Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich’s Assault On The Judiciary
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 Thursdays 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.
Im 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 Thursdays 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 Courts decisions on constitutional questions. As an example, he cited the courts 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 courts decision null and void, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at outsidethebeltway.com ...
“Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions”
Well, I seem to recall that regarding some war issues, the congress and the president removed the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, and yet the Court simply ignored the Congress and the President and ruled anyway. I didn’t hear anybody crying out then!
Marriage should be left to the states. The courts started down a dangerous path of stripping all religion out of the public square in the 1960's, a complete reversal from 150 years of historical precedent.
Well, Thank you. Thank you very much.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree 100% with you and Newt that the courts have too much power and that all the rulings you mention have been abominable.
What I’m arguing is that giving that power to a president could be even worse. Do you really want Obama to have such arbitrary powers?
I agree we need to find a way to curb the power of the courts, but we need to do it in such a way that the power is returned to the people. How to best do that is the challenge. Simply giving the president arbitrary power to determine what is an “extraordinary” situation is frightening.
Even then we have to be careful - we are not a pure democracy, but a CONSTITUTIONAL republic. That means that the constitution is above the will of a simple majority, otherwise the bill of rights would have been shredded long ago. It takes massive supermajorities by various bodies to amend the constitution, and rightfully so.
Our country fast becomming a socialist nation is pretty much extraordinary at every level....sometimes you have to go ahead with something that's right even if it might break someones rules....if you're wrong then apologise after. I am hoping Newt will do what he has to to stop where're we're headed and I have no doubt he'd lay it on the line to get us out of this mess.
But you’re assuming that it’s president Newt who declares a situation “extraordinary” and ignores a supreme court ruling that is not to our (conservative’s) liking. But would you give the same power to a president Obama to declare a situation “extraordinary” and ignore a supreme court decision that we like? Let’s say the supreme court rules that obamacare is unconstitutional and Obama declares an “extraordinary” situation by making up some story about medical costs bankrupting the country, and he then decides to ignore the Supremes, would you go along with that?
I wouldn’t consider your questions applicable since the constitution is all but being trashed now, and long before the supreme court would have anything in their hands in which to rule on. Obama makes his own rules which never are considered according to our constitution...only in how he can manuver around it if it becomes necessary.
The country is moving fast into a socialist country and therefore our constitution will be nothing more than a document if things continue...and currently being pushed as absolete.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying that since Obama is trashing the constitution anyway, you would be fine if he were to ignore a supreme court ruling declaring obamacare unconstitutional. Or are you saying, he may not explicitely and formally ignore it but will do so surreptitiously, so we’re pretty much at a dictatorship regardless of what happens.
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.