Newt Gingrich's latest entry in the shoot-off-your-mouth contest [re: judges]

[BrainGlutton]

@JoelUpchurch

I remember how confusing it was left wing Democrats in July 1974 when Nixon turned over the tapes on the orders of the Supreme Court. Some of them expected Nixon to lock up the Supreme Court and institute martial law.

His aide Dick Cheney, OTOH, he did not give up so easily . . .

[BrainGlutton]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Not always, and in fact not even most of the time. Appellate courts quite commonly affirm without commend.

Which means a “PCA” (per curiam affirmance) case gets only one page in the regional reporter (Southern 2nd, Atlantic 2nd, etc.), and is generally useless as a cite in a legal brief. But, there are whole regional-reporters full of actual appellate-court opinions going back decades.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I think you misread my post.

[JoelUpchurch]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Ah, how far we’ve come. Back in the mists of time, even Nixon would not mess with the Supreme Court. Now, a candidate for president moots the idea of muzzling or arresting the Supremes if they would dare to make an opinion that he disagrees with.

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson proved it was easier to just ignore the Supreme Court.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Indian_removal

The Roosevelt administration found it easier to just lie to the Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#United_States_District_Court_opinions

[SteveG1]

@Grumman

And this is from the only House Speaker to ever be disciplined for ethics violations. Even if you support this line of thinking, Newt is not the man who should be making those decisions.

Amazing, how “no one” seems to remember any of that mess. Hmmmm

[j666]

@Oakminster

The whole concept of attempting to subpoena a federal judge to “explain” a legal decision is antithetical to the separation of powers. Courts speak through written decisions. Period. They do not “explain” themselves to Congress. The impeachment process as applied to the federal courts exists to remove judges for improper conduct, like criminal acts or ethical violations. Not because you disagree on the merits of a case. Frankly, I think if a POTUS attempted to do what Newt says here, it may constitute grounds to impeach him. I see it as a direct and serious violation of the separation of powers, and utter disregard for the rule of law.

What he said.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

[quote=“JoelUpchurch, post:44, topic:606716”]

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson proved it was easier to just ignore the Supreme Court.
The Roosevelt administration found it easier to just lie to the Supreme Court.

Did any of them brag that this was going to be their general policy going forward, before they were even elected to the position of president?

[Comicenbe]

@dougie_monty

According to a news item in the “Huffington” press last night, Gingrich has outdone himself: not only does he intend to abolish courts, he wants judges whose decisions run counter to his political notions arrested.
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. :mad:
What does Gingrich expect to accomplish by making such a rash statement, except maybe making Barry Goldwater look like a moderate by contrast, or maybe committing political suicide?

That’s insane.

[Askance]

@John_Mace

I would not be surprised if Newt tried out any of his grand ideas IRL. He really does think it’s his destiny to change the world, for the better. He’s kinda nuts like that.

This is on the Doonesbury page today, given the source I’m presuming it’s accurate:

@notes re Gingrich

Primary mission: advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces.

[BrainGlutton]

Up to now, Administrations have clashed with the SCOTUS and the federal courts only when the courts actually stood in the way of something the Admin wanted to do. But Newt, before he is even POTUS, is promising not even to wait for such an eventuality, but to go on the ideological-political offensive against the federal judiciary. That is unprecedented – even to suggest, AFAIK.

[newcomer]

Well, isn’t there a significant “market” for the idea that judges, especially “activist” ones, should be held accountable? Newt, being a man of ideas, is simply providing liquidity to the “market”.

Time for Ron and one of his lectures on Constitution again…

[JoelUpchurch]

[quote=“Euphonious_Polemic, post:47, topic:606716”]

@JoelUpchurch

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson proved it was easier to just ignore the Supreme Court.
The Roosevelt administration found it easier to just lie to the Supreme Court.

Did any of them brag that this was going to be their general policy going forward, before they were even elected to the position of president?

I find it peculiar that you seem to believe that dissimulating on their positions is a point in their favor. In any case you are misrepresenting Gingrich’s position.

His position is that our nation was creating with three coequal branches of government and that the judiciary branch is overstepping it’s bounds and abrogating powers that belong to the legislative or executive branches. In this case the primary responsibility for controlling the judiciary resides with Congress through the power of removing judges from the bench.

http://www.newt.org/news/newt-defends-constitution-elitist-judges

[BrainGlutton]

@JoelUpchurch

His position is that our nation was creating with three coequal branches of government and that the judiciary branch is overstepping it’s bounds and abrogating powers that belong to the legislative or executive branches.

Well, that’s the thing about a judiciary, how much power it can grab is always very limited. That’s why it’s always less dangerous than the other branches.

[Marley23]

I’ve added some more text to the thread title to clarify the subject.

[Typo_Knig]

@cckerberos

His actual words can be found here.

To summarize: He’s saying that Congress should hold hearings on and subpoena judges who are overly activist (perhaps as a part of a procedure leading to impeachment). He’s also saying that if a subpoenaed judge did not appear that he should be arrested and forced to comply.

I don’t think that’s a good idea, but I don’t think it’s quite what the OP was implying that he said.

No, it is exactly what the OP said. Newt first said he would subpoena judges whose decisions he did not like. That in itself is overturning over two centuries of American jurisprudence.

Then in response to the obvious question of how he would enforce the subpoena, His Imperial Majesty Newton I said he’d call out the federal marshals.

This is more than a bad idea. This is an astoundingly bad, blatantly counter-Constitutional idea.

Conservadopers, please note that such sweeping powers once gained by the presidency are rarely given up. GWB thought that kidnapping, torture, and indefinite detention were just fine policies. Then Obama not only continued those policies, he decided it’s OK for the US government to intentionally kill its own citizens with no legal procedure, or arrest then without charge or trial even inside the US. Next, Newt wants to arrest judges with whom he disagrees. Where does it stop? Where does it just slow down a little?

[Oakminster]

@JoelUpchurch

His position is that our nation was creating with three coequal branches of government and that the judiciary branch is overstepping it’s bounds and abrogating powers that belong to the legislative or executive branches. In this case the primary responsibility for controlling the judiciary resides with Congress through the power of removing judges from the bench.

http://www.newt.org/news/newt-defends-constitution-elitist-judges

His position is essentially we need more Jesus in the nation.

From your link:

Gingrich: I think many lawyers will find this a very frightening idea. They’ve had this run of 50 years of pretending judges are supreme, that they can’t be challenged. The lawyer class defines America. 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, we’ve had a steady secular drive to radicalize this country away from all of its core beliefs. I mean what got me into this was the 9th Circuit saying that one nation under God is unconstitutional. We live in a country where judge Biery can literally say I will put you in jail for saying the word benediction. There’s something profoundly wrong with the judicial system that has moved to that kind of extreme behavior.

He’s fine with politicizing the Courts, as long as he gets to prescribe the political positions Judges must adhere to. He completely misunderstands the role of the Courts and the separation of powers. Doesn’t appear to be a big fan of the separation of Church and State either.

Newt lost this lawyer’s vote today.

[BrainGlutton]

@Oakminster

His position is essentially we need more Jesus in the nation.

Start with more Jesus in Newt.

[Typo_Knig]

@BrainGlutton

Start with more Jesus in Newt.

He has plenty of Jesus - he’s been two different types of Christian, and that’s just from his first 3 wives.

[fumster]

@JoelUpchurch

You seem to operating in alternate universe where the Democrats were control of Congress in 2000.

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.

Also spinning scenarios about what Gingrich might have done is nothing but paranoid wish fulfillment.

He’s running for President, trying to figure out what he will do if he wins is pretty much the point.

[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.