Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newt Gingrich’s Assault On The Judiciary
outsidethebeltway.com ^ | Sunday, December 18, 2011 | Doug Mataconis

Posted on 12/20/2011 10:04:09 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 12/20/2011 10:04:11 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; tubebender; Marine_Uncle; GeronL; SunkenCiv; blam; ...

fyi


2 posted on 12/20/2011 10:07:03 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Good grief, did Newt hit a nerve or what?


3 posted on 12/20/2011 10:12:31 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; onyx; Syncro

Go, Newt!!


4 posted on 12/20/2011 10:13:20 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Newt just puckered the sphincters of every lawyer in America.

It is past time to rein in the terror of The Black-Robed Priests, and put the Constitution first again.


5 posted on 12/20/2011 10:16:06 PM PST by Old Sarge (RIP FReeper Skyraider (1930-2011) - You Are Missed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
About Doug Mataconis
Doug is an attorney in private practice in Northern Virginia.
6 posted on 12/20/2011 10:21:08 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Yes,....Go NEWT!


7 posted on 12/20/2011 10:22:44 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Good grief, did Newt hit a nerve or what?

The Liberals have always used the courts to overrule the will of the people. That is why the Liberals, thorough their mouthpiece (MSM), are attacking Newt.

8 posted on 12/20/2011 10:23:05 PM PST by Cowboy Bob (Greed + Envy = Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

And it is about time.....


9 posted on 12/20/2011 10:23:24 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
But will he follow through or is this career politician talk?
10 posted on 12/20/2011 10:24:24 PM PST by bgill (The Obama administration is staging a coup. Wake up, America, before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Syncro; TitansAFC; PSYCHO-FREEP; caww; Gator113; Marcella
Another disgruntled, disjointed, out of context hit-piece on Newt Gingrich.

These people are insane and very worried. LOL.

GO GINGRICH! God be with Newt Gingrich.
11 posted on 12/20/2011 10:26:31 PM PST by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC:DONATE MONTHLY! Sarah's New Ping List - tell me if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

It’s time for one of the other branches of government to take the judiciary back a notch or two. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a judiciary dictatorship.


12 posted on 12/20/2011 10:31:35 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bgill

Well,.... Miit Romney is now attacking Newt over his statements....


13 posted on 12/20/2011 10:33:51 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Yeah, I think they’ve found the issue they’re going to try to take him out with...


14 posted on 12/20/2011 10:33:51 PM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
Yep,...Newt is clearly dangerous to the Leftist Elites!
15 posted on 12/20/2011 10:37:59 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Time to UNPACK THE COURT!

16 posted on 12/20/2011 10:39:08 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Newt has my attention now!

Go Newt!

17 posted on 12/20/2011 10:46:27 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Well, I agree with Newt. I’m tired of liberal judges too, but I’m not sure this something that Newt should be talking about at this point in time. He best stick to the economy and foreign policy. He can take care of the judges later without warning them ahead of time. This might not go over too well with independents.


18 posted on 12/20/2011 10:47:53 PM PST by WVNan (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Nite!


19 posted on 12/20/2011 10:48:07 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; thesaleboat; Sick of Lefties; Chainmail; StrongandPround; lilyramone; ...

Look at their accomplishments. Newt allied himself with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority (together the Reagan Revolution) which directly led the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy.

Romney, on the other hand, vehemently denied Ronald Reagan and aligned himself with Ted Kennedy and the left. Romney accomplished installing liberal big government programs, defended and promoted Roe v Wade and legalized abortion as “settled law,” advocated and implemented RomneyCare with its liberty killing government mandates against formerly free citizens and its taxpayer funded or subsidized and mandated abortion procedures. He ran and governed to the left of Ted Kennedy on the “gay agenda” resulting in gay marriage in Massachusetts. He appointed liberal judges and liberal appointees throughout his government. Under his “leadership” conservatism and the Republican party was all but destroyed in Massachusetts.

Romney is one evil liberal progressive. No way in hell will MittBots be allowed to support this abortionist, big government, socialist scumbag on FR!

Guess my message isn’t clear enough. I have to keep repeating it and zotting would be MittBots.

79 posted on Sat Dec 03 2011 19:59:37 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Jim Robinson


20 posted on 12/20/2011 10:48:14 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Good to hear!

Merry Christmas!!!!


21 posted on 12/20/2011 10:51:09 PM PST by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC:DONATE MONTHLY! Sarah's New Ping List - tell me if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; D-fendr; Jim Robinson; Cowboy Bob; bgill; onyx; bigbob; ...

“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?


22 posted on 12/20/2011 10:53:33 PM PST by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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!)


23 posted on 12/20/2011 11:00:56 PM PST by patriot preacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aquila48; Jim Robinson

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.


24 posted on 12/20/2011 11:01:31 PM PST by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC:DONATE MONTHLY! Sarah's New Ping List - tell me if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: patriot preacher

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.


25 posted on 12/20/2011 11:06:33 PM PST by patriot preacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

“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.


26 posted on 12/20/2011 11:07:44 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: onyx
I concur with Gingrich. It’s an unAmerican, PC ruling that ties our soldiers hands and has no place in war.

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.

27 posted on 12/20/2011 11:07:55 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
There's not really much to think out about the issue; Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution is pretty clear on this:

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.

I believe it's good for Newt to bring this issue into the limelight—simply because nobody else is talking about it so it sets him apart from the pack, and wins him strong bonus points with conservatives (at least well-informed ones who actually know what's in the Constitution). It's about time we had a leader who fleshes out real ideas that have philosophically vital repercussions, instead of wannabes who drone on with political talking points and no fundamental vision whatsoever.
28 posted on 12/20/2011 11:19:24 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

“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.


29 posted on 12/20/2011 11:21:52 PM PST by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
It is a sticky area to be sure. But I have a feeling he is not a loose wheel on this issue of how the courts at various levels often play politics instead of keeping their noses buried in the judicial end. Of course the L/MSM are going to go hard on him in this area.
I have to hit the rack E.. Do have a great upcoming day.
30 posted on 12/20/2011 11:22:32 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
Do any of you know the answer?

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.

31 posted on 12/20/2011 11:23:08 PM PST by re_nortex (DP...that's what I like about Texas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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.


32 posted on 12/20/2011 11:26:11 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Right you are on all counts.

This is the “extraordinary” decision with which Gingrich cites and takes his exception, but of course his attackers are ignoring this fact, much preferring to run wild with loosely construed mistruths.
33 posted on 12/20/2011 11:31:17 PM PST by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC:DONATE MONTHLY! Sarah's New Ping List - tell me if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: onyx

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.


34 posted on 12/20/2011 11:42:12 PM PST by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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.


35 posted on 12/20/2011 11:46:39 PM PST by itsahoot (Throw them all out! Especially the Frugal Socialists who call themselves Republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

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!!!!


36 posted on 12/20/2011 11:52:02 PM PST by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC:DONATE MONTHLY! Sarah's New Ping List - tell me if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

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.


37 posted on 12/21/2011 12:00:23 AM PST by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: anglian
“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.”

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.

38 posted on 12/21/2011 12:11:19 AM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: patriot preacher

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.


39 posted on 12/21/2011 12:13:29 AM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: patriot preacher
“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.”

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.

40 posted on 12/21/2011 12:33:11 AM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Thanks for the link - I’ll be sure to read it.

As I said before I’m sympathetic to his position - I just want to be sure that the solution would not allow a president to have arbitrary power.


41 posted on 12/21/2011 12:37:26 AM PST by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states in part:

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior...

It seems clear that this means that their offices are forfeit if they engage in bad behavior, which must certainly include usurping the power and authority of the legislature.

42 posted on 12/21/2011 12:47:46 AM PST by Doug Loss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

They should change their name to BelowTheBeltway.com. lol


43 posted on 12/21/2011 12:59:41 AM PST by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

How about court rulings that protect endangered species over property owners? I doubt that is in our constitution. The 9th circuit court has some extreme rulings you may research that are mind boggling.


44 posted on 12/21/2011 12:59:49 AM PST by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Doug Loss

“It seems clear that this means that their offices are forfeit if they engage in bad behavior, which must certainly include usurping the power and authority of the legislature.”

The remedy for that is impeachment - that is available today.


45 posted on 12/21/2011 1:01:47 AM PST by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: patriot preacher
Newt’s claim that he would have US Marshal’s go and arrest Federal Judges ...

The only thing wrong with your verbose rant is that Newt never said he, or any president, would or should do that.

46 posted on 12/21/2011 1:02:27 AM PST by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

You’re welcome and I understand your concerns.


47 posted on 12/21/2011 1:11:08 AM PST by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC:DONATE MONTHLY! Sarah's New Ping List - tell me if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

How about court rulings that protect endangered species over property owners? I doubt that is in our constitution. The 9th circuit court has some extreme rulings you may research that are mind boggling.
Also, the 9th court ruling on illegals vs AZ..Three months later, Arizona was dealt another blow when the 9th U.S. Circuit in San Francisco upheld the federal district court’s ruling. Among the blocked provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.

Read more: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/immigration-112290-court-law.html#ixzz1h9sdXpxA


48 posted on 12/21/2011 1:18:21 AM PST by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
“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.&rdquo.

.

First of all, 2 points: The constitution has more provisions than you cited, and Newt's discussion included more than you noted above.

Newt pointed out that as Commander In Chief during war the Writ of Habeas Corpus has in the past been suspended, and granting Miranda rights to prisoners captured during the War on Terror is an infringement of the President's authority.

Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is found in Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.

If,during a time of war, or national emergency, A president chooses to issue an executive order to ignore a ruling that infringes on his authority, it would then be up to the Congress to check the president, if he was incorrect in his actions.

As you noted, congress can make regulations relating to exceptions to the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction, and the president may sign those into law thereby shielding certain areas from Supremes appellate jurisdiction. Since the Congress also has jurisdiction over inferior courts, they should be able to keep them in line also.

The totality of Newt's position is that there are 3 branches of government and each has their own authority and power to be checked as provided in the Constitution. We are not supposed to be under an oligarchy and there are constitutional remedies.

Article III, section 2 places jurisdiction for all inferior courts (not Supremes)under Congressional authority. Congress may impeach judges, they may conduct fact-finding hearings for which they can subpoena judges to testify.

Should the judges ignore the subpoena, they are in contempt of Congress and US Marshals can insure they comply with the subpoena.

Further more, there is a very comprehensive white paper on the subject at Newt.org if you would like to really understand Newt's position regarding the courts.

In short, Newt makes the case that the President in conjunction with Congress may constitutionally reign in an out of control judiciary

49 posted on 12/21/2011 1:57:07 AM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
“It seems clear that this means that their offices are forfeit if they engage in bad behavior, which must certainly include usurping the power and authority of the legislature.”

The remedy for that is impeachment - that is available today.”

There is also another remedy available today, the Congress may simply abolish a district, send the Judges packing and reassign jurisdiction to another court.

Likewise, Congress might choose to split up a district into more than one thereby allowing additional judges to be appointed and dilute the influence of the usurpers.

50 posted on 12/21/2011 2:14:42 AM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson