Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court

Newsday & AP ^ | September 29, 2006,

[US Navy guy]

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court decisions that are "so clearly at variance with the national will" should be overridden by the other branches of government, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says.

[US Navy guy]

What a GREAT Idea! Also the US Congress sould try Impeachmont and Trial was a GREAT Check and Balence!

[TomGuy]

Perhaps, Newt, the problem is the Congress who keeps writing these laws that the SC overturns and interprets.

The Congress could reign in the SC any time they want to. All they have to do is have the cajones to do so.

Heck, most of the Congresscritters admit that they don't even read most of the legislation they vote on.

[longtermmemmory]

That is the way the system is supposed to work.

I guess the AP is scared.

It is checks and ballances not the black robe monarchy.

[uptoolate]

So if the "national will" of the people and Congress ever gets to the point as to desire sex with 7 year olds to be legal, and the Supreme Court says no, can't do it, Congress should be able to "override" the Supreme Court? Bad idea.

[AlGone2001]

Impeachment of the federal judges is already allowable under the constitution.

In my opinion, the constitution needs to be amended to hold liberal judges to a 6-month term, and after wards replaced by someone who holds a lifetime appointment in the mold of Justice Scalia.

[Founding Father]

Blah, Blah. Newt's running for office.

Hey Newt, what did you do about this when you were Speaker? Oh that's right--nothing.

Nothing new here. Politician's lips are moving = Politician lying.

[Vision]

Newt '08

Get it Done

[TomGuy]

True.

IIRC, the Clinton administration proved that governing by popularity polls (National will?) wasn't such a good idea.

The reason is that the 'National will' does not have all the information to make informed choices.

[US Navy guy]

Newt(In MY opinion) has a morality problem of his own, he cannot be true to his marriage vows. THAT puts him out of contention for ANY further public office.

[budwiesest]

Forget 'national will', how about variance from the Constitution and BOR?

[tiger-one]

You must be a Mitt man, GA man, or maybe a Johnny Mac airdale man.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Perhaps, Newt, the problem is the Congress who keeps writing these laws that the SC overturns and interprets.

Actually, the Supreme Court overturns centuries of common law and traditional interpretation of existing statutes. Clearly, only the most convoluted reading of the Constitution would show that state laws banning abortion, many predating the Constitution or the Court, are unconstitutional.

Despite Susan Estrich's et alia's bleatings to the contrary, the chief threat to rule of law these days is the lawlessness of the courts.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, California:

Please be advised, you are hereby given 30 days notice to find new employment.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, California is in keeping with recent court rulings, being seized under emminent domain, for the greater public good.

You are henceforth compensated in the amount of Twenty (20) US Dollars.

Your servants for the greater Public Good.

Congress of the United States of America."

[NonValueAdded]

The process already exists, it's called Amending the Constitution. I concur with uptoolate, we cannot abandon the Republic to the tyranny of a democracy, even if that is two branches against one.

Remember, too , that the court has changed and while great weight is given to past decisions, many have been overturned by a new ruling.

[ScottfromNJ]

I don't think this would be such a great idea. Suppose some future liberal Congress passes a bill to ban all firearms ownership, signed into law by a liberal President. The Supreme Court then rules the law unconstitutional. Congress can then overrule the Supreme Court without having to go thrue the difficult process of amending the constitution.

[IronJack]

Well, the Supreme Court has no executive powers of its own, so technically, it can rule on cases from now till St. Swithin's Day, and if the other branches -- or The People -- refuse to observe its dictates, it is powerless to enforce them.

[Ready4Freddy]

Congress can limit SCOTUS' jurisdiction pursuant to Article III, §2, but SCOTUS ignored such a limitation in their Hamdan ruling...

Perhaps, Newt, the problem is the Congress who keeps writing these laws that the SC overturns and interprets.

[US Navy guy]

Then WHY doen't President Bush and the US Congress tell the USSC to PACK SAND!?!

[Nip]

Hope you are wearing something flame retardant.

You argument, sex with 7 year olds, is something straight out of the liberal dimocrat play book. Take an issue, then take a position, and then run away off to an extreme and use that as the basis of our counter argument.

Sex with a 7 year old as a common, nation wide practice! If that is the best you can do I have to wonder.

[Not A Snowbird]

What specific issue would you like to try this with first?