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.
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.
Kinda wish you’d made it clear that I was quoting Gingrich there.
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
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.
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 says:
So I think this might be a bit of hyperbole.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
What are your views on returning god to our schools, candidate Oakminster?
The original title wasn’t specific enough when you’re dealing with Newt? 
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.
God is in Congress?
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.
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.
The defendant must answer the question, or be held in contempt of debate!
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?
The question was adequately answered above.