Posted on 04/02/2012 8:21:21 PM PDT by chessplayer
"For nearly a decade, 2012 contender Newt Gingrich has been floating some controversial ideas aimed at reining in the federal judiciary. He's called that branch of government "grotesquely dictatorial" and elitist. Should he become president, Gingrich says he'll ignore Supreme Court decisions if they don't square with his interpretation of the Constitution or what he believes the country's founders intended."
"Gingrich says federal judges should be called before Congress to explain their decisions, suggesting Sunday that he'd even approve of arresting them if they refused to show up."
"There are plenty of critics taking aim at Gingrich, including those who say he's misread the Constitution and Federalist Papers. Roger Pilon, vice president of legal affairs for the CATO Institute, says Gingrich is challenging the very system established at our nation's origins."
"If you're going to attack it, you're really attacking the (Constitution's) framers," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Bad precedent. It would encourage the lefties to do the same, and justices are way more likely to toss out their ideas than ours.
The only way to reign in the courts is to take away their infinite seizure powers. So long as a court can render a verdict of billions of dollars in ‘loss and punishment’, there is no limit to their power. A city ignores the court? $500, $5,000, $5,000,000 per day isn’t out of the reach of a scribble of a pen.
Oh, and at the same time you’ll fix most of the insurance industry, as you’ll set limits on judgments and thus make it calculable what the risk is. Right now, rates are more oriented towards paying off previous risks.
Newt is trying to point out that the SC does not have the total power of each citizen nor can legislate from the court. Many cases of misconduct from the bench do go unchallenged as some of the justices interpreting the constitution to outside foreign governments. We now live in such a political correct society, not many would like to see a justice up in front of the House/Senate answering questions. It is almost like these justices have a cloak of power/no checks to their authority. Imo.
Thanks for giving Obama bad ideas Newt. He is already looking to attack the SCOTUS if they over-rule Obama-care.
That was a CBS FTN Newt moment. He is just TOO smart for us.
I don’t care WHAT he’s trying to point out. On this score he’s the same as Obama...or worse since Newt proclaims himself to be a Constitutionalist.
we can do it better, smarter, faster...we just need an agency to make it happen...jeeeeez...
Newt was not referring to what Obama is implying. Obama is already meddling (for an outcome) with the court. I think Obama will do whatever it takes to set our nation to a government nanny state and he has some justices who agree with the nanny state vision.
From Newt’s own website:
“This NEWT 2012 campaign document serves as political notice to the public and to the
legislative and judicial branches that a Gingrich administration will reject the theory of judicial
supremacy and will reject passivity as a response to Supreme Court rulings that ignore executive
and legislative concerns and which seek to institute policy changes that more properly rest with
Congress. A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers, by itself
and acting in coordination with the legislative branch, to check and balance any Supreme Court
decision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in any federal judge(s)
whose rulings exhibit a disregard for the Constitution. The historical and constitutional basis for
this position is outlined in this paper.”
http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf
Sounds like he is saying he will be the ultimate decider of what is Constitutional, not the SC.
Get a brain.
It is certainly “controversial” when -0- does it. We don’t want to go there.
There is a difference. BTW, your login name is remarkably similar to those of the Obama Truth Squad?
Get a brain.
Are you blind? or are you too busy backing Newt regardless?
“It is certainly “controversial” when -0- does it. We don’t want to go there.”
The Supreme Court has yet to render its opinion. Obama is trying to influence it before the opinion is given. A far cry from what Newt is talking about.
EXCLUSIVE: “Former Bush Attorneys General Call Gingrich Position on Courts ‘Dangerous’”
“Two former attorneys general under President George W. Bush have found a few things to like in Newt Gingrich’s position paper on reining in the authority of the federal courts, but other parts, they say, are downright disturbing.”
“Some of the ideas are “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle,” said former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.”
So much for any support I had of Gingrich. Sheesh.
I"d prefer popular elections though.
I beg your pardon? You all can't take it can you? Any little suggestion that Newt might be off the mark and you go bonkers.
they said it clear. You seem to start things without knowing much.
???
Well, its quite clear that the Supreme Court has certain limits on its powers, while Congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate what the SC[and inferior courts] judge and rule on.
Just noting your log in name structure. I watch for that one
All of you here !!!!!
Judges are not allowed to legislate from the bench. That is a specific “NO”. When they do so anyway yanking them in front of congress for explanations is a good idea. If they will not rescind their unlawful attempt at legislation congress can then go straight into impeachment mode.
When a judge gives a decision that seems to contravene the constitution I would like a very good explanation and if his reasoning fails to sway me and large numbers of others then I start screaming. Justifiably so.
Under Article I, Congress has the power to impeach and remove any member of the judicial or executive branch. Where does it delegate power to Congress to force judges to appear for questioning? Has this ever been done?
What are you talking about? I’ve had the name here for 12 years -and it’s been perfectly logical.
Who cares about John Kasich? He’s from Ohio...I’m not.
I do think that the SC, over the years, have interpreted themselves broader powers than what the framers intended. They should stick to interpreting the laws as intended by Congress.
All of you here !!!!!
Judges are not allowed to legislate from the bench. That is a specific “NO”. When they do so anyway yanking them in front of congress for explanations is a good idea. If they will not rescind their unlawful attempt at legislation congress can then go straight into impeachment mode.
Newt was definitely the shotgun-idea guy with the buck-shot being all the ideas not knowing where they would hit. He could spit them out.
The amusing thing about watching Newt was how impressed with his brilliance he was. When most people recognized his ideas as crazy he responded with : “ They just don't understand a big idea conservative like me and Reagan” We just were not smart enough to understand him.
He was good at throwing zingers at Obama though, when he was focused.
You watch, if the SC strikes down the mandate, it will be called a controversial ruling. If they uphold it, the media will sing their praises.
I do think that the SC, over the years, have interpreted themselves broader powers than what the framers intended. They should stick to interpreting the laws as intended by Congress.
I agree. Thanks for saying it so well.
That's the problem I have with what Newt said.
Then they will be impeached if you do not want them in front of the others. No wonder we are in this mess-the justices are never held accountable for legislating from the bench. It is happening all over. So, impeach them. Obama is sending signals how he wants his court appointees to go-because this health care is a one track way to a socialist America (they are in a panic)
“That’s the problem I have with what Newt said.”
It is quite obvious that you don’t know what Newt said. You are just flailing away.
So if Obamacare goes down in defeat, it’s okay with you if -0- has the judges pulled in front of Congress for questioning and/or impeachment?
He’s doing more than sending signals, he’s threatening.
Should he become president, Gingrich says he’ll ignore Supreme Court decisions if they don’t square with his interpretation of the Constitution or what he believes the country’s founders intended.
Good post...needs to be said again.
Newt is not referring to that-he is talking about legislative misconduct occurring from the bench. Obama is sending signals to his side on the court. This is entirely different issue. Newt would not be asking Obama to bring in the justices if they do not rule in/against his favor. The liberals see the constitution as a living document; that’s the problem here that some are missing.
-OR- you could have a Civil War!....
I prefer the Civil War.. spanking judges is simply not good enough.. Some States need to band together and restrict the federal givernment..
How to restrict?.. I say escrow all money from the State(s) pending revue.. Cut up the federal credit card.. and force all federal employees within those State(s) to be identified and licensed.. and WATCHED..
Yes, BUT -0- would be willing to use Newt’s reason for his (-0-’s) excuse to 1)ignore the ruling or 2)bring the Supreme Court justices before Congress/impeachment. The reasons might be different, but the end would be the same.
And just what the hell do you think the bamster and congress did in passing bamstercare? Dont blame Newt, the bamster and the congress is way ahead of him.
I don't have a problem with some degree of control on the selection of Surpreme Court Justices. I'd also like to see them limited to how long they serve. Gingsberg should be done and over with for crying outloud! What is she 92?
So I'm glad attention is brought to them now.
I think’s Newt idea is swell and it’s not the same thing at all as Obama’s threats. You just “don’t understand” because you are too stupid or liberal. ;) ;) ;) ;)
bm
bm
How is Newt making Romney earn his way?
- > Not that I’d want the SC to have to explain itself to the Congress, nor the Congress have to explain itself to the SC. Newt goes too far on that.
Then they will be impeached if you do not want them in front of the others. No wonder we are in this mess-the justices are never held accountable for legislating from the bench. It is happening all over. So, impeach them. Obama is sending signals how he wants his court appointees to go-because this health care is a one track way to a socialist America (they are in a panic)
The SC has made rulings the right hates. The SC has made rulings the left hates. If either side, or both sides, begins ignoring SC rulings by finding ways to rationalize that they are legislating from the bench, we will begin going down a very dangerous road. obama showed his contempt for the SC yesterday by claiming they are unelected people thwarting his will and the will of Congress if they rule against him. Sounds to me like he’s setting the groundwork to ignore a ruling that goes against him. (he also showed his contempt of the SC by humiliating them in front of Congress and the people of the US in his SOTU speech) Newt shows his contempt for the SC by saying he will be the final word of what is Constitutional or not,,,not the SC. Or hauling them before Congress to explain their decisions,,,or arresting them if they don’t appear. This is dangerous stuff. Heck, why have a SC at all if the right or left begins ignoring their rulings for whatever reason they can rationalize? We would end up with just two branches of govt.
Doesn’t matter. The Justices can be impeached whatever rationale is used ~ but Congress has to do that.
Are you Newt?
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.