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 ...
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. ;) ;) ;) ;)
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?
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.