Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich follows FDR with court-packing scheme
Posted on 11/25/2011 5:13:14 PM PST by Navy Patriot
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrichs 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 The new Congress repealed the law and the judges were ousted.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 Jeffersons 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 ...
Not that he'd do this right.
Isn’t Gingrich the one who implied, “right wing social engineering,” was the greatest threat to the U.S.?
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 ~
Aptly proved by Beauford Pusser.
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.
It must be getting tough to find something new to lay on Newt every day.
Wouldn’t it be easier to take things out of their purview by limiting their jursdiction?
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.
Finally, the Republicans must assume responsibility themselves, and properly police the nominations and firmly and unitedly deny confirmation to leftist radicals and ringers.
Unless they didn't exist.
The person who wrote this article, Ken Klukowski, is a conservative.
Newt's targeting lower courts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, a compassionate conservative that is enamored with courts and their compassion and concern,...............for criminals and Marxists.
I’m for eliminating judges altogether.
One thing mankind is not capable of is making sound judgments, it’s time we stop kidding ourselves.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When a judge makes a flagrantly unconstitutional ruling there is a remedy; It’s called impeachment.
Simple, pay 'em cash in lieu, they be screwed.
Isn't that in Alaska?
When months count, impeachment is only decades away.
I have noticed the same thing. I believe in equal opportunity bashing whether a quote comes from Palin, Paul or Cain.
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.
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.
Is there a reason some federal courts couldn’t be in Alaska?
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.
Generally, "electorate" means more than a simple majority vote in both houses and the approval of the President.
it was noted that the remuneration deal probably affects only the members of the Supreme Court. The lower court judges are just simple employees.
Done for the evening, goodnight.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, I was sort of hoping they ALL could be.
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.
Basically, there is NO RIGHT WING in the US.
Gingrich knew better but he can't help talking in traditional bromides.
But responsible for what?
Their bad judgments?
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.
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.
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.
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.