Gingrich Uses Judicial Reform as Magnet For Conservative Iowans

FOX News ^ | Dec 18, 2012 | AP

[onyx]

In part he said, An understanding of the moral differences. It is no longer a case of “right vs. left” as some might say, thus suggesting these two positions are moral equivalents. They are not. It is not “right vs. left,” but “right vs. wrong.” Tearing up a baby in the womb is not merely “left.” It is wrong. It is sin. Destroying the definition of marriage is not merely “left.” It is wrong. It is sin. Stealing funds from future generations and spending it so that they will be closer to slavery than freedom is not merely “left.” It is wrong. It is sin. Although Mr. Gingrich is not running for “Theologian-in-Chief” but “Commander-in-Chief,” he grasps these issues. He understands the moral component.

A grasp of the threat posed by loss of religious liberty. Religious liberty is a locomotive on a set of tracks, heading full steam against another locomotive called the “radical gay agenda.” Religious liberty and the radical gay agenda cannot exist in the same nation at the same time. Leaders of both movements know this. One will win. One will lose. Soon. Very soon. Mr. Gingrich understands this, and knows what must happen to preserve religious liberty. His “awakening,” of sorts, was stimulated by two well-known 9th Circuit Court actions: the June 2002 removal of “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance (reversed by the Supreme Court), and the June 2004 Mojave Desert Cross ruling. Those were his proverbial “enough-is-enough” moments. He has not been the same since. He has written a profound paper on what a President Gingrich would do in the appointment of a Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty. Every Christian and Jew should read this paper and – allow me to be blunt here – ponder the consequences of not having Mr. Gingrich’s brilliance in the White House to defend this rapidly disappearing freedom.

[j.argese]

" ..... It is sin. .....

And there is the fault in a nutshell. Regardless of whether God exists or does not. Abortion is a crime against life.

[Jacquerie]

I listen to Markus Levinicus Magnus five nights/week and heard his dissension from what Newt said in that regard.

All that Presidential candidate Newt did was muse on what Congress could, theoretically, maybe do. Since he isn't running for Congress, I saw it as a bold signal he would support significant judicial reform from Congress. Imagine disestablishment of the Ninth Circus. Imagine a law removed from Scotus jurisdiction that recognizes life at conception. Imagine another law likewise removed from jurisdiction, that recognizes our natural, Ninth amendment right to contract for medical services without government interference. Newt imagined and achieved toppling the rats from House power in 1994. When he says he is ready to curb the courts, I believe him.

I can already hear every rat pol and the drivebys calling for his impeachment. Sweet.

[VinL]

Newt is a globalist; he has progressive tendencies; he’s an inside member of the Washington Establishment– but, -—he’s the best choice.

What differentiates Gingrich from McCain, Bush, Romney, dole et al — is that Newt genuinely believes he’s always the smartest guy in the room. Therefore, he’s not going to defer to the global community or Washington Establishment– he’s going to lead it. He is going to dictate the terms. It simply is not in his character to avoid a controversy- he is not one of these weak spined “kick the can down the road types’– Newt is in your face- all or nothing.

So, though some have reservations about Newt’s commitment to conservatism; I have no such reservations under the current world circumstances. I am fully confident in placing my reliance on his ego. He’s going to want to be remembered as the President who restored America to greatest and righted the world teetering on Depression– Accordingly, in his first term, there is only going to be one plausible way to accomplish that goal— that’s full brakes on nanny state socialism, tax cuts, spending cuts, free markets, energy independence— (you all know the rest).

Newt will do that– because he wants to be great- and that’s the only road to greatness. Of this I have no doubt.

[Rick_Michael]

The center of the debate on conservatism rest on the courts. Whether we can tame big government in congress is not really a big issue in my mind to taming big government in the courts. So yes, absolutely yes, I agree with Newt on this!

Historically they are our biggest concern.

[SumProVita]

“If the electorate were all committed evangelicals, most would give the nod on principle to Newt if he were the candidate.

But a viable candidate today also has to be Ratproof.”

Let’s add God into the equation, HiTech. With HIM all things are possible...and completely *ratproof!*

;-)

[presently no screen name]

And he knows how to do it and ‘they’ know he knows how to do it. Newt is ready to turn over the rotten apples cart.

[SumProVita]

I hear you, onyx. I have been looking for a candidate that spoke more to the moral component....in a comprehensive way.

I really think that Speaker Gingrich, a repentant sinner (like the rest of us) may be the person I was looking for...to begin the restoration of the nation in a manner pleasing to God ...and to our Founders.

Yes, he’s just a man...like all of us....and has flaws...like all of us. However, he also has some incredible gifts and talents that could be instrumental at this particular juncture of history.

Let’s continue to pray for this nation.
Let’s continue to pray for a spiritual turn-around for this nation.

;-)

[presently no screen name]

Is that your creation? Real good.

[crz]

She failed while she was on the Huckster debate a couple weeks ago. She was asked about EPA issues and what would happen if one state went after another for pollution. She stated that she would use the courts to effect the remedy. In short, walk all over the tenth amendment to bring the states into line through the courts. So, she would use the courts to administer her view of EPA rulings...which is the most abusive agency in the world.

[Steelfish]

There is really a very easy and explicitly sanctioned constitutional way to deny an autocratic and despotic judiciary of overriding popular will. It’s called the “exceptions and regulations” clause (Art.2) of the U.S. Constitution.

And yes, we must trim the powers of a rogue judiciary.

Under this Clause for example, Congress can mandate prayer in public schools and deny the federal courts of hearing these cases. The power lies with Congress and the president and we need a Republican Congress and President to do this.

Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE.

Congress in fact did this under the Defense of Marriage Act.

[Bobalu]

Yup, it’s mine. Took very little work.
I just used Irfanview to add a caption.

[greeneyes]

That was my favorite segment of the whole debate! Newt certainly gave Ms Megan a lesson.

Megan stated that Newt's proposal was to subpoena judges to testify before Congress about controversial decisions that they make.

I am wondering if that is a fair characterization of what Newt has actually proposed. The spectacle of the Congress doing their usual dog and pony show and feigning outrage makes great political theater, but I'd rather take effective and constitutional action so that the majority can get back to living the way we were intended to instead of how the 20 percenters deem we should.

Other than that, I agreed 100% with every thing Newt said in that segment. I would not doubt that Megan could have mischaracterized what Newt was actually proposing. We do need to challenge the Judical Supremists in every way that the constitution provides.

[Sudetenland]

Everybody on this forum needs to read Newt's white paper Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution.

I am in the process right now of wading my way through it and it is (so far) a wonderfully thought out and explained exploration of the history of judicial excess and how to remedy the same.

He refers frequently to the Federalist Papers and the writings of Hamilton and Madison.

Please everyone spend the time necessary to understand what is wrong and what must by done and what the Founding Fathers thought about the judiciary.

Warning this is not a light evening's read. It is a twenty-odd page opinion piece with an additional 20 pages of appendices mostly of quotations from former Presidents, legal scholars, judges and of course Madison and Hamilton.

[County Agent Hank Kimball]

By the way, if you want a full (non-debate-snippet) outline of his plan and justification, look at this 15 minute speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lInT1DgqByI&feature=related

Hank

[editor-surveyor]

This is definitely a winning tack for Noot.

[Bobalu]

I just finished Newt’s white paper on the judiciary.

I am now certain that this man, this flawed man, must be our next president.

This paper is brilliant!

[Theodore R.]

“Conservative Iowans”, I’m afraid there are fewer of them and further between with each election cycle. Most just want to observe “Mitt’s turn,” I suspect.

[Jim Robinson]

Great read! Now have it bookmarked.

[TitansAFC]

Newt Ping!!!!