Newt’s war on the courts

posted at 5:00 pm on December 18, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Given Newt Gingrich’s rather curious comments on the judicial branch of the federal government during last week’s GOP debate in Iowa, and the fact that he has doubled – if not tripled – down on them since then, two serious questions remain. While they draw raucous applause from conservative debate crowds, are these even remotely viable proposals and, perhaps more to the point, is he even serious?

As to the first matter, there’s more than ample evidence that these latest products rolling off the production line at the idea factory that is Newt Gingrich may have skipped over the Quality Control station checkpoint. Should federal judges not serve for life? Should they be subpoenaed to explain their less than satisfactory decisions to Congress? Can the president simply ignore their decisions if he/she finds them unacceptable? To get the full history of these suggestions – which are actually far from new – attorney Doug Mataconis provides an extensive tutorial. As usual, it’s fairly long with a lot of material to go over, but you’ll find the history of court cases and historical vignettes which provide the backdrop to where we stand today. But for a shorter summary, Gerald Shargel dots the i’s and crosses the t’s.

What Gingrich ignored last night, and what was only noted briefly by Ron Paul, is that under Article III of the Constitution, federal judges are appointed for life. Only personal misconduct can result in impeachment and removal. A judge may not be removed because of decisions with which Republicans disagree. Gingrich should be smart enough to know that subpoenaing judges is neither legal nor workable. But this historian also knows that the Army-McCarthy hearings made for good television.

Doug himself concludes with some of the weightier consequences.

In his position paper, Gingrich engages in a wholesale attack on the structure of American government as established in the Constitution, and as it has existed for the past two centuries, proposing to replace it with a system where majorities are given even more control over the levers of state while minorities are increasingly denied access to the one branch of government most likely to protect them from a rapacious and oppressive majority. It is an attack on the Constitution, on the Rule Of Law, and on individual liberty. The fact that it received so many cheers last night is very disturbing.

There’s more to it than that, though. One of the classic episodes from American history where this question arose early on was the 1832 SCOTUS decision in Worcester v. Georgia, where the high court held that individual states didn’t have the right to seize Native American lands. Andrew Jackson, already engaged in a process of effectively purging the indigenous tribes from Georgia and Florida was incensed beyond consolation. Jackson is recorded as responding by saying, “Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

It’s easy to write this off as a dusty trivia question from the early 19th century without pausing to consider just how terrifying that moment truly was. It wound up passing, but that period of executive revolt raised a question which has come up many times in our nation’s history during times of constitutional crisis. The Executive branch controls not only the military, but the civilian department responsible for law enforcement. What becomes of the courts if they can find no agent to enforce their decrees? Are they to pack up their black robes in hobo bindles and flee to Canada? At that point you may as well take down the tents, dim the lights and pack it in because the Great American Experiment has ended.

But none of this may wind up mattering very much in the case of Newt Gingrich, which brings us to the second question posed above. Is he really serious about this? To answer that one, I find myself reminded not of some historical figure from the early days of the nation, but the modern day master of bombast, Rush Limbaugh.

Some years ago, Ed Morrissey was discussing Rush with me and he provided a fairly lucid explanation for the man’s behavior. The vast majority of the time, he told me, Rush is pretty much just this guy who covers and comments on current events, politics and government news from a very conservative perspective. Sure, there’s the occasional story which enrages him and gets him shouting, but it’s nothing really out of line. But every once in a while he lets slip with something that gets the liberal blogosphere and the MSM setting their hair on fire. Depending on the comment, his critics will accuse him of being a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, or whatever the flavor of the week may be. But Rush always manages to somehow tiptoe the line so that it’s more of a dog whistle than an actual bark.

So does this mean that, deep down, Limbaugh is a racist or whatever? The answer is probably no, because what Rush is – first and foremost – is a showman and a businessman who knows that controversy is good, attracts more listeners and gets people talking about him. The same can be said for politicians trying to attract the high “ratings” of the voting public. As Shargel notes above, the Army-McCarthy hearings made for good television.

Still, as we find in a more recent update, Newt was back out on the trail today doing the Sunday morning shows and pitching the same ideas. And he manages to do it with a straight face.

Newt is hardly a stupid man, and he’s probably forgotten more American History than most of us will ever learn. He doubtless has not lost track of Article III. The more likely explanation is that this is something which was a designed play to create precisely this type of outraged conversation and earned media which keeps his name in the headlines without spending a dime of campaign money. And it doesn’t hurt that his most conservative primary voters and Tea Party enthusiasts, long frustrated with various decisions by the Supreme Court, eat it up with a spoon.

If Newt wins the nomination – and eventually the presidency – I expect this particular issue will be one that fades away down the memory hole as he becomes more busy with real world affairs. So maybe it was a crazy idea… crazy like a fox.

UPDATE: Karl adds his own thoughts on this subject in the Green Room.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Ah, but you’re missing the entire, underlying point – guess who decides if disputed subpoenas are “lawful” or not?

whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 6:42 PM

The Courts. And who gets to decide whether the judges on the courts get to remain in those positions? The Congress. I believe that’s exactly the point I made. Care to stop going in circles?

Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Absolutely astounding.

VorDaj on December 18, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Yes you are.

platypus on December 18, 2011 at 6:46 PM

So you’re saying that they should act as a kind of Supreme Court of Candidates and try to prevent the voters from expressing their will. I understand now why you come down on the side of this that you do.

29Victor on December 18, 2011 at 6:38 PM

You do not understand at all. You are totally confused.

VorDaj on December 18, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Is that you, Senator Franken?

platypus on December 18, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Nope. I’m not as polite, considerate, and thoughtful as Franken. =P

Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 6:47 PM

At least he has the courage to publicly say he will confront radical judges.

Yeah, it takes a lot of courage to say something that probably a clear majority of Republican primary voters agree with. I love how the conservative definition of “courage” so frequently intersects with the dictionary definition of “pandering”.

theodore on December 18, 2011 at 6:48 PM

So you’re saying that they should act as a kind of Supreme Court of Candidates and try to prevent the voters from expressing their will. I understand now why you come down on the side of this that you do.

29Victor on December 18, 2011 at 6:38 PM

No one would be preventing the voters from anything. They could still vote the way they want. There is no prevention there. Yours was not even a nice try.

VorDaj on December 18, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Newt’s right! Think how much better off we would all be if Obama, Pelosi and Reid had been able to haul Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy to Capitol Hill to harass them in televised hearings about their decisions on gun rights (DC v. Heller) and free speech (Citizens United). Newt Gingrich, the true conservative in the race! Newt Gingrich, conservatism works in mysterious ways!

Ala Pundit on December 18, 2011 at 6:37 PM

You mean like obama does during the State of the Union.

And I guess, if they were called to testify about a ruling, when they were finished talking, they could get up and walk right back to the Supreme Court. Since it’s just a hearing, and they weren’t under arrest, because they obeyed the subpoena.

I just don’t fear this thing. By a large majority, most of the decision that are constitutional are popular decisions. Most of the decision these courts hand down that are grossly unpopular are radical and truly unconstitutional.
But I will say this, impeaching judges would be my first choice.

JellyToast on December 18, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Nope. I’m not as polite, considerate, and thoughtful as Franken. =P

Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Wow. I don’t think I can wrap my arms around that whopper.

platypus on December 18, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Yeah, it takes a lot of courage to say something that probably a clear majority of Republican primary voters agree with. I love how the conservative definition of “courage” so frequently intersects with the dictionary definition of “pandering”.

theodore on December 18, 2011 at 6:48 PM

I understand your point, theodore, but I think that commenter was correct. Most candidates will say something sufficiently vague that gives voters the impression of being willing to do something without ever actually saying it. This puts Gingrich “on the hook” so to speak, and means that he will have to explain himself (quite defensibly I think) in interviews. I’d say that takes it out of the realm of being only “pandering.”

Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Wow. I don’t think I can wrap my arms around that whopper.

platypus on December 18, 2011 at 6:50 PM

LOL!

Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 6:53 PM

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Gingrich IS the most liberal of the candidates so far. I mean seriously, the government already has too much power, and he’s advocating effectively de-clawing one of the major checks on executive and congressional power!?

Let me put it to you this way. What if Obama had the power to subpena federal judges, and arrest them for failing to comply? Each and every single judge that ruled against Obamacare so far, would be subpenaed, constantly. Obama and his lackeys would use this power to harass judges whom he opposes, if only to make other judges more reluctant to rule against him.

Regardless of whether or not that would be a successful tactic or not, that would still be deplorable, and long term it’d have a disastrous consequence on freedom in America.

We need MORE checks and balances on the power of the federal government, not LESS. Does the court system in America need reforming, yes. It needs stuff liked fixed terms for federal judges amongst other things. Regardless of how the court operates however, the only way to have judges that strictly interpret the constitution, is to have an active well educated electorate that understands the issues and elects conservative or moderate representatives.

Any attempt to fix this problem, through the power of greater government, will only backfire and make this problem worse. The fact that Gingrich’s instincts lay in this direction, and that he’s stubborn enough to double down on it, is very very troubling.

WolvenOne on December 18, 2011 at 6:56 PM

the true solution is to simply cultivate a moral, informed, and honest citizenry.

scotash on December 18, 2011 at 6:41 PM

You hit the nail on the head.

This scares some people so much because I really believe, that many conservatives don’t want to stay involved. I think a lot of conservatives want a conservative President they can trust and is so prefect in every way that, once elected, they can go back to fishing, sleeping and watching Dancing with the Stars because they’ve got their conservative king installed for 4 more years and they know he’s taking care of things.

It’s a radical idea. That the people’s representatives should be allowed to question activist judges.

JellyToast on December 18, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Mark my words: Perry will be ahead of Gingrich in Iowa polls within two weeks.

The anyone-but-Romney folks are running around like a bunch of crazy people in a smoke-filled room with the fire alarm ringing in the background, desperately looking for the door. I really hope there *is* a door. It’s pure Brownian Motion.

Makes me sick to think that I am one of them.

Captain Obvious on December 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM

I’m 100 times more afraid of Mitt Romney than Newt Gingrich. Romney is an insecure and complaisant man who operates according to how he needs to be seen rather from some inner core of conviction. In my experience, such men cause far more trouble in the world. He overcompensates by assuming qualities of caution and command and stability (notice his ridiculous captain-of-the-ship postures in the debates) but in fact he is far less stable, far more prone to be thrown off his gyros, than a deeply confident man like Gingrich, or Perry, or Santorum.

Romney has also never grown past the father-pleasing or father-proving stage. He’s running for president in part to please and prove himself to his father. He’s the overweening “good son.” Very problematic stuff.

rrpjr on December 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM

I think we need to declare war on Newt. Newt is a progressive liberal parading around as a conservative.

His war on the courts is another prime example of Newt not being electable in the general.

Let us nominate a true proven consistent conservative with the experience and a conservative record: Rick Perry 2012

bzip on December 18, 2011 at 7:00 PM

What if Obama had the power to subpena federal judges, and arrest them for failing to comply?

This is about the Congress issuing subpoenas to federal judges to testify before their committees, not the President. DOJ can’t impeach, either. It can only bring criminal charges.

spiritof61 on December 18, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Ala Pundit on December 18, 2011 at 6:37 PM

We’ll excuse your ignorance.

Key West Reader on December 18, 2011 at 7:00 PM

There are practical and institutional restraints which already serve to keep federal judges in line.

Oh really? Then how is it that the Supreme Court of the United States has on several occasions, rendered a decision that explicitly admitted that the Constitution was being violated, but that it was Ok to let it pass because the Federal Government or some other authority had a “Compelling Interest” in some outcome that the court deemed “Just”.
Grutter v. Bollinger et al (No. 02-241 of 6/23/03)comes to mind but you can probably cite a few more.
Does the court’s self proclaimed power to be the sole interpreter of the Constitution also imply its similarly claimed power to ignore the Constitution when it chooses as well? How far does this convenience go?

Lew on December 18, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Romney is an insecure and complaisant man
rrpjr on December 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Punchenko? Oh, Punchenko?

spiritof61 on December 18, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Ah, but you’re missing the entire, underlying point – guess who decides if disputed subpoenas are “lawful” or not?
whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 6:42 PM

The Courts. And who gets to decide whether the judges on the courts get to remain in those positions? The Congress. I believe that’s exactly the point I made. Care to stop going in circles?
Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 6:46 PM

As I said, it’s nothing but a total fantasy that you’ll see the actual circle Newt proposes that we’re talking about here – a judicial inquisition merry go round. And the fun would have to be suspended until (& then be put off permanently when) it reaches the SC and is promptly dismissed. Congress is bound by court order all the way through. Checkmate.

whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 7:03 PM

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Gingrich IS the most liberal of the candidates so far. I mean seriously, the government already has too much power, and he’s advocating effectively de-clawing one of the major checks on executive and congressional power!?

Actually, he’s advocating for an additional check on judicial power.

Let me put it to you this way. What if Obama had the power to subpena federal judges, and arrest them for failing to comply?

But the President doesn’t have that power. The Congress does.

Each and every single judge that ruled against Obamacare so far, would be subpenaed, constantly.

And the Democrats’ re-elect numbers would drop precipitously for their abuse of power — much like what happened when they passed Obamacare itself.

Obama and his lackeys would use this power to harass judges whom he opposes, if only to make other judges more reluctant to rule against him.

Until those people got voted out of power. And if they didn’t get voted out of power, then they would be representative of the people.

Regardless of whether or not that would be a successful tactic or not, that would still be deplorable, and long term it’d have a disastrous consequence on freedom in America.

I doubt that very much.

We need MORE checks and balances on the power of the federal government, not LESS.

And you’d be getting more. The one branch that operates essentially unchecked would finally be checked.

Does the court system in America need reforming, yes. It needs stuff liked fixed terms for federal judges amongst other things. Regardless of how the court operates however, the only way to have judges that strictly interpret the constitution, is to have an active well educated electorate that understands the issues and elects conservative or moderate representatives.

WolvenOne on December 18, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Why moderates? Conservatives alone would do quite nicely.

Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Mark my words: Perry will be ahead of Gingrich in Iowa polls within two weeks.

gingrich is going to be LAST in iowa

gerrym51 on December 18, 2011 at 7:04 PM

God help us if Gingrich is the nominee.

celticdefender on December 18, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Only 10 factors, I can think of 1.6 million factors plus additional dozen or so more why Newt should never even be near the white house. Ranging from ethic violations when he was speaker of the house, to his own party kicking him out, to his mandates of carbon caps, healthcare mandates, global warming stand, his lobbyist ties.
Newt is parading around as a conservative much like Romney when both are progressive liberals.

We want a proven conservative with governing experience who can lead this country out of the disaster Obama has out us in.

Rick Perry 2012

bzip on December 18, 2011 at 7:04 PM

If we don’t get mad a Newt for it, we can’t get mad at Obama for it.

Ruiner on December 18, 2011 at 7:05 PM

As I said, it’s nothing but a total fantasy that you’ll see the actual circle Newt proposes that we’re talking about here – a judicial inquisition merry go round. And the fun would have to be suspended until (& then be put off permanently when) it reaches the SC and is promptly dismissed. Congress is bound by court order all the way through. Checkmate.

whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 7:03 PM

And again, nothing except inaction makes even the Supreme Court unchecked. If the judiciary openly thumbs their nose at their legal duties, public opinion also will rally against them. Those two factors will make it quite politically feasible to toss them.

Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Excellent walk-through. What Gingrich is talking about is the restoration of correct balance of power through the system.

rrpjr on December 18, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Why is it a Federal judge can legislate from the bench? Just who elected this person? Why can one person or several rule that private property can be seized for the benefit of another private party, and we the people have no recourse? Appointment for life sounds good on the surface but in reality personal agendas take over. Judges should be appointed for 5 years and then stand for reappointment. That way if we get a loony tune he can be removed without major trouble. A local judge stands for reelection why not a fed judge?

jjthetraveler on December 18, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Mark my words: Perry will be ahead of Gingrich in Iowa polls within two weeks.

gingrich is going to be LAST in iowa
gerrym51 on December 18, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Of course, that could be Perry 6%, Newt 5%.

whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 7:08 PM

we might like a Republican calling the judges “activist” and using the police force to compel them to “arrest” judges…..but….

……..what would we think if Obama tried this?

……Newt is wrong on this one.

NO NEWT
NO MITT
NO MORE Progressive GOP nominees (stop the trend since 1988).

PappyD61 on December 18, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Romney is an insecure and complaisant man
rrpjr on December 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM

HOW DARE YOU! HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT!

Mitt Romney is a competent manager with the meek and charming demeanor of a George McFly… before Marty altered the future, of course.

The post-altered future George McFly — the bombastic and assertive one that knocked out Biff — would be totally unelectable and would lose in a landslide to President Obama. Yeah, that would be bad and stuff. Why this turned into a movie reference was for you own benefit, Stalinist!

Romney ’12

Punchenko on December 18, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Newt is a big idea man. Most of his ideas have no basis in reality, but you see Newt is like Churchill, an unpredictable, unconstrained guy needed to take this country out of the hole it is in. Don’t worry about how it will happen, just bet on the out-of-control Progressive Newt an somehow it will all work out.

Igor R. on December 18, 2011 at 7:14 PM

My man Mitt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e18eE33juE8

He’s going to be a great President! You’ll see!

Romney ’12

Punchenko on December 18, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Not one activist judge on the bench, Not. One.

Speakup on December 18, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Punchenko on December 18, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Punchenko, I’m beginning to think your enjoying this-devils advocate?

gerrym51 on December 18, 2011 at 7:16 PM

As I said, it’s nothing but a total fantasy that you’ll see the actual circle Newt proposes that we’re talking about here – a judicial inquisition merry go round. And the fun would have to be suspended until (& then be put off permanently when) it reaches the SC and is promptly dismissed. Congress is bound by court order all the way through. Checkmate.
whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 7:03 PM

And again, nothing except inaction makes even the Supreme Court unchecked. If the judiciary openly thumbs their nose at their legal duties, public opinion also will rally against them. Those two factors will make it quite politically feasible to toss them.
Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 7:06 PM

I’m sorry, but it’s just a patently goofy plan: We replace their guys with our guys via some bizarre scheme that won’t even pass legal muster from the git-go.
It’s a actually a good thing it stands no chance – contrary to your belief, I don’t believe people are all that enamored of establishing a never-ending Beer Hall Putsch the likes of which would make citizens of even the worst banana republic hellhole on earth shudder.

whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 7:18 PM

OT: Whoa. If Tebow had a 4th Quarter like this on any other day, he would be golden. But New England’s offense is 10 ft. tall and bulletproof!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 18, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Punchenko, I’m beginning to think your enjoying this-devils advocate?

gerrym51 on December 18, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Shill for Ron Paul elsewhere! I will not have you knock Mitt Romney by calling me, his biggest supporter, a devil!

I and I alone will call the conservatives home and make Mitt Romney the 45th President of the United States. Then he will reward me for my loyalty with a cushy White House job.

Romney ’12

Punchenko on December 18, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Punchenko, I’m beginning to think your enjoying this-devils advocate?

gerrym51 on December 18, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Nah. I’m not getting that at all, gerry.

Kataklysmic on December 18, 2011 at 7:22 PM

a never-ending Beer Hall Putsch the likes of which would make citizens of even the worst banana republic hellhole on earth shudder.

whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Hyperbole much?

spiritof61 on December 18, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Isn’t it more prudent to take what he says at face value? Shouldn’t we always take radical statements seriously, rather than dismiss them as campaign rhetoric? Newt thinks of himself much in the way Obama thinks of himself–grandiosely. I wouldn’t put it past him to aggressively go after the courts or to dream up multiple ways to use the power of government to curtail our liberties in the name of some imagined national good.

writeblock on December 18, 2011 at 7:24 PM

this will resonate with the base but not in the general liberal4life on December 18, 2011 at 5:02 PM

In the horrific event this narcissist windbag is the nominee this will resonate with Independents. There’s very little about Gingrich which is conservative.

Conservatives are by nature reticent about proposing radical changes. Have we learned nothing in the last 3 years?

Basilsbest on December 18, 2011 at 7:24 PM

NEWT GINGRICH STARTED CONSERVATISM OMG if he says we should do away with judges LETS BE DONE WITH THEM.

Checks and balances are for LIBERALS AND COMMIES.

Ruiner on December 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM

whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 7:18 PM

From a purely political perspective, whoever has been waiting around for Newt to make his big, insane, disqualifying error need look no further. There is no chance that Americans will elect a man who declares such monstrously dangerous intentions.

If it weren’t this, he would have come up with some other outrageous way to send sensible people running away in horror, but this will do nicely. He’s toast even if he clams up and pretends he’s Rewt Reagrich from here on out.

MJBrutus on December 18, 2011 at 7:26 PM

I don’t believe people are all that enamored of establishing a never-ending Beer Hall Putsch the likes of which would make citizens of even the worst banana republic hellhole on earth shudder.

whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 7:18 PM

The worst of banana republic hellholes would shudder? I guess that’s what in the end this is really about for you. It’s not that subpoenas are an unrealistic option, or that impeachment is unfeasible. It’s that you steadfastly oppose the ideas. That’s fine. You’re entitled to your own opinions.

Ultimately you believe that we need an aristocracy with some expert or technocrat to rule us. I am one of the least libertarian people you will find, but even I believe more in the ability of people to rule themselves, and to hold their elected representatives accountable for their conduct.

Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Jackson is recorded as responding by saying, “Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

Jazz, why repeat falsehoods? The Speakers comments are fair game without this historical fiction. The Court did not require the executive branch to enforce the decision. So it didn’t.

Also, you tell me what a domestic dependent nation is.

I’ll tell you: a badly reasoned decision by Marshall.

AshleyTKing on December 18, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Here’s the key — it’s always two out of three. If the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. If the congress and the court say the president is wrong, in the end the president would lose. And if the president and the court agreed, the congress loses. The founding fathers designed the constitution very specifically in a Montesquieu spirit of the laws to have a balance of power not to have a dictatorship by any one of the three branches. – Newt Gingrich, Face The Nation

MACKDADDY on December 18, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Kataklysmic on December 18, 2011 at 7:22 PM

you know him much better than me. is he really a Romney supporter.
I seem to get mixed signals.

gerrym51 on December 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM

See Newt’s star fall from the sky
Every conservative dream he spun was a lie
Just see how trusting him has repaid you
If you turn, again he will betray you
Here’s the one bitter lesson of his history
His soul should no longer be a mystery
His many words and faces change
What you thought you knew grows ever more strange
And he has so many faces
His real identity erases
With all those lies
Dancing in his eyes!
Betray him first
And the game’s reversed!

PercyB on December 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Shill for Ron Paul elsewhere! I will not have you knock Mitt Romney by calling me, his biggest supporter, a devil!

Ron Paul is nuts

gerrym51 on December 18, 2011 at 7:30 PM

I and I alone will call the conservatives home and make Mitt Romney the 45th President of the United States. Then he will reward me for my loyalty with a cushy White House job.

Secretary of Defense

gerrym51 on December 18, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Actually, he’s advocating for an additional check on judicial power.

On the federal level, the judicial branch exists primarily to clarify issues of law, constitutionality, and to function as a check on the executive and legislative branches on the federal government. Any power over the judicial branch by the federal and executive branches, would inherently compromise the judicial branches ability to act as a check on other branches.

While I do agree that there should be some sort of check on judges that sort of power is too great for either the executive or legislative branch to have. These two branches of government have too much power as is, they do not need another one.

But the President doesn’t have that power. The Congress does.

To be fair, that is what Gingrich is advocating, but practically speaking collusion between the executive and legislative branch would effectively put this power in the presidents hands. It’s very rare for the executive branch to be controlled by one party and for the house and senate to be controlled by the other. If the party that controls the executive branch has sufficient power in the congress, they will effectively be able to utilize such a power by proxy.

And the Democrats’ re-elect numbers would drop precipitously for their abuse of power — much like what happened when they passed Obamacare itself.

History suggests this isn’t inherently the case. The last president to launch a similar assault on the judiciary was FDR, and he easily won re-election afterward. The net effect of this was the re-definition of the commerce clause, which to this day is used as justification for numerous programs and laws which are of dubious constitutionality to say the very least.

Seeing as what happened the last time a successful attack was launched against the judiciary, I’m not inclined to open the way for additional attacks.

And you’d be getting more. The one branch that operates essentially unchecked would finally be checked.

Yes, but its the branch of the government that has the least amount of power to begin with. And as I’ve already pointed out numerous times already, this sort of check would essentially hand more power to the executive and legislative branches, which already have ample powers.

Why moderates? Conservatives alone would do quite nicely.

Because its unrealistic to expect that conservatives will ever have effective control of all three branches of government for any sizable period of time. Even if we had a super majority and controlled the executive branch, we’d still have to share power with some moderates, and it’d unlikely such a situation would persist in any case.

While I prefer conservatives, moderates are acceptable most of the time, particularly with they are at least slightly right of center. Additionally, conservative-moderate alliances have worked in the past, and have demonstrated at least some staying-power.

WolvenOne on December 18, 2011 at 7:35 PM

He doubtless has not lost track of Article III.

So I guess freddie mac didn’t get their money’s worth either.

rubberneck on December 18, 2011 at 7:35 PM

OT: Whoa. If Tebow had a 4th Quarter like this on any other day, he would be golden. But New England’s offense is 10 ft. tall and bulletproof!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 18, 2011 at 7:21 PM

——————————————————————-

Detroit Lions just Tebowed Oakland.

KOOLAID2 on December 18, 2011 at 7:35 PM

you know him much better than me. is he really a Romney supporter.
I seem to get mixed signals.

gerrym51 on December 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM

gerry you are a lot of fun. I almost want to support Mitt just so I can be on your team.

Punchenko is for Newt.

Kataklysmic on December 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Every other one of the candidates for the Republican nomination should, in unison, be saying that Gingrich has got to go.

VorDaj on December 18, 2011 at 6:36 PM

So you’re saying that they should act as a kind of Supreme Court of Candidates and try to prevent the voters from expressing their will. I understand now why you come down on the side of this that you do.

29Victor on December 18, 2011 at 6:38 PM

No one would be preventing the voters from anything. They could still vote the way they want. There is no prevention there. Yours was not even a nice try.

VorDaj on December 18, 2011 at 6:48 PM

I like how you didn’t quote the post that I refuted. You didn’t say that the other candidates should tell people not to vote for Newt – which they are already doing, or simultaneously renounce this idea – which they still might, or try to distance the GOP from his statement.

You said that they should be “saying that Gingrich has got to go.” As in pressuring him to drop out of the race, as in the people shouldn’t even get a chance to decide who they want. Why? Because the people can’t be trusted to make up their own minds about what Gingrich says? The candidates should attempt to force him out?

29Victor on December 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Kataklysmic on December 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Holy crap I can’t believe that some people haven’t caught on to the fact that he’s faking yet.

Strangely they do always seem to be Romney supporters….

29Victor on December 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Ron Paul is nuts

gerrym51 on December 18, 2011 at 7:30 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don’t mind him on domestic issues…but I have been running into his ‘followers’ and your description there just doesn’t apply to only Ron Paul.

KOOLAID2 on December 18, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Who would decide when the Supreme Court had sufficiently explained their decisions? Senate Majority Leader? Speaker of the House? Look at how much time Alberto Gonzales spent and Eric Holder has spent testifying before Congress. If Democratic Congress got nervous about an upcoming case eg Obamcare could they keep the Supreme Court holed up on Capitol Hill to stall them? Could the Dems spend a day or even a week smearing Clarence Thomas and talking up Ginny’s ties to groups that oppose Obamacare as reasons he should recuse himself? Enough good men have been humiliated in confirmation hearings, do we want to make their entire tenure on the Court subject to those same witch hunts? How many strong conservatives might decline an appointment out of concern for the enormous pressure such hearings could put on them and their families? Look at how strongly the Court has opposed televised hearings. Why wouldn’t they be equally apprehensive about the prospect of limitless televised hearings before Congress? Who would set and enforce guidelines for length and subject matter of Congressional hearings? In Harry and Nancy we trust? Yes, we might take the House and Senate in 2013 but it is foolish to expect a Republicam Congress from now until the end of time.

Ala Pundit on December 18, 2011 at 7:42 PM

See Newt’s star fall from the sky
Every conservative dream he spun was a lie
Just see how trusting him has repaid you
If you turn, again he will betray you
Here’s the one bitter lesson of his history
His soul should no longer be a mystery
His many words and faces change
What you thought you knew grows ever more strange
And he has so many faces
His real identity erases
With all those lies
Dancing in his eyes!
Betray him first
And the game’s reversed!

PercyB on December 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM

*Clap, clapclap clap etc etc*

That’s a really good one.

WolvenOne on December 18, 2011 at 7:42 PM

*iphone

Ala Pundit on December 18, 2011 at 7:43 PM

I’m 100 times more afraid of Mitt Romney than Newt Gingrich. Romney is an insecure and complaisant man who operates according to how he needs to be seen rather from some inner core of conviction. In my experience, such men cause far more trouble in the world. He overcompensates by assuming qualities of caution and command and stability (notice his ridiculous captain-of-the-ship postures in the debates) but in fact he is far less stable, far more prone to be thrown off his gyros, than a deeply confident man like Gingrich, or Perry, or Santorum.

Romney has also never grown past the father-pleasing or father-proving stage. He’s running for president in part to please and prove himself to his father. He’s the overweening “good son.” Very problematic stuff.

rrpjr on December 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM

The same sort of dumb pop psychology was used by Democrats to explain W. Romney’s essentially a midwesterner by temperament–cautious, efficient, and quietly prudent, not unlike Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, and Mike Pence. He’s been successful not because he wants to please daddy but because he’s competent.

writeblock on December 18, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Detroit Lions just Tebowed Oakland.

KOOLAID2 on December 18, 2011 at 7:35

lol! Wish I had the patience for picture-in-picture or flipping from one game to another, but the one just ended was plenty danged exciting. :)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 18, 2011 at 7:46 PM

gerry you are a lot of fun. I almost want to support Mitt just so I can be on your team.

I have no problem with people being for other candidates.
what I don’t like is not knowing were they stand.

thats why I always go out of my way to stress whom i support.

However as I said before I will vote for any nominee,

And i agree Dr. pAUL is not nuts. bad phrasing on my part. his foreign policy is suspect though.

gerry=mittbot-still getting the hang of posting on hot gas

gerrym51 on December 18, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Not one activist judge on the bench, Not. One.

Speakup on December 18, 2011 at 7:16 PM
——————————————————————

Oppps!
TOO LATE!
(think a couple just got in)

KOOLAID2 on December 18, 2011 at 7:48 PM

It will be interesting to see how MSM reports this tomorrow morning and in the coming days.

bw222 on December 18, 2011 at 7:49 PM

So let me sum things up as I see them. For an actual conservative, Gingrich would probably be even worse than Hillary, but not as bad as Obama. Is this a good argument for making him our nominee?

RasThavas on December 18, 2011 at 7:49 PM

My sincere thanks to you Punchenko. I now see the wisdom of your switch to Mitt. Oh, how blind I was and now I can see.
Thank you, thank you.

Go Mitt—–GO.

Romney ’12

dragondrop on December 18, 2011 at 7:50 PM

On the federal level, the judicial branch exists primarily to clarify issues of law, constitutionality, and to function as a check on the executive and legislative branches on the federal government. Any power over the judicial branch by the federal and executive branches, would inherently compromise the judicial branches ability to act as a check on other branches.

So what you’re saying is that any check on the judicial branch compromises the judicial’s branch to act as a check. Pray tell, who then is the check on the judicial branch in your mind? Who prevents them from becoming tyrants in black robes?

While I do agree that there should be some sort of check on judges that sort of power is too great for either the executive or legislative branch to have. These two branches of government have too much power as is, they do not need another one.

So what is your solution? Direct legislative elections? We only have 3 branches of government. Would you propose a fourth?

To be fair, that is what Gingrich is advocating, but practically speaking collusion between the executive and legislative branch would effectively put this power in the presidents hands. It’s very rare for the executive branch to be controlled by one party and for the house and senate to be controlled by the other. If the party that controls the executive branch has sufficient power in the congress, they will effectively be able to utilize such a power by proxy.

True. But both the President and the Congress regularly face the voters, and would need to worry about the opposition making hay of them wasting time on “unimportant” issues.

And the Democrats’ re-elect numbers would drop precipitously for their abuse of power — much like what happened when they passed Obamacare itself.

History suggests this isn’t inherently the case. The last president to launch a similar assault on the judiciary was FDR, and he easily won re-election afterward. The net effect of this was the re-definition of the commerce clause, which to this day is used as justification for numerous programs and laws which are of dubious constitutionality to say the very least.

And not all attacks against the judiciary are unwarranted. The American people had the opportunity for a referendum on FDR, and they decided to stick with him. Do I agree with you about the Commerce clause? Absolutely. Do most Americans though? That’s another question. That’s why you hold elections. I have no problem running on a set of ideas and policies, and if we lose, I can accept that. Otherwise voting becomes pointless.

Seeing as what happened the last time a successful attack was launched against the judiciary, I’m not inclined to open the way for additional attacks.

Think of Kelo v New London. Do you really think that would be a losing issue for the GOP?

And you’d be getting more. The one branch that operates essentially unchecked would finally be checked.

Yes, but its the branch of the government that has the least amount of power to begin with. And as I’ve already pointed out numerous times already, this sort of check would essentially hand more power to the executive and legislative branches, which already have ample powers.

As I said above, there are no other branches of government, and if you’re going to do things legally to implement a check on the judiciary and not simply abide by a might-makes-right paradigm, then you need to act within a legal framework: the government.

Why moderates? Conservatives alone would do quite nicely.

Because its unrealistic to expect that conservatives will ever have effective control of all three branches of government for any sizable period of time. Even if we had a super majority and controlled the executive branch, we’d still have to share power with some moderates, and it’d unlikely such a situation would persist in any case.

While I prefer conservatives, moderates are acceptable most of the time, particularly with they are at least slightly right of center. Additionally, conservative-moderate alliances have worked in the past, and have demonstrated at least some staying-power.

WolvenOne on December 18, 2011 at 7:35 PM

On it being unrealistic to expect control of government for an extended period, the Democrats had Congress for 40 years before Gingrich, and FDR had the presidency for 4 terms. Rare? Sure. But not impossible.

I’d rather work on getting moderates to convert to conservatism than work on forging alliances with them, outside of that being a transitionary step.

Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Ala Pundit on December 18, 2011 at 7:42 PM

You’re asking a whole bunch of procedural questions. Any branch of government may overreach itself but that’s why we have the checks & balances. Parts of the federal judiciary are out of control. What are we going to do about it? Newt proposes a solution, constitutional and prudent.

How many times has Holder testified? That’s not the point. Congress is exercising its watchdog role over an administration that is clearly breaking the law. You could even argue that the more time Holder spends on the Hill the less damage he can do to the Dept of Justice or the rule of law. (I note that he hasn’t been impeached yet, but that’s often a purely political question.)

spiritof61 on December 18, 2011 at 7:53 PM

I don’t believe people are all that enamored of establishing a never-ending Beer Hall Putsch the likes of which would make citizens of even the worst banana republic hellhole on earth shudder.
whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 7:18 PM

The worst of banana republic hellholes would shudder? I guess that’s what in the end this is really about for you. It’s not that subpoenas are an unrealistic option, or that impeachment is unfeasible. It’s that you steadfastly oppose the ideas. That’s fine. You’re entitled to your own opinions.
Ultimately you believe that we need an aristocracy with some expert or technocrat to rule us. I am one of the least libertarian people you will find, but even I believe more in the ability of people to rule themselves, and to hold their elected representatives accountable for their conduct.
Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Nope, it’s as I said, you have to deal with the reality. First, the courts would shoot down the plan out of the gate. If Congress appeals it would wind it’s way through the courts, keep getting shot down, and end up as nothing more than just “it seemed like a good idea at the time”.

Second, there’s already a process in place to impeach Justices. But no one is going to get away with impeaching a Supreme because they didn’t like an opinion. Won’t fly. If it would, Newt would have at least several SC scalps hanging from his belt from when he served in Congress.

Last – again, (though it’s a non-starter as I noted) a constant state of tit-for-tat political inquisition of judges would not be accepted. Just the spectacle alone of one party and then another dethroning & enthroning justices would turn citizens against the politicians responsible for the ongoing dog & pony show. The anarchists might enjoy the it, though.

It’s a nutty idea – just an absurd, bombastic campaign dog whistle. That’s Newt’s style, unfortunately.

whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Denver’s defense has a real problem with strong passing teams. Their only three blowouts were to the Packers, Lions and Patriots. All the other games, including their losses were close.

bw222 on December 18, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Additionally, conservative-moderate alliances have worked in the past, and have demonstrated at least some staying-power.

WolvenOne on December 18, 2011 at 7:35 PM

When did that ever happen?

When we took the House of Representatives in 1994, that was the first time we had the House of Representatives in 40 years. It was solid conservative in what it was doing, even if the congress critters were in fact progressive light Republicans in costume. It did solid conservative things, and it created a name brand that lasted until 2006. 2006 by the way happened after No Child Left Behind (progressive), Medicare Part D (progressive), pushing the DHS on the American people (Security is conservative, doing it by stealing on a permanent basis the freedom of those you say you are protecting is not), not reigning in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 when it first came up in the administration for changes (progressive), having a president run wars in the manner that Democrats would (attempting low cost, low manpower operations over required overwhelming force and playing the wars as PR events for winning the hearts and minds) (again progressive).

Republicans held power while they delivered conservative policies, which essentially require Washington to give power back to the people and the states. Those progressive legislators whose hearts were big government then threw out the Speaker of the House that pushed that conservative agenda, they were tired of losing their power. From there on out, it became a conservative-moderate alliance that pissed away the conservative branding of the Republican Party and became worthless to the voters, and kicked out of office. If the party stays as a conservative-moderate alliance, then it can expect to be kicked out of office frequently until it is no longer a viable party and a new party will be created to replace it.

astonerii on December 18, 2011 at 7:55 PM

It will be interesting to see how MSM reports this tomorrow morning and in the coming days.

bw222 on December 18, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Meghan Kelly was all over it the day of the debate last week and so was Bill O’Reilly.

JPeterman on December 18, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Is Newt Gingrich really Loki? From the Prose Edda: “In Norse mythology, Loki is known as a trickster. His job was mostly to make trouble for other gods, men, and the rest of the world. Loki is known for bringing about chaos and discord, but by challenging the gods, he also brings about change. Without Loki’s influence, the gods may become complacent, so Loki does actually serve a worthwhile purpose.”

I think Gingrich’s purpose was to make all the other candidates seem sane and sensible. Some may have thought that was Ron Paul’s purpose, but it would seem they were mistaken.

RasThavas on December 18, 2011 at 7:59 PM

These are precisely the kind of irresponsible remarks that would make Newt Gingrich a good primary candidate, but a lousy general election candidate. The negative, attack-dog, abrasive and belittling style he employs in the run up to the nomination appeals to his base, but may alienate voters in the general election. I am a conservative republican, but also a lawyer, who resents the outrageous and irresponsible attack on the independence of the judiciary. Elections have consequences. One of those consequences was the appointment of judges whose decisions we may not like. If so, the solution is to elect new leadership, not encourage others to disrespect the law or the judiciary.

BloviatorInChief on December 18, 2011 at 8:02 PM

I love the war on courts, the man is a revolutionary. Lets nominate him and do this thing.

boogaleesnots on December 18, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Thou shalt not legislate from the Bench.

Going forward, all judges should be elected, not appointed by the party in power.

Thou shalt not legislate from the Bench.

Let that sink in.

Key West Reader on December 18, 2011 at 8:03 PM

It will be interesting to see how MSM reports this tomorrow morning and in the coming days.

the MSM will report this as right wing extremism. And although i am a republican(although moderate) I think its extremist also.

I will still vote for newt if nominee

gerrym51 on December 18, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Nope, it’s as I said, you have to deal with the reality. First, the courts would shoot down the plan out of the gate. If Congress appeals it would wind it’s way through the courts, keep getting shot down, and end up as nothing more than just “it seemed like a good idea at the time”.

Again, not if you stick with it and you call public opinion to your side by pointing out how judges don’t want to answer questions. You call them out for refusing to be account for their rulings.

Second, there’s already a process in place to impeach Justices. But no one is going to get away with impeaching a Supreme because they didn’t like an opinion. Won’t fly. If it would, Newt would have at least several SC scalps hanging from his belt from when he served in Congress.

True. And Newt is saying that it can be used, and that we can also use subpoena power. Both of these are absolutely true, but go unused.

Your argument that it can’t fly reminds me of a similar argument about Chris Christie. Never before in the history of New Jersey had a governor not reappointed a sitting judge, even though the New Jersey constitution gives the governor that authority. Christie was the first to exercise it. Did it cause a controversy by refusing to reappoint the judge? Sure. But it happened.

Last – again, (though it’s a non-starter as I noted) a constant state of tit-for-tat political inquisition of judges would not be accepted. Just the spectacle alone of one party and then another dethroning & enthroning justices would turn citizens against the politicians responsible for the ongoing dog & pony show. The anarchists might enjoy the it, though.

It’s a nutty idea – just an absurd, bombastic campaign dog whistle. That’s Newt’s style, unfortunately.

whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 7:54 PM

You say it wouldn’t be accepted. But that’s only if it was abused. That party would get voted out of power. The threat of losing power serves as the natural check against it becoming abused by the legislative branch. It’s also why when Gingrich talks about getting rid of Judge Berry, it’s completely realistic because he can go through and cite exactly the sorts of problems with his ruling that you could get a significant Congressional majority to shoot down, and where public opinion would be on your side.

Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 8:03 PM

I’m not sure but is Newt saying that if the Supreme Court removes the mandate from ObamaCare that as chief executive Obama should just ignore that judgement?

Isn’t that essentially the type of executive he wants??

fatlibertarianinokc on December 18, 2011 at 8:05 PM

First, the courts would shoot down the plan out of the gate. If Congress appeals it would wind it’s way through the courts, keep getting shot down, and end up as nothing more than just “it seemed like a good idea at the time”.

Congressional subpoena is not subject to court challenge. The Congress is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity itself. Think it out–a bench warrant subject to court challenge?

Second, there’s already a process in place to impeach Justices. But no one is going to get away with impeaching a Supreme because they didn’t like an opinion. Won’t fly. If it would, Newt would have at least several SC scalps hanging from his belt from when he served in Congress.

Newt is not talking about impeachment. Read the transcripts again.

Last – again, (though it’s a non-starter as I noted) a constant state of tit-for-tat political inquisition of judges would not be accepted. Just the spectacle alone of one party and then another dethroning & enthroning justices would turn citizens against the politicians responsible for the ongoing dog & pony show. The anarchists might enjoy the it, though.

We are all–every last one of us–already against the politicians, hence the single digit approval ratings for Congress. And again, this is not about removing federal judges but about shining one hell of a bright spotlight on them.

It’s a nutty idea – just an absurd, bombastic campaign dog whistle. That’s Newt’s style, unfortunately.

Au contraire, mon cher.

spiritof61 on December 18, 2011 at 8:05 PM

Denver’s defense has a real problem with strong passing teams. Their only three blowouts were to the Packers, Lions and Patriots. All the other games, including their losses were close.

bw222 on December 18, 2011 at 7:55 PM

A weakness like that always falls on coaching staff. I hear the retired guy from that college is available–what’s his name? Sondansky or some-

**leaps behind desk chair**

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 18, 2011 at 8:10 PM

I love the war on courts, the man is a revolutionary. Lets nominate him and do this thing.

boogaleesnots on December 18, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Yikes.

What if Obama wins re-election and HE DECLARES WAR ON THE COURTS?

I’m starting to see why Paul gains so much traction. The GOP and Dems are largely the same party – Their goal is not to defend the constitution, it’s to GET AROUND IT.

Paul, for all his supposed faults, stakes every position with the intention of defending the constitution and our liberty.

Someone like Newt will gladly destroy eternal liberties in order to satisfy the popular and immediate demands of this instant.

I’m astonished how far down the Rabbit hole this party has gone. I’m about ready to register as NOTHING and burn the Republican voter card in effigy.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 18, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Thou shalt not legislate from the Executive Branch either. Mister Obama, this one’s for you.

Legislation originates in the House, then moves to the upper chamber, the Senate.

The judicial branch was designed to be the weakest branch.

Certainly the Executive Branch was designed to be the weakest of all. That was, until, the electorate chose Chicago on the Potomac.

Good riddance. Enjoy your seventeen days of vacation in the warm sands and sun of Hawaii, while we endure the cold chilling days of disdain.

Key West Reader on December 18, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Yikes.

What if Obama wins re-election and HE DECLARES WAR ON THE COURTS?

fatlibertarianinokc on December 18, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Then you wouldn’t notice the difference from someone who chewed out SCOTUS over the Citizens United v FEC decision on national TV.

Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM

So next, they call in Law School Deans and Professors? Can Congress outlaw legal education? Or mandate conservative re-education?

Follow up question: Is this really how Newt thinks you go about winning arguments? Using the power of the state to intimidate and eliminate your opponents? That doesn’t sound very conservative to me.

I’ll bet he could make the trains run on time, though.

flataffect on December 18, 2011 at 8:16 PM

So next, they call in Law School Deans and Professors? Can Congress outlaw legal education? Or mandate conservative re-education?

Follow up question: Is this really how Newt thinks you go about winning arguments? Using the power of the state to intimidate and eliminate your opponents? That doesn’t sound very conservative to me.

I’ll bet he could make the trains run on time, though.

flataffect on December 18, 2011 at 8:16 PM

First, Newt never said to call in law school deans and professors. Out of curiosity, do you like red herrings?

Second, on outlawing legal education, that’s not a power delegated to the congress by the constitution, so no. The same for re-education. But by all means, keep it up with the baseless stuff.

As for intimidating the courts, they do plenty of imposing their will on both the government and the people. They could use a little in return. Don’t worry. I’m sure they’re not that fragile.

Stoic Patriot on December 18, 2011 at 8:19 PM

I hope Newt is channeling his inner Jefferson here, and exorcising his inner Wilsonian.

AshleyTKing on December 18, 2011 at 8:20 PM

This is not a stunt by Newt, he believes what he is saying. He labels himself as a progressive/conservative. The top 3 presidents he admires are FDR,Wilson,Teddy Roosevelt, all progressives. He believes in the 4 freedoms like his Hero FDR, the last two of these freedoms are freedom from want and fear. To provide that you would have to tear up the Constitution and take Rights away from Americans. Freedom from want~Redistribute the wealth, sound familiar? He was a big fan of Alvin and Heidi Toffler – two weirdos who in 2006 were named among China’s most influential foreigners.In 1994, Gingrich described himself as “a conservative futurist”. He said that those who were trying to define him should look no farther than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented—ademocracy for the 21st century.” He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.” Research it yourself then ask yourself, Is he really any better then Obama? I for one think he might be worse! Just because he has a(R)behind his name does not mean you should vote for him. In his own words folks! If you vote for Newt without trying to prove me wrong, well I hope you enjoy being a serf for the Big Central Government he plans to give you.
You can start here:http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/12/newt-the-progressive-futurist/

IowaWoman on December 18, 2011 at 8:22 PM

There is no reason why Newt Gingrich ought to be taken seriously as a candidate after saying such a thing. Attention-whoring or not, it’s just beyond the pale.

Alpha_Male on December 18, 2011 at 8:27 PM

There is no reason why Newt Gingrich ought to be taken seriously as a candidate after saying such a thing. Attention-whoring or not, it’s just beyond the pale.

Alpha_Male on December 18, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Your statement is categorized and weighed according to it’s value. An Obama promise has more value I declare.

astonerii on December 18, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Congressional subpoena is not subject to court challenge.

Actually, they are. If a court finds it does not meet the critera set out in Wilkinson v. United States, it can be quashed.

Newt is not talking about impeachment.

I believe if you scroll back you’ll see you mentioned it. That’s what I was replying to.

We are all–every last one of us–already against the politicians, hence the single digit approval ratings for Congress. And again, this is not about removing federal judges but about shining one hell of a bright spotlight on them.

Ah, you and I differ on our perception of how/what people would view it. Most will see it as silly partisan BS, with good reason. Like I sez, if it were a good idea Newt had plenty of chances to make use of it, but took a pass. He’ll preach the Kool-Aid, but he’s not stupid enough to drink it himself.

whatcat on December 18, 2011 at 8:31 PM

I’d settle for Congress passing a law prohibiting federal judges from siphoning my gas.

viking01 on December 18, 2011 at 8:32 PM

What Newt is reacting to is the fact that the judicial branch has become too powerful and upset the constitutional scheme of three co-equal branches of the federal government. Too many comments here are not dealing with what is a very serious problem.

What Newt is relying upon is history. The Stanford Law Dean has written a whole book about a very different view of how historically the elective branches of the federal government would interact with the federal judiciary. Please educate yourself as to what Jefferson, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt said. Today’s theory of judicial supremacy is not what was the original intent and not what was belived through much of our history. Newt, as an historian, understands that.

This whole business of treating Newt as a progressive is nonsense, but that is a different subject.

Phil Byler on December 18, 2011 at 8:36 PM

There is no reason why Newt Gingrich ought to be taken seriously as a candidate after saying such a thing. Attention-whoring or not, it’s just beyond the pale.

Alpha_Male on December 18, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Compared to the Shakespearean solution, I think Newt’s way is very reasonable. Are you a lawyer or law student?

ZGMF_Freedom on December 18, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Holy crap I can’t believe that some people haven’t caught on to the fact that he’s faking yet.

Strangely they do always seem to be Romney supporters….

29Victor on December 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Okay, genius, tell us how you caught on to the fact that he’s faking. And why the “strangely” snipe? Why is it strange to take what Newt says at face value? Is it because he’s a notorious liar? Is this another case like his insistence he was never a lobbyist, just a high-priced historian? Or is it because he so often mixes truth with fantasy like his bright idea we should mine the moon?

writeblock on December 18, 2011 at 8:40 PM

To Jazz Shaw: read the book by the Stanford Law Dean on judicial review, educate yourself about what Jefferson and Lincoln said about how elective branches would interact with the federal judiciary, read such decisions as Hamdan and Boumediene where the Supreme Court is dictating national security policy, contemplate the Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence we have today and then realize how mistaken your comments were about Newt’s statements concerning the federal judiciary.

Newt understand that the federal judiciary has usurped a certain authority it was not intended to have and needs to be backed off. It is one reason we need to elect Newt.

This is a Harvard Law School educated lawyer writing. I understand where Newt is coming from. With all due respect, Jazz Shaw, you don’t.

Phil Byler on December 18, 2011 at 8:43 PM

To Alpha_Male: there is no reason for you to be taken seriously and every reason for Newt to be elected. As my prior comments indicate, Newt is dealing with a real problem and with a knowledge of history that you don’t have.

Phil Byler on December 18, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Congressional subpoena is not subject to court challenge.

Actually, they are. If a court finds it does not meet the critera set out in Wilkinson v. United States, it can be quashed.

Wilkinson was not about the legal validity of a congressional subpoena; it was about whether a witness could refuse to answer. The subpoena was legal and unchallenged.

A subpoena is either valid, issued by a competent legal authority, or it is not. Congress subpoenas witnesses and documents all the time. If they are ignored, legal action can be taken (which may include impeachment in the case of a federal official–watch out, Mr. Attorney General).

spiritof61 on December 18, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5