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

Skip to comments.

In Partial Defense of Newt Gingrich
Bench Memos ^ | 12/21/2011 | Ed Whelan

Posted on 12/21/2011 9:02:46 AM PST by TBBT

In Partial Defense of Newt Gingrich December 21, 2011 11:15 A.M. By Ed Whelan I’ve vigorously criticized Newt Gingrich’s proposal to abolish judgeships, and I also agree with Andy McCarthy’s critique of Gingrich’s idea that Congress should subpoena federal judges (and arrest them, if necessary) to explain their rulings to members of Congress. That said, I think that some of Gingrich’s other ideas have been subjected to unfair attack, and I’d like to sketch a brief defense of them here:

1. Gingrich is correct to contest the myth of “judicial supremacy.” As his “white paper” explains, he is not challenging the power of judicial review (the authority of courts to decide constitutional questions in cases that come before them) but rather the proposition that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution “should be binding on the other two branches.” In defending the authority of the executive and legislative branches to contest the Court’s interpretations of the Constitution, Gingrich stands with (among others) Abraham Lincoln, who famously did not regard himself as bound by the principles set forth in the Dred Scott decision.

There is plenty of room to debate the circumstances under which a president should either refuse to comply with a decision by the Court or decline to apply the principles underlying the decision to other matters. But it’s a good thing that Gingrich is calling for the president and Congress to take their constitutional responsibilities seriously.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections; gingrich; judiciary; newt; teapartyrebellion

1 posted on 12/21/2011 9:02:47 AM PST by TBBT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TBBT

Please explain why it is perfectly alright for members of the executive branch to be compelled to testify before congress but verboten for members of the judicial branch?


2 posted on 12/21/2011 9:07:26 AM PST by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBBT

It should be illegal for a lawyer to hold federal office..
Its a conflict of interest.. like a wolf in a flock of sheep..


3 posted on 12/21/2011 9:17:18 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Please explain why it is perfectly alright for members of the executive branch to be compelled to testify before congress but verboten for members of the judicial branch?

It's not. Seven justices have been impeached throughout or history. One was a supreme court justice (impeached but not removed.) One of the most recently famous ones was Alcee Hasting - impeached and removed for bribery and perjury - who now, amazingly, is a sitting congressman from Florida.

It's not an extraordinary notion to subpoena justices to appear before congress in impeachment hearings. It also not extraordinary to consider impeachment of a justice that refuses to fulfill his/her oath to uphold the constitution in their rulings.
4 posted on 12/21/2011 9:19:19 AM PST by TBBT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TBBT

Judges have overturned laws passed by the majority of voters on the basis of being ‘unconstitutional’. We The People are the supreme regulators, not judges!

I agree with Newt, I’ll probably vote for him.


5 posted on 12/21/2011 9:32:45 AM PST by Java4Jay (The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
It should be illegal for a lawyer to hold federal office.. Its a conflict of interest.. like a wolf in a flock of sheep..

If Newt is elected his acceptance speech should be right out of billy shakepeare, "The first thing we will do is kill all the lawyers"...

6 posted on 12/21/2011 9:36:22 AM PST by USS Alaska (Merry Christmas-Nuke The Terrorist Savages)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

Yes and how many people think the SCOTUS decision that its OK for govt to take people’s private property and give it to another private party is constitutional? The august members of the Supreme Court should have been summoned to splain that one.


7 posted on 12/21/2011 9:36:45 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

I’ve been making this same argument for years Hose!

Right On!


8 posted on 12/21/2011 10:09:35 AM PST by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TBBT

OK! Thanks!

Newt is EXACTLY right on this issue and any federal judge who cites foreign law as a basis for ANY decision should face immediate impeachment proceedings!


9 posted on 12/21/2011 10:13:19 AM PST by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

AMEN!

I couldn’t agree more!


10 posted on 12/21/2011 10:14:32 AM PST by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bigun; onyx

Amen!


11 posted on 12/21/2011 10:45:29 AM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Bigun

Happy to join the Amen Chorus!

AMEN!


12 posted on 12/21/2011 10:55:03 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 11 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska

LOLOLOL.


13 posted on 12/21/2011 10:55:52 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 6 | View Replies]

To: onyx

They should be thrilled at the prospect of Newt setting new precedent, since lawyers make a killing using that feature to circumvent the Constitution, or deffend a scumbag.


14 posted on 12/21/2011 11:59:05 AM PST by itsahoot (Throw them all out! Especially the Frugal Socialists who call themselves Republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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