Posted on 12/20/2011 10:04:09 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Over the past few days, Newt Gingrich has stepped up his rhetoric against the Federal Judiciary, exemplified by his comments during Thursday’s debate. Over the weekend, for example, Gingrich suggested in a conference call with reporters that were he President he would feel free to ignore Supreme Court rulings he disagreed with:
Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings.
“I’m fed up with elitist judges” who seek to impose their “radically un-American” views, Gingrich said Saturday in a conference call with reporters.
In recent weeks, the Republican presidential contender has been telling conservative audiences he is determined to expose the myth of “judicial supremacy” and restrain judges to a more limited role in American government. “The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial and far too powerful,” he said in Thursday’s Iowa debate.
As a historian, Gingrich said he knows President Thomas Jefferson abolished some judgeships, and President Abraham Lincoln made clear he did not accept the Dred Scott decision denying that former slaves could be citizens.
Relying on those precedents, Gingrich said that if he were in the White House, he would not feel compelled to always follow the Supreme Court’s decisions on constitutional questions. As an example, he cited the court’s 5-4 decision in 2008 that prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had a right to challenge their detention before a judge.
“That was clearly an overreach by the court,” Gingrich said Saturday. The president as commander in chief has the power to control prisoners during wartime, making the court’s decision “null and void,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at outsidethebeltway.com ...
Good to hear!
Merry Christmas!!!!
“But the former House speaker demurred when asked whether President Obama could ignore a high court ruling next year if it declared unconstitutional the new healthcare law and its mandate that all Americans have health insurance by 2014. Gingrich said presidents can ignore court rulings only in “extraordinary” situations.”
As much as I like Newt, and as much as I agree that the courts have far too much power, I don’t feel he has thought out the issue sufficiently well. His answer above leaves me less than satisfied. Who decides what is an “extraordinary” situation? Do any of you know the answer?
As much as I hate the out of control Judiciary, Newt’s claim that he would have US Marshal’s go and arrest Federal Judges is the height or dictatorial nonsense!
Only one other President in our history did such a thing — and he WAS a dictator, for all intents and purposes. He swore out a warrant on the Chief Justice of the United States, who had ruled against him (quite correctly in this case) on a Constitutional issue, and ordered Federal Marshals to apprehend him. The Warrant was NEVER executed because no Federal Marshal was ever found that would actually enforce it, or alternatively, those who would have enforced it were met by either military forces or other law enforcement who would have “shot back” if they attempted to take Taney by force.
The Supreme Court Chief Justice — 84 yr old Roger B. Taney. The President — Abraham Lincoln. The case — Ex Parte Merryman, in which Taney excoriated Lincoln for his suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus (protection against false or indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial). Taney said the suspension, if it TRULY was “in the public interest,” MUST be approved by Congress. Congress NEVER approved it. The SCOTUS ruled against it. Lincoln IGNORED BOTH and EXPANDED the suspension of Habeas Corpus, along with other Civil Rights.
This just demonstrates two major truths: (1) Newt Gingrich, for being a History Professor, does NOT understand the Constitution, or if he does, he’s on the WRONG side of it! (2) Abraham Lincoln was the BIGGEST Tyrant who ever sat in the White House — and Newt aspires to be just like him! (Of course, so did Newt’s hero — FDR!)
Gingrich cited examples of “extraordinary” issues and he’s also cited one current “extraordinary” issue that concerns itself only within the role of Commander-in-Chief: the Court’s ruling that gives enemy combatants captuted in the field full Constitutional rights.
I concur with Gingrich. It’s an unAmerican, PC ruling that ties our soldiers hands and has no place in war.
There are CONSTITUTIONAL ways to REMOVE out-of-control judges from the bench. The State of Iowa did it last year. It’s called IMPEACHMENT. CONGRESS has the power to do it, but exercises that power EXTREMELY rarely. If we CHANGE CONGRESS, and INSIST that they FORCE the Judiciary uphold their CONSTITUTIONAL duties, THEN the Judiciary would move back into line with the Constitution. But ceding the power to arbitrarily arrest Federal Judges to a dictatorially minded President is Dangerous and stupid — it doesn’t matter if his name is Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul.
“Newt just puckered the sphincters of every lawyer in America.”
Not EVERY. I’m married to a lawyer who agrees that the courts have spent the past few generations overstepping their Constitutional role.
Applying Miranda rights to the battlefield is insane.
And everybody on the SCOTUS knew it at the time. Indeed, the majority opinion -- by the senile John Paul Stevens -- cites specific sections of the Geneva Accords that say the exact opposite of what Stevens claims they say.
Everybody new it was bad law -- but it served the agenda of the liberal majority (and the senile).
And, so, we have Miranda rights on the battlefield.
If ever there was a decision that warranted defiance, it is this one.
“Gingrich said presidents can ignore court rulings only in “extraordinary situations.” His answer above leaves me less than satisfied. Who decides what is an “extraordinary” situation? Do any of you know the answer?” Gingrich said that if he were in the White House, he would not feel compelled to always follow the Supreme Court’s decisions on constitutional questions. As an example, he cited the court’s 5-4 decision in 2008 that prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had a right to challenge their detention before a judge.
“That was clearly an overreach by the court,” Gingrich said Saturday. The president as commander in chief has the power to control prisoners during wartime, making the court’s decision “null and void,” he said.
Any judge that legislates from the bench is overstepping what the Constitution prescribes. Such a judge should be subject to removal for having violated his solemn oath.
Any judge that advocates the murder of the innocent is himself a murderer and must be tried for that crime.
Newt Gingrich, a exceedingly wise man, got this one 100% right and it's an essential, necessary step toward restoring our Republic.
I take a more moderate stance, While the Federal Cort has no final word on the Federal Constitution, nether does the President.
I do whole Wholeheartedly endorse & encourage Newt’s efforts to abolish Federal courts.
I am of the conviction that the Federal court system has become in many ways more of a source of injustice then justice. Not only has this “Court” usurped far too broad & abusive power but it has frequently welded that power not as arbiters of the peace but as political despots.
As both of theses problems are symptoms of not only their poor quality selection but unaccountability. The proscribed solution is both to limit their numbers (as to afford accountable & timely selection of their ranks, while also limiting their case by case effect) and to subornation them.
Although in the interest of honesty & expediency limiting their number & rolls should be the primary objective. To subordinate them to congress will only serve to further alienate them to the Constitution in the eyes of the People & their States.
That in itself will demand a real solution at the State level to check the Federal Goverment as a whole. It is that solution that we should be looking towards as the only real solution that honestly balances a court to respect a constitution made to limit the same FEDERAL Goverment.
He also brought up as an example the 9th circus court declaring “under god” unconstitutional. Is that an “extraordinary” situation as well?
Again, who decides what is “extraordinary”? Would you really want the president (i.e. Obama) to decide. I don’t think so!
We have to be very careful about this stuff. It’s easy enough to want that when one of our guys is in power, but would we want that when some lefty lunatic is in power?
Again, I’m sympathetic to reducing the courts power, but so far I haven’t heard any proposal that improves on what we have. Giving the president (think Obama) the power to arbitrarily dismiss a court’s decision would be a nightmare.
Perhaps one solution would be to give congress (maybe only the house?) the power to bring court decisions to a vote, and if they garner more than some supermajority (say 2/3), and if the president then went along with the congress, then the court decision would be overturned. This is similar to having the congress overturn a president’s veto.
All the talking head lawyers on FOX have their panties in a wad too. FOX has been all spin all the time to try and derail Newt using this issue, they fail to see how well this plays in Peoria.
If you have time, this is in pdf, but it’s Newt Gingrich’s full position and not the excerpts by the media.
http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf
He’s been working on it since 2002, IIRC. He’s not just shooting from the hip.
Merry Christmas!!!!
This is what’s in the constitution...
“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.”
This is what Newt said....
“Gingrich said presidents can ignore court rulings only in “extraordinary” situations.””
Maybe you can enlighten me on how the two are the same.
Article I, section 2 of the constitution provides that:
“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.”
Presidents, so far have only done this during extraordinary situations and can use executive orders to do so. Supreme Court can go ahead and issue a Writ in defiance of the order, if it is not extraordinary enough.
Congress can impeach the president for abuse of power if it disagrees that circumstances warrent the order. Hence the other 2 branches are deciding factors to provide the check of abuse of Executive branch power. The example he gave was extending Miranda rights to enemy combatants on the battlefield would make no sense.
I imagine that Newt would have a very sound historical and constitutional basis for any such actions. Suggest you read his white paper on the subject at Newt.org. The short answers needed in a debate or TV interview do not really do the subject justice.
Lincoln had legitimate authority acting as Commander in Chief during a time of War. Washington DC was an armed encampment located in the territory of a state in secession from the union. The entire country was a war zone and rights are often forced to be suspended during times of war. Peoples property and even their freedom are taken legally through legitimate governmental acts during war. Marshal Law is often declared and people are pressed into government service, often against their will.
That is not what Newt suggested. He stated that Congress has the jurisdiction over the inferior courts, and under Article III, section 1 of the constitution that is true.
He suggested that for the rare times when Judges issue outlandish rulings, Congress has the power to Impeach those Judges. Prior to impeaching them they might want to conduct some fact finding, and in that process a subpoena could be issued.
If the judges did not comply with the subpoena, they would be in contempt of Congress, and Congress could send the US Marshals to insure their compliance.
He is not suggesting that the President just imperiously send someone to arrest a judge he may have a slight difference of opinion with.
He's just pointing out that our courts are not designed to be an oligarchy, and that there are constitutional ways to push back should the courts infringe on the other 2 branches areas of authority.
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.