Skip to comments.Conservatives Split on Gingrich's Courts Plan
Posted on 12/19/2011 9:54:13 PM PST by Jim Robinson
For nearly a decade, 2012 contender Newt Gingrich has been floating some controversial ideas aimed at reining in the federal judiciary. He's called that branch of government "grotesquely dictatorial" and elitist. Should he become president, Gingrich says he'll ignore Supreme Court decisions if they don't square with his interpretation of the Constitution or what he believes the country's founders intended.
Gingrich says federal judges should be called before Congress to explain their decisions, suggesting Sunday that he'd even approve of arresting them if they refused to show up. It's an issue raised Thursday in Fox News' GOP debate in Iowa, with Gingrich responding, "I would be prepared to take on the judiciary if, in fact, it did not restrict itself in what it was doing."
Former Pennsylvania Rep. Bob Walker, a Gingrich supporter, says the proposals are spot on.
"What he's suggesting is a very, very important change in the direction of how we deal with the courts acting more like legislatures than like courts," Walker said. He adds that it's time to "rebalance" the system. For Gingrich, in some cases, that would mean abolishing certain courts altogether.
There are plenty of critics taking aim at Gingrich, including those who say he's misread the Constitution and Federalist Papers. Roger Pilon, vice president of legal affairs for the CATO Institute, says Gingrich is challenging the very system established at our nation's origins.
"If you're going to attack it, you're really attacking the (Constitution's) framers," he said.
Others who agree with Gingrich that the federal judiciary has often overstepped its bounds say the solutions he's proposing are unworkable.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I give credit to Gingrich for recognizing that they must be reined in. The dunderhead Romney sure as hell won't. He blames the judges in Massachusetts for gay marriage on his watch but refuses to lift a finger to oppose them.
Someone sometime has to rein in the Black-Robed Priests.
And it looks like Newt is the only one with the guts to do it.
I really wish we were talking about massive tax reform instead.
Analysis: Gingrich tax plan starves government, say economists
Start with taking down all the activist judges and you are on the road to massive tax reform.
Constitution’s there for a reason. Call me a traitor, but I think the first obligation of the president is to uphold the constitution.
I think Newt’s plan is the worst thing that could happen. Better to do nothing than to tear down what has been built.
The constitutional way is to appoint justices who will uphold the constitution in their rulings. If the republicans had done that instead of nominating Souter and O’Connor, it would be a much different picture today.
Looks like a shot across the bow.
I agree: better to have the courts disempowered and fight things out in legislatures.
Refusing to acquiese to court decisions which betray the Constitution is upholding the Constitution.
“The real enemy is OBAMA, & no more circular firing squads.”
I agree Obama is the enemy. So why are conservatives even entering into a conversation that could help him justify ignoring a SCOTUS decision against Obamacare? That seems shortsighted and foolish.
Bob Walker, a name from the past whom I always liked admired! Very happy to learn he is supporting Newt Gingrich!
We know that Gingrich is right and that his detractors aren't presenting his position on the Courts accurately. After all, most of them are lawyers....lol.
Read and learn: www.newt.org/ = PDF FILE
The president wouldn't have much say about it if Congress issued an arrest warrant for contempt for failure to appear for a Congressional subpoena. The president could approve in one hand and disapprove in the other and see which one filled up first.
Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!
Congress can dissolve any court it chooses at any time save the SCOTUS. The President has no such power. Gingrich should have acted when he was Speaker.
Well, the news tonight about the Tea Party vote - with 23,000 on a conference call - voted for Newt - 30%, Bachmann 28% and Romney 20%...would seem to refute FOX’s claim.
So it doesn’t sound like these people - a conservative block - are worried about Newt’s stance on the courts. Unlike BOR and others, conservatives know very well what the courts have become - another arm of government for the Socialists.
How many times, in state after state, have people voted in issues the opposite way in which the Socialists wanted, so they send it to one of their courts and the peoples votes are tossed out?
And I believe a President Gingrich would carry it through. Doubtful Clinton would have.
The Constitution did not call for or provide for ACTIVIST judges. You do know the difference, don't you?
15 Federal Judges have been impeached since 1789.
Newt would simply refuse to enforce unconstitutional judicial fiats.
It would be up to the legislative branch to impeach him, or the judge who overstepped their bounds.
It’s nothing new.
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.