Skip to comments.A Scary Thought: Gingrich and Obama Agree on the Supreme Court
Posted on 04/10/2012 8:26:39 AM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV
Last week, after three days of tough argument before the Supreme Court, the President created a stir when he said that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn his national healthcare plan. Obama further questioned the legitimacy of unelected and activist judges.
Conservatives went crazy! How could the President criticize the authority of the Supreme Court?
On December 18, 2011, Republican candidate Newt Gingrich lost significant momentum when he told the nation on Face the Nation that judges, at least in some circumstances, should be called to account for their decisions that ignore the public will, either by being brought before Congress or in some cases by being removed from office. In fact, Gingrich had written a 54-page paper on the topic (http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf), specifically pointing to the 1958 anti-segregation ruling in Cooper v. Aaron. In Cooper, the Supreme Court asserted that the Courts opinion on the Constitution was more important than the interpretations of Congress or the Executive Branch.
Liberals went crazy! How could an aspiring President criticize the authority of the Supreme Court?
It is a running joke that any decision that the Supreme Court makes that one disagrees with is made by activist, unelected judges. If your side doesnt win, blame the court! And in the past few years, decisions have gone both ways as the Court, comprised of justices presently appointed over the course of 24 years ranging from Antonin Scalia, appointed in 1986 to Elena Kagan, appointed in 2010.
The reality is, if Newt Gingrich is right then Barack Obama is also right. Obama can simply read off Gingrichs paper and make the same arguments. The sitting President, empowered by a sympathetic Congress can do whatever it wants and the Supreme Court can simply stand by and wring its hands. The Patriot Act can continue to exist without challenge as can ObamaCare.
Perhaps this is one thing that Gingrich and Obama can agree on that the President and Congress has electable, kingly authority. In reality, the only way either one of them would be happy with the proposed arrangement is if their party is in control. Otherwise, the minority party would have no judicial recourse or appeal.
If anything, when politicians think in two- and four-year increments, the Court has perhaps become too political, with justices appointed who are expected to carry forward particular agendas rather than providing long-term Constitutional interpretations. Electing justices would only make things worse. There is a process for changing the Court, but as with changes to the Constitution itself, they take place slowly.
In times like this, we would do well to remember the words of Lord Acton, that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and seek to preserve the integrity and role of the Supreme Court.
In this case, however, the Court would be going against the public will if they were to declare Obamacare constitutional. Obama is flat out wrong to say that if they rule it unconstitutional thy are going against the will of the people. Just the opposite...
This is precisely why Obama must be defeated.....supreme court justice nominations. Ginsburg is up pretty soon and we need the court to be conservative
Gingrich was speaking in favor of holding justices accountable to the Constitution, Obama wants them to ignore it in favor of Congress’ whim (but only when he agrees with Congress — the DoJ is in lower courts right now arguing to have Bush-era laws overturned, you know).
Two completely different viewpoints, and yet the same to the author. This is a conclusion in search of an argument. I can only suppose the author has some bone to pick with Gingrich and is looking for an excuse to tie him to Obama.
The judiciary has acted on the premise of judicial supremacy, where courts not only review and apply laws, but also actively seek to modify and create new constitutional law from the bench that the Supreme Court has asserted should be binding on the other two branches.
Nicely put, both of you.
Russ, the “will of the people” is wrapped up too often in their ignorance of the Constitution, thus we have Obamao as our president, by the will of the people.
Nothing in his background should have so swayed the will of the voters to elect him, but for their own ignorance.
Grant it, the same can be said of particular justices also, so I get where you are coming from. The crazy old one demonstrated her own ignorance a couple of weeks ago during oral arguements, when she didn’t know the law she was discussing, it had been decided in reverse of the actual decision. Sheesh.
“I can only suppose the author has some bone to pick with Gingrich...”
Other posters refuted the author’s reasoning very well.
Sometimes the simplest explanation makes the most sense. The Evangelicals picked the Santorum horse to ride in this race, and they are just going to try this to knock out the competition.
Ref post #3.
You are correct.
The idiot who wrote this article cannot read. He did not understand what Newt was saying...or didn’t want to understand and just wanted to be nasty. I think it was he can’t read and understand.
Your article, Mr. Editor, really sucks.
You got your hit from me. You won't get another.
Ya want know what is really wrong, friggn tool NE so called republican Santorum endorsing Romney, Christie Todd Whitman and Specter. But the worsted is whoring to the unions to get votes. He could care less about freedom and liberty.
Of course, the difference is calling judges to account for violating the constitution, versus attacking judges for following the constitution.
It only sounds similar if you’re not paying attention.
I don’t agree with Newt here, Cooper vs Aaron simply said that states could not ignore Court decisions when AR decided they didn’t want to desegregate because there was too much public opposition. It was against mob rule. Obama wants mob rule so he basically agrees with Newt.