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 ...
I agree with Newt all the way.
Too many of you folks did not understand the article and or because you were too willing to smear Newt without really reading/understanding the post.
Further, don’t you remember when crooked Clinton took charge he fired many, many judges and put his own left crooks on the bench?
Idiot Georgie had the opportunity to do the same to reverse the situation, but he must have agreed with his adopted brother Clinton and his (Georgies) idiot mental mentor RINO Rove.
Not until a past few months ago, I hadnt realized that Ms. Babs Bush was such a wacko job. A few days ago Bush 41 was interviewed, but she did most of the yammering for him. She even sounded bitter because they (she) werent getting their way because Romney was still not yet #1.
You go, Newt.
Which begs the question, if a packed court declares the unconstitutional to be constitutional (or the reverse), what do you do about it?
Having to go before Congress to explain it under questioning might help to minimize that sort of behavior. Their written opinions and dissents are not always clear to those without a law degree.
People understood the article just fine. Newt’s idea is okay, but like the Patriot Act which started out sounding like a good idea, Newt’s original thought could go astray under the ruling hand a of Liberal.
I’m all for closing down/reworking the Three Ring Circus of the Ninth Circuit.
Click here for the white paper on Combating Judicial Activism -
The revolutionary idea contained in the Declaration of Independence is that certain fundamental human rights, including the right to life, are gifts from God and cannot be given nor taken away by government. Yet, secular radicals are trying to remove our Creator the source of our rights from public life. Newt has an aggressive strategy to defend life and religious liberty in America.
Principles to protect life and religious liberty
* Nominate conservative judges who are committed to upholding Constitutional limited government and understand that the role of the judges is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.
* Combat judicial activism by utilizing checks on judicial power Constitutionally available to the elected branches of government. (Read an extended white paper on restoring the proper role of the judicial branch here.)
* End taxpayer subsidies for abortion by repealing Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood, and reinstating the Mexico City Policy which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortions overseas.
* Protect religious expression in the public square such as crosses, crèches and menorahs.
* Protect healthcare workers right to conscience by making sure they are not forced to participate in or refer procedures such as abortion.
* Protect the rights of home-schooled children by ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student.
* Protect the rights of teachers to use historical examples involving religion in their classroom. Nor should they be discouraged from answering questions about religion or discussing it objectively in the classroom.
* Protect the frail, infirm and the elderly from the states arbitrary decision to terminate life.
Grow a heart.
I agree with Newt all the way.