Posted on 12/18/2011 4:23:33 PM PST by presidio9
A court cannot legitimately tell a President how to conduct a war. Newt disagrees that Scotus can dictate how to treat POWs or “enemy combatants.” He would ignore that ruling, as any President should, for it intruded upon his historic CIC duties.
State courts have ordered cities to raise taxes for schools. Mittens famously rolled over when ordered by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to pass a law that legalized fag marriage. In both of these cases, the Governors should have held a presser to inform the courts they would not be obeyed.
Exactly. I see a lot of flaming going on FR for criticizing Newt’s usurpation of power. But, he is absolutely wrong on the remedy he is proposing in response to judicial activism.
After the failed personality cult experiment of vague promises like "Hope & Change," independants are ready to support a candidate with big ideas, who lays his cards out on the table. Even if they don't agree with him.
Starting with Roe, SCOTUS has become the only place we resolve our issues. Hamilton is spinning in his grave.
That is Newt for ya. He simply can't discipline himself and can't help himself. He absolutely LOVES going out on these limbs with these extreme points that are outside the box. He thinks this will show everyone how smart he is. He is more interested in dazzling people than becoming elected President.
Please don’t take at face value what the drivebys write about one of ours. The title was way out of line.
Roe V. Wade was maybe the worst case of abuse of power in the history of the country.
They simply made it up out of thin air overturning centuries of common law and real law too.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve heard of a few cases over the years that really rankled me.
One was back in the 80s, when a judge in MO directed to state to spend hundreds of millions of $$ to make the MO school systems more equal. The $$ was spent, but (in the end) it made no difference. That’s because education is more a matter of attitude than of $$.
Another was when some judge directed a state (HI, I believe) to establish civil unions.
I’m sure there are lots more examples. When judges venture into the legistlative realm, there needs to be a mechanism to tell them to go pound sand. [Bill] Clinton did this when a Federal judge “ordered” him to reinstate a discharged [gay] Academy cadet back in the 90s.
His point is well taken, but I think a killer for a POTUS campaign.
I’d like to see Gingrich pursue a course espousing the disposal of each, and every unconstitutional department of government, thus the supporting bureaucracies crammed to overflowing with entrenched Leftists that are ruling our country today.
These departments with these vast bureaucracies such as Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Interior, and so many more are run, and staffed by unelected entrenched Leftists whom remain in those positions of power, and influence until they either retire, or die.
They are the ones running the country, and they are the ones that if we get rid of their departments one by one, thus their bureaucracies we reduce the Leftist influence as we eliminate each of those departments that is strangling our Constitutional Republic.
>> This was an OPINION, not a statement of purpose. The Chief Executive has no power to start firing judges. >>
Of course. Stream of consciousness thought to make the listener think and to demonstrate the absurdity of the court’s power now.
Too many around here cannot (or will not) tell the difference between the two. They are shallow thinkers looking for reasons NOT to support candidates, and they micro analyze sound bytes or quotes looking for such. Thus, they’ll always gravitate towards monolithic repetitive clones instead of free thinkers. They’ll never “get” Newt, but they’ll isolate a few quotes and swear that they do.
They also act like every idea or opinon (like Cain’s 999) will suddenly be thrust upon us if we dare nominate that person. Really shallow and out of context analysis by sooooo many.
I think the biggest threat to the Constitution is the reliance on precedence. When the USSC rules on a case, it is ruling on the Constitutionality of that specific circumstance, and not necessarily on the idea behind it. But, legislators and justices will take the ruling and hold it as law for the idea as a whole.
So while the Court didnt “legalize” or “de-legalize” an activity directly (just a specific occurrence), they did in effect “legalize” or “de-legalize” the activity, because no one will touch it. And that is how they create laws - everyone is afraid of upsetting precedence.
Well, if you want a candidate whose every utterance has first been poll tested and focus grouped, then Romney is your man.
Then fix the judicial problem Mr.Gingrich. Thinking path of least resistance.
I would say there is A LOT of work to get rid of laws we simply don't need; hate crimes, DUI laws; anything "racial"..
(Before you flame me about DUI laws, I can think of a plethora of laws that already exist to cover ANYONE driving under the influence. DUI laws are state and local money makers, nothing more).
Imagine if Obama said this. An Obama/Pelosi Government running roughshod over the courts and the People.
AKA, The Meatloaf Doctrine.
I haven’t got all the way through the video yet, but did Newt even literally say “Government branches should rule 2 out of 3”—or did the media just misleadingly paraphrase his position that way?
If so, why are Freepers falling all over themselves to drink media kool-aid on this? Heh.
It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
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.