Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newt Gingrich follows FDR with court-packing scheme
San Francisco Examiner, opinion ^ | November 25, 2011 | Ken Klukowski

Posted on 11/25/2011 5:13:14 PM PST by Navy Patriot

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s idea for checking judicial activism is a textbook case of historical revisionism that is strikingly similar to the court-packing scheme of liberal icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Gingrich said Congress should just pass a law eliminating specific judgeships, presumably immediately ousting the activist judges currently filling those seats.

Gingrich lionizes an incident now regarded as profoundly troubling by constitutional scholars. When Thomas Jefferson replaced John Adams as president in 1801, the outgoing Congress created new federal courts and judgeships which Adams promptly filled. The new Congress repealed the law and the judges were ousted.

Jefferson considered trying to impeach the entire Supreme Court. As Rep. James Bayard said at the time in objecting to Jefferson’s plan:

“He uses the Legislature to remove the judges, that he may appoint creatures of his own. In effect, the powers of the Government will be concentrated in the hands of one man, who will dare to act with more boldness.”

(Excerpt) Read more at sfexaminer.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: activism; courts; federalcourt; judicial; scotus; supreme
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
Much leftie worry about Newt.

Not that he'd do this right.

1 posted on 11/25/2011 5:13:25 PM PST by Navy Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

Isn’t Gingrich the one who implied, “right wing social engineering,” was the greatest threat to the U.S.?


2 posted on 11/25/2011 5:15:20 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
Naw, it wouldn't be like that.

He's slicker'n airy nekkid butt on a cold, snowy night ~ what Newt would do is RELOCATE THE COURT.

There are a lot of places to put a court. The judges don't get to chose that part.

There are empty buildings near Dawson ~

3 posted on 11/25/2011 5:17:20 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
San Francisco? Lefty land personified. What they think out there I pay no attention to.

Next case.

4 posted on 11/25/2011 5:19:57 PM PST by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Except for The Supreme Court which is a creation of The Constitution, all other federal judicial positions are a creation of Congress.

yitbos

5 posted on 11/25/2011 5:25:32 PM PST by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
There are a lot of places to put a court. The judges don't get to chose that part.

Aptly proved by Beauford Pusser.

6 posted on 11/25/2011 5:26:24 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
Lower courts exist by law that can be repealed. Send the judges home with pay. Scotus is there by the Constitution.

Only through a political and economic Big Bang may our country save itself. Part of that is to clean the Marxists out of the lower courts. Disestablish them and start over. It is constitutional. It is necessary. What is left of our republic will not survive another rat or placeholder pubbie President.

7 posted on 11/25/2011 5:28:45 PM PST by Jacquerie (Think outside the pizza box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

It must be getting tough to find something new to lay on Newt every day.


8 posted on 11/25/2011 5:32:38 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

Wouldn’t it be easier to take things out of their purview by limiting their jursdiction?


9 posted on 11/25/2011 5:38:09 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Isn’t Gingrich the one who implied, “right wing social engineering,” was the greatest threat to the U.S.?

That claim has nothing to do with reality.

The statement was specifically about one-size-fits-all gov't entitlements being bad whether imposed from the left or the right.

Normally that's something conservatives would agree upon. But no, some around here adjust their views based on who said it. It was Newt, so he must be destroyed, his words must be twisted into oblivion.

10 posted on 11/25/2011 5:38:56 PM PST by newzjunkey (Republicans will find a way to reelect Obama and Speaker Pelosi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
The basic premise is acceptable and probably necessary, but along with deradicalizing the Federal Courts, the enabling US code must be repealed or amended to force responsibility on the courts.

Finally, the Republicans must assume responsibility themselves, and properly police the nominations and firmly and unitedly deny confirmation to leftist radicals and ringers.

11 posted on 11/25/2011 5:43:53 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Activist judges would likely pull another Marbury v Madison to expand their authority, which would go up the line of still existing activist courts.

Unless they didn't exist.

12 posted on 11/25/2011 5:48:31 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

The person who wrote this article, Ken Klukowski, is a conservative.


13 posted on 11/25/2011 6:03:18 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
The writer, Ken, seems to be confused because FDRs court-packing scheme was aimed at SCOTUS and specifically because it had begun rejecting his New Deal.

Newt's targeting lower courts.

14 posted on 11/25/2011 6:04:17 PM PST by newzjunkey (Republicans will find a way to reelect Obama and Speaker Pelosi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Men in Black, by Mark Levin. Radio talk host and professor of constitutional law. His book outlines the power that Congress and the POTUS has to counter the SCOTUS and other federal courts.


15 posted on 11/25/2011 6:06:19 PM PST by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
The Constitution grants to Congress the power to establish courts and tribunals below the Supreme Court, so presumably it also has power to disestablish courts it deems no longer useful or necessary.

Jefferson thought so, and the SCOTUS did not intefere, so I guess I'd believe it. No wonder the current crop of "constitutional scholars" are uneasy though. It threatens to upset their little fiefdoms in the appellate court system where they can "pass" laws the legislature won't touch. Original intent scares the bejesus out of leftwing looneys.

16 posted on 11/25/2011 6:06:41 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
Once again, Newt is right. The courts must be purged of activist judges. The communists courts will tie up our system so tight that nothing can be done. Rotten judges are just that rotten judges.
17 posted on 11/25/2011 6:08:32 PM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
It must be getting tough to find something new to lay on Newt every day.

Actually, this article indicates how fearful the left is of Gingrich.

This is call to arms to anyone who will listen to pressure Republicans to reject Newt or dissuade him from employing this tactic in a Republican controlled government.

The reason? It will work, and very quickly if Republicans show stones. It's Constitutional.

So much for anti Newt posting, and there is concern that this would not be carried through properly. History, including Newt's.

18 posted on 11/25/2011 6:10:06 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Newt has this talent for making otherwise normal adequate people to go batshit crazy without even knowing what he really said.
19 posted on 11/25/2011 6:10:06 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Did you read the whole article? He explains the dangers of letting someone do what Newt suggests: Eliminating judgeships whilst a judge is living. If you could eliminate a bench whenever you wanted and kick the judge out, then you could eliminate that seat and then just recreate it at will. Think of the tyranny that could be imposed if courts could be dissolved and then reconstituted at will. You’d basically have a situation where whenever the opposing party is in power, they could just purge their opponents from the judiciary. That’s why in order to remove a judge, you should have to impeach them and convict them.


20 posted on 11/25/2011 6:11:23 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Congress can disestablish courts, but it cannot remove judges except by impeachment and conviction. So, the court/seat on the court will exist for the remainder of the career of whatever judge sits on it.


21 posted on 11/25/2011 6:14:22 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
The person who wrote this article, Ken Klukowski, is a conservative.

Yes, a compassionate conservative that is enamored with courts and their compassion and concern,...............for criminals and Marxists.

22 posted on 11/25/2011 6:29:46 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

I’m for eliminating judges altogether.

One thing mankind is not capable of is making sound judgments, it’s time we stop kidding ourselves.


23 posted on 11/25/2011 6:31:09 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
the court/seat on the court will exist for the remainder of the career of whatever judge sits on it.

It's not exactly clear. Certainly the judge is appointed for life, but the court itself has no such protection.

Likely Congress can make the court disappear, giving the judge no facilities, clerks, or staff, or anything else except pay. Such a judge would be in a world of hurt.

24 posted on 11/25/2011 6:41:50 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

Look him up. Most of his writings on this subject that I have read are against judicial tyranny and the usurpation of power by the federal judiciary. This article is opposing the opposite extreme of having the other two branches control the judiciary in such a manner as to render it dependent. An independent judiciary is essential for a constitutional government.


25 posted on 11/25/2011 6:46:36 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: chris37
I’m for eliminating judges altogether.

Technically possible, but things would fly apart badly before it got done Constitutionally.

A mechanism to make judges responsible is likely the best way out.

26 posted on 11/25/2011 6:48:38 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

That would be unconstitutional considering judges are guaranteed the same remuneration as when they were appointed. Taking away office expenses has the effect of denying the judge remuneration. Furthermore, taking away their jurisdiction and not seating them on a new court (perhaps a court the combines two old jurisdictions that have become too small), is at best a poor attempt to circumvent the constitution, and perverts the rule of law.


27 posted on 11/25/2011 6:50:35 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
An independent judiciary is essential for a constitutional government.

Said independent judiciary must not be independent of the reasonable law abiding citizens. Repeatedly, unreasonable judicial fiat has been mitigated by rejection by the electorate at the ballot in venues so empowered. Federal judges should be so restrained, and a mechanism to impose that restraint is reasonable.

28 posted on 11/25/2011 7:00:12 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

When a judge makes a flagrantly unconstitutional ruling there is a remedy; It’s called impeachment.


29 posted on 11/25/2011 7:02:27 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
Taking away office expenses has the effect of denying the judge remuneration.

Simple, pay 'em cash in lieu, they be screwed.

30 posted on 11/25/2011 7:03:53 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
There are empty buildings near Dawson ~

Isn't that in Alaska?

31 posted on 11/25/2011 7:06:37 PM PST by Publius6961 (My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto

When months count, impeachment is only decades away.


32 posted on 11/25/2011 7:08:08 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Normally that's something conservatives would agree upon. But no, some around here adjust their views based on who said it. It was Newt, so he must be destroyed, his words must be twisted into oblivion.

I have noticed the same thing. I believe in equal opportunity bashing whether a quote comes from Palin, Paul or Cain.

33 posted on 11/25/2011 7:08:15 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

If you are suggesting that a simple majority vote in both houses and the approval of the President should be able to render any judge powerless, then you are suggesting tyranny. Our revolution, Constitution, and laws were setup to prevent just that sort of seizure of power.


34 posted on 11/25/2011 7:09:05 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

I’m a Presbyterian; I am used to things going very slowly. It helps to prevent rash actions of people who are not thinking about the consequences.


35 posted on 11/25/2011 7:10:51 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Is there a reason some federal courts couldn’t be in Alaska?


36 posted on 11/25/2011 7:11:17 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
Thomas Jefferson simply had Congress rescind the law and he fired all the judges.

What kind of tyranny was that?

Sounds like to me Jefferson had his ear to the ground and found out the people had lost confidence in the courts.

Just like any democratic body, a loss of confidence should result in a replacement of the government ~ and the courts are part of the government. Think of them as a pre-regulatory Executive Branch covered by Civil Service laws ~ you cut of the funds they go away.

37 posted on 11/25/2011 7:14:55 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
If you are suggesting that a simple majority vote in both houses and the approval of the President

Generally, "electorate" means more than a simple majority vote in both houses and the approval of the President.

38 posted on 11/25/2011 7:16:35 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

it was noted that the remuneration deal probably affects only the members of the Supreme Court. The lower court judges are just simple employees.


39 posted on 11/25/2011 7:17:09 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot; All

Done for the evening, goodnight.


40 posted on 11/25/2011 7:17:22 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
You’d basically have a situation where whenever the opposing party is in power, they could just purge their opponents from the judiciary.

Isn't selective outrage cool?

That is exactly how the Attorney General's office works; the adults use the power to replace lawyers in the AG system judidiously, and the 'Rats replace ALL of them politically, without a murmur from the ignorant populace.

How has that worked out the last three years?

Without an ethical AG office neither the Supreme Court nor the Constitution is in play. The Supreme Court can't choose what cases come before it. A corrupt AG office can suborn ethics and justice, as we have seen over and over.

41 posted on 11/25/2011 7:20:57 PM PST by Publius6961 (My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Isn’t Gingrich the one who implied, “right wing social engineering,” was the greatest threat to the U.S.?

Not exactly, but he did use the loaded phrase, "right wing social engineering". The stupidity of his remarks earlier this year in response to Paul Ryan's plan was flabberghasting. It was a hideously stupid phrase to use. I was left wondering if Gingrich would next be taking Republicans to task for supporting “right wing activist” judges.

“Social engineering” is, by its very nature, left wing just as “judicial activism” is, by its very nature, also left wing. Using the words “right wing” in conjunction with those phrases makes no sense whatsoever and only serves to create the false dichotomy the left has been trying to fabricate (without much success) for years.

“Right wing social engineering” holds no more meaning than “chocolate-flavored solar flare”.

42 posted on 11/25/2011 7:22:21 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

What happened thereafter? Oh, yeah, that’s right, we had Marbury v. Madison which asserted the principle of judicial review in the context of the Federal courts. This was not an unprecedented seizure of power on the part of the Supreme Court; it was, rather, an assertion of the common law and the implicit authority the Supreme Court has to interpret the law, including when two laws conflict which is to prevail.

Another character in history did the same thing: King George III. In point of fact, it’s a grievance against him in our Declaration of Independence. We cannot have a situation where judges can be removed at will in the normal course of events. What you are suggesting is that Congress should have the right to revolution if it so desires, simply by firing all the judges. Don’t get angry when some future Democrat Congress does it right back to you, which is bound to happen at some point.


43 posted on 11/25/2011 7:22:32 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

Yeah, just hand it over to the voting majority. That will solve the problem. Ignore that 69 million people voted for Obama. That won’t be an issue.


44 posted on 11/25/2011 7:24:30 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Is there a reason some federal courts couldn’t be in Alaska?

Ummm. No.
Actually, I was sort of hoping they ALL could be.

45 posted on 11/25/2011 7:25:52 PM PST by Publius6961 (My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
Jefferson FIRED ALL THE JUDGES (but he didn't fire the members of the Supreme Court). The Founders had no complaints about it.

District Court judges are simply not the same as Supreme Court judges. Besides the Supreme Court has NO ADMINISTRATIVE control over the lower courts!

Congress has retained FULL control over the details of administering the courts ~ providing courthouses, providing heat in the winter, cooling in the summer, and turning on the lights and buying them supplies.

Disposing of bad judges in those courts is a good idea.

46 posted on 11/25/2011 7:26:36 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
There is no Royalist party in the US, and the closest thing we have to the Fascists are the Democrats.

Basically, there is NO RIGHT WING in the US.

Gingrich knew better but he can't help talking in traditional bromides.

47 posted on 11/25/2011 7:29:43 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

But responsible for what?

Their bad judgments?

No!

Let them judge their own damn lives, I don’t need some other idiot human telling me one damn thing, because I am not going to listen, robe or no robe.

Incidentally, things have already fallen apart constitutionally. For as fine as a document as it is, it will not survive man’s greed and lust for power and control.

Man cannot govern other men, because he cannot govern himself.


48 posted on 11/25/2011 7:33:12 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

You need to think about the consequences of what you are saying right now. What you are saying is a blatant violation of our constitution:

Article III, Section 1

The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

“During good behaviour” means unless they have been impeached and subsequently convicted, they are to hold onto their office. What Jefferson did was blatantly unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court rightly corrected him on it.


49 posted on 11/25/2011 7:34:02 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: chris37; muawiyah
One thing mankind is not capable of is making sound judgments

Sounds like a judgment.

Seriously, there are a lot of flaws in the current system put in place by Congress. Even if Newt's suggestion is not the solution, at least he's talking about doing something to address the problem instead of just ignoring it.

In fact, Congress would have to fix the problem. Newt could lobby from the WH. Any solution based firmly on the Constitution would be challenged in court by the Left as, of course, unconstitutional. If the courts tried to enjoin implementation of a law that would make judges lose their jobs, things would get interesting.

50 posted on 11/25/2011 7:53:12 PM PST by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson