Skip to comments.In Partial Defense of Newt Gingrich
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 Ive vigorously criticized Newt Gingrichs proposal to abolish judgeships, and I also agree with Andy McCarthys critique of Gingrichs 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 Gingrichs other ideas have been subjected to unfair attack, and Id 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 Courts 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 Courts 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 its a good thing that Gingrich is calling for the president and Congress to take their constitutional responsibilities seriously.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
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 should be illegal for a lawyer to hold federal office..
Its a conflict of interest.. like a wolf in a flock of sheep..
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, Ill probably vote for him.
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"...
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.
I’ve been making this same argument for years Hose!
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!
I couldn’t agree more!
Happy to join the Amen Chorus!
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.
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.