Posted on 12/02/2023 6:05:39 AM PST by MtnClimber
Many conservatives, moderates, and even fair-minded liberals have been startled by the way the DNC is twisting American legal standards to pursue and remove a political rival. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich asserted that “the left will destroy the law in order to destroy Trump.”
As Americans grapple with their own legal system, which appears completely malleable in the hands of special interests, it may be helpful to consider what the political left is really seeking to do, and by what ideology. The Progressive Left embraces a legal ideology foreign to English and American common law and stands in direct opposition to Christian and rabbinic natural law teaching.
It is easy to claim mere “lawlessness,” as if our laws can also be used to correct the left’s radicalism and bring leftists to heel. Some say they are “nihilists” or “radicals” or “Marxists” and will eventually be brought to account through the force of our laws. Some observers feel that a new congressional commission will be formed, hearings held, and such organized crime eventually prosecuted. This may be wishful thinking.
When progressives claim that the U.S. Constitution should be discarded, or that Supreme Court rulings are not law, or that “workarounds” can be found to any rule, or that national security can be openly defied by mass illegal border-crossing, then something other than just ignoring law and order is involved.
I suggest that it is the nature of law itself that is being assaulted — not as a reform effort, or a “transformation,” even, and not through a constitutional convention, or any democratic procedure and process, but as an attack on Western culture and constitutional history. That culture and history is, most of all, centered on individual freedom, written declarations of rights, and the court of law...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
In their effort to destroy Western Civilization, it is my hope that the left ends up destroying themselves.
“Fair-minded liberals”. Is that an oxymoron?
Perhaps big L Vs little l, but those I could probably count on one hand, and even then the liberty part is pretty compartmentalized
Gingrich: Send U.S. Marshals To Arrest Uncooperative Judges
Washington Post ^ | December 18, 2011 | Matt DeLong
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/gingrich-send-us-marshals-to-arrest-uncooperative-judges/2011/12/18/gIQAlYUg2O_blog.html
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2822183/posts
Gingrich: Send U.S. Marshals To Arrest Uncooperative Judges By Matt DeLong
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich showed no sign Sunday of letting up on his assault on “activist” federal judges. During an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Gingrich suggested the president could send federal law enforcement authorities to arrest judges who make controversial rulings in order to compel them to justify their decisions before congressional hearings.
When asked by host Bob Schieffer how he would force federal judges to comply with congressional subpoenas, Gingrich said he would send the U.S. Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to arrest the judges and force them to testify.
Gingrich, who in recent weeks has surged to the front of the pack in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has come under fire from the left and the right for his attacks on the federal judiciary. Michael Mukasey, former attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, said some of Gingrich’s proposals were “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle.”
The thought of having to obey the law is an affront to their precious self-esteem. Under the law, we’re all equals but other than that; if I’m three times their age, well that’s another story.
Traditional America is a singularly unique phenomenon in terms of history, culture, civilization, society and governance. It has been Reagan's "city upon a hill."
But what many forget about this analogy is that a city upon a hill sits vulnerable from attack on all sides and there are many at the base of the hill who covet or hate that which they see sitting on the high ground.
There are many who would love to see traditional America destroyed, from ChiComs, globalists, radical muslims, progressives, etc. They may have competing interests, but they have at least one common goal, and as such, we are under attack from all sides, and sadly, even from within.
We can hope that as the multitude of factions near the hilltop, they may begin fighting with one another, but if we don't deal with the internal threats, the external forces will only be fighting each other the way vultures fight over the scraps of a rotting carcass.
The significant fact the left doesn’t seem to grasp is that when there is no law, then there is no law.
Thus, there is no law restraining those who naturally seek to get rid of the pesky progressives. Since there is no law, they can have at it and exterminate the progressive pain in the ass
What the left is doing is not complicated, it’s textbook prosecution by whimsy based on politics. Once a prosecution is commenced, all procedural safeguards are disposed of, including disclosures of evidence, presumptions of innocence and rights of the accused. Not even an appearance of fairness is observed. Every authoritarian regime does it. Watch the old films of how Roland Freisler ran his courtroom.
Gingrich: Congress can send Capitol Police to arrest rogue judges
The Hill ^ | December 18, 2011 | Alexander Boltonhttp://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/200149-gingrich-congress-can-send-capitol-police-marshals-to-arrest-judges
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2822067/posts
GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich said Congress has the power to dispatch the Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to apprehend a federal judge who renders a decision lawmakers broadly oppose... Gingrich made his remarks during a Sunday appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” where he defended his position that the president has the power to eliminate federal courts to disempower judges who hand down decisions out of step with the rest of the nation...
Impeachments of Federal Officials
Source: Congressional Directory
The procedure for the impeachment of federal officials is detailed in Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution. The Senate has sat as a court of impeachment in the following cases:
* William Blount, senator from Tennessee; charges dismissed for want of jurisdiction, Jan. 14, 1799.
* John Pickering, judge of the U.S. District Court for New Hampshire; removed from office March 12, 1804.
* Samuel Chase, associate justice of the Supreme Court; acquitted March 1, 1805.
* James H. Peck, judge of the U.S. District Court for Missouri; acquitted Jan. 31, 1831.
* West H. Humphreys, judge of the U.S. District Court for the middle, eastern, and western districts of Tennessee; removed from office June 26, 1862.
* Andrew Johnson, president of the United States; acquitted May 26, 1868.
* William W. Belknap, secretary of war; acquitted Aug. 1, 1876.
* Charles Swayne, judge of the U.S. District Court for the northern district of Florida; acquitted Feb. 27, 1905.
* Robert W. Archbald, associate judge, U.S. Commerce Court; removed Jan. 13, 1913.
* George W. English, judge of the U.S. District Court for eastern district of Illinois; resigned Nov. 4, 1926; proceedings dismissed.
* Harold Louderback, judge of the U.S. District Court for the northern district of California; acquitted May 24, 1933.
* Halsted L. Ritter, judge of the U.S. District Court for the southern district of Florida; removed from office April 17, 1936.
* Harry E. Claiborne, judge of the U.S. District Court for the district of Nevada; removed from office Oct. 9, 1986.
* Alcee L. Hastings, judge of the U.S. District Court for the southern district of Florida; removed from office Oct. 20, 1989.
* Walter L. Nixon, judge of the Southern District Court for Mississippi; removed from office Nov. 3, 1989.
* William J. Clinton, president of the United States; acquitted Feb. 12, 1999.
* G. Thomas Porteous Jr., judge of the U.S. District Court in Louisiana removed from office Dec. 9, 2010.
Have to disagree a bit- they love the law... when applied to everyone else but them. And because they control the law, cops, courts, fbi, msm etc etc etc, they get to do just that- require conservatives to obey while the left ignore the law
THe left use the law as a weapon against honest law abiding citizens- they twist and manipulate the law tO mean whatever they want it to mean, and their version becomes “the new truth” that conservatives must obey or else
Heck, we have peaceful proestors hunted down relentlessly and thrown.into solitary confinement for years because the left have so bastardized the law to fit their false narratives
The left are engaged in a hostile and oftentimes violent overthrow/takeover of th3 nation and they are using the law as their weapon of choice.
not no law
selective enforcement of the law
What an obtuse set of observations. The progressive goal is more fundamental than mere law; it is control of human behavior.
The LEFT would get a thrill by ruling over the ashes of a once great nation. As long as THEY RULE!
The left hates US law because it is enshrined in the US Constitution, a founding instrument designed to protect the people from an oppressive government.
40 years ago I attended a lecture by two Law professors. The topic: Their pursuit of “legal nihilism”.
They believe all legal precedent is meaningless and designed to preserve the current order of racism, sexism, etc.
Therefore they intended (and succeeded) to use the legal system as a tool to bring about their leftist goals.
Obama criticized the Constitution, calling it a “charter of negative liberties”. Seems he was opposed to the limitations on federal power written into the Bill of Rights; “Congress shall make no law...” statements which got him all wee-wee’d up.
There has been a lot said about “American exceptionalism”. I think the basis for America’s exceptional quality lies in the Supreme Law of the Land imposing limitations on government power from the nation’s very beginning.
Leftists don’t like this. “Do as thou wilt” and “the end justifies the means” is more their style. They yearn to be benevolent dictators, benevolent in their own fantasies but dictators in reality. And dictators make up their own rules, and they frequently kill vast numbers of their own people.
.
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.