Skip to comments.Conservatives Split on Gingrich's Courts Plan (would ignore SC)
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.”
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 dont 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.
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.