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 The new Congress repealed the law and the judges were ousted.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 ...
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.
Ummm. No.
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?
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.
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.
It is a judgment, but I never said it was sound :D
Seriously though, our system is broken beyond fixing, and the reason it is broken beyond fixing is because man himself is broken beyond fixing.
I realize what I am about to say is utterly irrational, but I’m going to say it anyway.
Another person has as much power over you as you give them. I no longer give any other person on this insane planet power over me. I hereby take it all back. I no longer want the corrupt influence of other men in my life whatsoever. If I could up myself and my dog to a frickin deserted island, that is exactly what I would do.
I don’t know how else to say it, but I’ve lost my confidence and compassion in and for mankind. It is one thing to know mankind is flawed, I can accept that, I am flawed.
It is quite another thing to acept the corruption and evil nature of man. I do not, in fact, I reject it, and I am disgusted by it. I’ll end my rant now, because I know it doesn’t have any effect on anything, but this is where I am at >_>
If you and man's best friend have Internet access on the island, keep FReeping, if you can overlook the rest of our flaws on occasion :D
Yes, but judicial activism shouldl be impeachable offense.
You decide on cases being right or wrong, you dont make new laws. You cant order a town to impose a tax, or build a new OJ privacy room.
And the Constitution merely establishes the existence of the Supreme Court. It says nothing about the number of justices. That is set by statute.
Yes, I would fully agree with you. When a judge oversteps their constitutional authority, such as the cases you mentioned, they should be thrown out of office by impeachment. The process whereby we throw them out is important, however. It must be constitutional and abide by the due process of law itself.
No internet would be the worst!
That and no A.C..
But peace of mind also has worth, it’s hard to watch what’s happening, we’ve gone down the wrong road pretty damn far.
By Article I Section 8, and Article III, Section 1 Congress may ordain and establish lower courts inferior to Scotus. The lower courts thus exist by law which can be repealed; there is nothing unconstitutional about disestablishing a district or appellate court.
By Article III Section 2, Scotus in Marbury did not exercise an implied power. It exercised it's Constitutional jurisdiction as to both Law and Fact.
Judges under the British Crown were an extension of the Executive, the King. Brit courts existed to protect the King's prerogatives, not the rights and immunities of the people. Among other reasons, an independent (but not unchecked) Judiciary is why our Constitution was revolutionary.
Yes, terrific book.
Man cannot govern other men, because he cannot govern himself.
Both statements are essentially true, and speak to human nature.
Sadly the Constitution is not, and cannot be made to be, idiot proof or immune to dishonorable men.
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.