacks\_on\_the\_federal\_courts\_.html](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/what_logic_could_possibly_be_behind_newt_gingrich_s_crazy_attacks_on_the_federal_courts_.html) I would also like to make the meta point that just discussing these points has already raised the tone of the nomination contest about 1000 percent. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2011, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/96 "2011-12-21T22:37:22Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > No they can’t. The House can begin impeachment proceedings, but there is a full blown trial on the merits in the Senate. If there were a 2/3 majority in the Senate that was already decided on conviction, could they propose a motion to bypass the trial and just get on with the vote? Or could they vote for severe restrictions on the time allowed to each side to present the case? How easily could they modify the rules of procedure? Once they’ve got 2/3, can’t they do pretty much anything they want? ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/97 "2011-12-22T00:39:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So in that case, you agree that the district judge was in error, and was properly corrected by the appeals panel? Either way, this case comes down very close to where we draw the line. In this case it was a student who wanted to give a prayer, but we’re all agreed that it wouldn’t be appropriate for a member of the school faculty to give a prayer at a public school graduation ceremony, right? ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/98 "2011-12-22T06:19:49Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > There is an interesting article by Eric Posner in Slate where he agrees with some of what Gingrich said and disagrees with him on others. he makes some interesting points. > > [http://www.slate.com/articles/news\_and\_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/newt\_gingrich\_and\_the\_supreme\_court\_the\_liberal\_scholars\_who\_support\_his\_critique\_on\_judicial\_supremacy\_.html](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/newt_gingrich_and_the_supreme_court_the_liberal_scholars_who_support_his_critique_on_judicial_supremacy_.html) > > Dahlia Lithwick has another, less interesting article on this topic in Slate. > > [http://www.slate.com/articles/news\_and\_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/what\_logic\_could\_possibly\_be\_behind\_newt\_gingrich\_s\_crazy\_attacks\_on\_the\_federal\_courts\_.html](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/what_logic_could_possibly_be_behind_newt_gingrich_s_crazy_attacks_on_the_federal_courts_.html) > > I would also like to make the meta point that just discussing these points has already raised the tone of the nomination contest about 1000 percent. Interesting is itself an interesting word. Here, interesting seems to mean an article with which you agree, where a less interesting one is one with which you disagree. More interesting (heh) is Newt’s [formal position paper](http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf) on the issue (a fifty-four page pdf dated 10-7-11) which lays out his position in detail and makes clear the Face The Nation interview wasn’t a shoot-from-the-hip moment. Newt wants to change the status of judicial rulings. > [@](#): > > This NEWT 2012 campaign document serves as political notice to the public and to the legislative and judicial branches that a Gingrich administration will reject the theory of judicial supremacy and will reject passivity as a response to Supreme Court rulings that ignore executive and legislative concerns and which seek to institute policy changes that more properly rest with Congress. A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers, by itself and acting in coordination with the legislative branch, to check and balance any Supreme Court decision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in any federal judge(s) whose rulings exhibit a disregard for the Constitution. The historical and constitutional basis for this position is outlined in this paper. I think Newt is wrong, both as a matter of history and policy, but THIS is what the discussion should be about. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/99 "2011-12-22T13:13:17Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > Interesting is itself an interesting word. Here, interesting seems to mean an article with which you agree, where a less interesting one is one with which you disagree. More interesting (heh) is Newt’s [formal position paper](http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf) on the issue (a fifty-four page pdf dated 10-7-11) which lays out his position in detail and makes clear the Face The Nation interview wasn’t a shoot-from-the-hip moment. Newt wants to change the status of judicial rulings.I think Newt is wrong, both as a matter of history and policy, but THIS is what the discussion should be about. I said the Posner article is more interesting, because it is more interesting. Lithwick’s article is a rather badly reason defense of Judicial Supremacy. Posner’s article is more balanced analysis about the parts of Gingrich’s that he things are valid and where he falls short. If you didn’t read the whole article, he disagrees with Gingrich. > [@](#): > > There is an irony here. Gingrich fancies himself a big-ideas man, but he is really just a politician with an interest in history and a penchant for bombast, and what he needs are ideas that will carry him to the White House. The attack on judicial supremacy is a big idea, and even a good idea, but it is not one whose time is ripe. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716/100 "2011-12-22T18:35:01Z")
Judicial supremecy is not supreme. No power of the sword or the purse and all that jazz. Marbury v Madison has been around for a long time and absent a showing that judges have become tyrants, I think this is all bullshit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newt-gingrichs-latest-entry-in-the-shoot-off-your-mouth-contest-re-judges/606716.md?page=6)