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 ...
Yup. They definitely need reining in. Don’t look to Mitt to do so.
All this is true. Unfortunately, the masses that go to the polls are influenced by headlines and propaganda hit pieces. Despite misgivings on a liberal judiciary, the masses still look to an independent judiciary and explains why it has a higher popularity than the other two branches of government. If and when the tables are reversed and there is a Democratic president and Democratic Congress who then try to get rid of conservative strict constructionist judges the outcome would be scary.
Gingrich would have gotten just as much mileage if in his usual professorial manner he had picked out a couple of outrageous decisions and made the case why a second term Obama would be disastrous for the nation.
He could also have insisted that he would insist on Congress carving out exceptions to what cases may be taken on appeal to the federal courts. Art II of the Constitution allows for this.
The vast swath of independent voters in certain battleground states like Ohio, VA, and New Hampshire (all winnable against Obama) will not take lightly to the notion of hauling judges replete with subpoenas and warrants to testify before Congress. Now, that may not be what Newt said or meant but you can bet that’s what the barrage of attack ads will portray.
Indeed, I expect Newt to issue some clarification statement in the next couple of days when his internal polling will show that these statements are beginning to drag him down. People respond to specifics not the abstract institution. Newt is smart. he needs to highlight some truly atrocious decisions like civilian trials for non-citizen GITMO detainees according to the UCMJ, pledge of allegiance; removal of Christmas creches and 10 commandments, moment of silent prayer in public schools, forcing religious charities to accept gay adoptions, etc. This is what voters relate to, not a broad brush attack
Nor does it call for the imperial presidency. Checks and balances from Montesqieu.
If this were Obama saying it we’d be in arms, but it’s ok for Newt? I don’t think so.
A Republican president could provide a good deal of support and guidance to a Republican Congress on reigning in an activist judiciary even if he can’t be directly involved. Especially if he has a good deal of Congressional experience.
The Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights to protect us from the government. What did we do? We went to the government and asked THE GOVERNMENT to tell US the meaning of each one of those amendments. WE should be telling them, including the judiciary, what each amendment means. Those rights belong to us.
Not by the presidency.
This is a decision that only the legislature can decide, whether to remove a justice.
“Newt would simply refuse to enforce unconstitutional judicial fiats.”
How is this any different from Obama refusing to enforce immigration laws? If we are arguing that the first duty of the presidency is to uphold the constitution, that means that they have to work within the constitutional framework. They simply can’t ignore rulings they do not like.
Newt can and will ride this horse to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! GO NEWT! Git’er done!
Newt is a terrible standard bearer because he has difficulty controlling what he says. He’s basically handed Obama a carte blanche.
Bravo Newt. Thank goodness you’re running for presidency so we can’t have a real conservative who believes in strict constructionisms instead of ‘stroke of the pen, law of the land”.
Article III
Sec. 1
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
-------------------------------------------------------
". . .vested in one supreme Court . . . . as the Congress may . . . establish."
The Newt is asking for a mandate to reign in the courts from legislating from the bench. When he's elected he will have the mandate.
Sounds like a strong Conservative principle.
yitbos
That’s not a decision the president gets to make.
The vast swath of all Americans agree with Conservative principles.
Now, if you ask them about individual anecdotal hypotheticals . . . .
But this is about a principle.
yitbosyitbos
His temporary drop in some polls are directly related to the attack ads and the media barrage against him leadingup to the Iowa caucus.
The is a winning issue for him. He’s already articulated two specific cases which he will pound home.
The Texas judge who prevented the words “prayer, benedition, amen,” and even standing, and the 9th Circus that ruled against “one nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance.
He also noted the two CA cases, Mt Soledad’s historic cross and another in the Mojave desert.
These cases hit home with voters.
Gingrich will be fine on this issue.
Lawyers are pitching hissy fits. (Of course).
BUMP.
:)
When did he say these exact words?
Probably never.
That’s what I’m thinking. I used to think Bream had some credibility.
Newt must have PO’d all the right people along the line.
nOOt is right.. and the lawyers HATE IT... they just hate it..
Next you know.... Newt would be advocating serious Tort Reform..
OH! thats right he already did.. they simple HATE that too..
He must be trying to STAMPEDE the lawyers.. the bovine milkers that they are..
Horse manure.
This guy is with the CATO Institute? Yikes.
The US Constitution offers a fairly sparse job description for the Supreme Court, especially compared to the other two branches. Most of the "power" the Supreme Court now has it took for itself along the way. Shame on those who let it happen, who let the courts embed themselves at the top of the government food chain to the point where, for example, a single scumbag in black can overrule millions of referendum or ballot initiative voters.
Gingrich simply wants to (finally!) bring the judiciary back to the coequal branch of government status it was supposed to have from the beginning. I'm pretty sure the framers never intended for the judiciary to legislate from the bench or govern by fiat.
Bravo for Newt. And to hell with the CATO Institute if they can't do better than Roger Pilon. Apparently even a layman like me knows more about the Constitution than he does.
Out of probably 1500 who should have been impeached.
Wow. Only 15 impeached in 222 years? That's a cowardly disgrace.
That is what Newt is saying so what is the problem?
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.