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.
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.