Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich: Congress can send Capitol Police to arrest rogue judges
The Hill ^ | December 18, 2011 | Alexander Bolton

Posted on 12/18/2011 12:34:01 PM PST by EveningStar

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...

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gingrich; judges; newt; newtgingrich
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-317 next last
I didn't watch the show. Did anyone hear what he said?
1 posted on 12/18/2011 12:34:07 PM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Kagen? Sotomayor?


2 posted on 12/18/2011 12:36:04 PM PST by Caipirabob ( Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

I’ve been a pretty big fan of Gingrich and his accomplishments as speaker, but these very intemperate remarks about dissolving courts and firing judges really worry me. We don’t need to oust the Obama imperium to replace it with another that could be even worse.


3 posted on 12/18/2011 12:36:58 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
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...

Ping for later

4 posted on 12/18/2011 12:37:36 PM PST by Alex Murphy (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2703506/posts?page=518#518)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: EveningStar

I guess Newt has been reading a different constitution than I have.

Newt is much smarter than I am so he must be right.
/S


6 posted on 12/18/2011 12:40:23 PM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because oit is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

You can watch the video clips here: http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-gingrich-on-face-the-nation/


7 posted on 12/18/2011 12:40:44 PM PST by Matchett-PI ("One party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones." ~GagdadBob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Can a federal judge (not the SCOTUS) who overrules congress be arrested? What about judges that overrule the voters? It seems that judges rule, not elected officials or the will of the people.


8 posted on 12/18/2011 12:41:05 PM PST by SkyDancer ("If You Want To Learn To Love Better, You Should Start With A Friend Who You Hate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

BEST news I’ve heard today! Go Newt!


9 posted on 12/18/2011 12:41:08 PM PST by Old Sarge (RIP FReeper Skyraider (1930-2011) - You Are Missed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
You can watch the video for yourself and decide if it's being reporting fairly:

Gingrich: Gov't branches should rule 2 out of 3
10 posted on 12/18/2011 12:41:30 PM PST by TBBT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Sorry for giving you the wrong link in post #5. I’ll ask the moderator to delete it.


11 posted on 12/18/2011 12:42:14 PM PST by Matchett-PI ("One party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones." ~GagdadBob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

I’m with Newt on this. Judges are exceeding their authority and need to be stopped.


12 posted on 12/18/2011 12:42:47 PM PST by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

The 9th circus could be broken up into 2 courts...Its rulings cover 5 state. Too Big...congress makes the courts and can change them...but not with a democrat in the white house. Thats why it hasn’t been broken up yet...with a republican in the WH democrats will not go for it and visa versa....Judges can be impeached and removed. Congress I think is in charge of that....GG


13 posted on 12/18/2011 12:43:13 PM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
I don't see much difference in that process and the impeachment of a president; all are "equal" branches of government and it takes Congress to do an impeachment of the president; the only difference I see is that they are "impeaching" a judge...and there are plenty of them that need it.

Get enough of these "rogue" judges and they make laws doing an end-run around the Constitution, and therefore need to be subdued.

It's all about "checks and balances", that's what is great about our Constitution.
14 posted on 12/18/2011 12:43:13 PM PST by FrankR (What you resist...PERSISTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Newt said a judge can be impeached, but before they do, they might like to have him appear before Congress to explain himself, so they could supoena him. IF HE DID NOT SHOW UP, Newt said they could send the capitol police or marshall to force him to honor the supoena.


15 posted on 12/18/2011 12:44:21 PM PST by ez (When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

if he abuse it, yes, but to be honest, too many judges have abused their power and should be fired


16 posted on 12/18/2011 12:45:44 PM PST by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

When asked how he would force a judge to respond to a subpoena - from which judges are protected by common-law judicial privilege, barring in matters such as judicial misconduct - Gingrich said he would consider sending the Capitol police to arrest him or her.


17 posted on 12/18/2011 12:46:07 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ez; All

In other words....Newt just outlined what the LAW IS!!!


18 posted on 12/18/2011 12:46:46 PM PST by goodnesswins (Banning Christmas (and Christmas decorations) is something that commies do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Read post fifteen, read the constitution in print (not just what you think you remember) and explain what your problem with bringing to bear constitutional checks on the judiciary long neglected is.


19 posted on 12/18/2011 12:48:25 PM PST by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

Gingrich is talking ONLY of keeping judges in line with the constitution, and using the constitution to do it.
Why a problem with that?


20 posted on 12/18/2011 12:48:43 PM PST by wwcj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

I think that is correct actually, they appoint-confirm them they can revoke their confirmation....


21 posted on 12/18/2011 12:50:07 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

We all think it is fine and good until the Dems control congress and use this power.

This is another one of those cases where Newt should have ended his thought process two sentences before he did.


22 posted on 12/18/2011 12:51:43 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

Could not agree more.Why would he ever say such nonsense? His candidacy is falling apart.


23 posted on 12/18/2011 12:52:00 PM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

I don’t think the Founding Fathers ever intended for “judges” and “courts” to have the power that they have today. The “judges” should not have the final say in the decisions made by the people of the United States and their elected officials. Where is it written that the “judges” and their “courts” are the Mother of All Trump Cards? A lot of “judges” are out of control and it’s time to rein them in. JMO.


24 posted on 12/18/2011 12:52:46 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Stop BIG Government Greed Now!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

In what way is judicial activism (as we have seen it since the Warren court) not judicial misconduct as understood in the same common law standards that protect judges from a subpoena?


25 posted on 12/18/2011 12:54:00 PM PST by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


26 posted on 12/18/2011 12:54:06 PM PST by EternalVigilance (With God Obama can't hurt us. Without God, George Washington couldn't save us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ez
Newt said a judge can be impeached, but before they do, they might like to have him appear before Congress to explain himself, so they could supoena him. IF HE DID NOT SHOW UP, Newt said they could send the capitol police or marshall to force him to honor the supoena.

That's exactly what Newt said and he was correct. The headline intentionally implied something totally different - That Newt wanted to have Judges arrested for making ruling that Newt was not in favor of. Typical media spin to make Newt look Zany.

If you are going to impeach a judge (which congress can do), then you are going to have impeachment hearings. In the process of those hearings, the Judge in question is going to be asked to come testify. If necessary congress might need to subpoena the Judge etc..

There was nothing extraordinary about Newt's statement. The only thing "extraordinary" might be the media's ignorance.
27 posted on 12/18/2011 12:54:19 PM PST by TBBT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

As President, he would have nothing to do with the decision of a Congressional committee to question a judge or two.

Newt is making it known that he will support Congressional efforts to curb the courts. For instance, if a Tea Party Congress voted to disestablish the Ninth Circus and start over, he would sign that bill. Congress could define the right to select one’s doctor as a Ninth Amendment right that the courts could not review, and Newt would sign it. Without pushback, the courts will continue to run roughshod over our Constitution.

I try to not appreciate Newt, but as President he would encourage Congress to use their Article III powers. Good on him.


28 posted on 12/18/2011 12:54:19 PM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
Reminds me of Kristallnacht ... when Adolf Hitler disenfranchised Jewish people.

Looks like Newt has made a huge mistake.

29 posted on 12/18/2011 12:55:02 PM PST by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

If Newt really said this he is unfathomably stupid.


30 posted on 12/18/2011 12:55:05 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Why not impeach rogue judges. Can they be impeached?


31 posted on 12/18/2011 12:55:15 PM PST by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Did you read the article or just comment on the headline?


32 posted on 12/18/2011 12:56:03 PM PST by mazda77 (and I am a Native Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

I personally no longer see any use or need for judges in this country.

I don’t need some other idiot human telling me a damn thing, law degree or no law degree.

We’ve given these people too much power, they have abused it utterly, it is now time to take that power back.


33 posted on 12/18/2011 12:56:03 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

I like what he said and I want to like Gingrich but I keep thinking of all that money he took from Freddie Mac.


34 posted on 12/18/2011 12:56:30 PM PST by Tribune7 (Vote Perry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Gingrich has made his (correct) point, but now that it is made, he should change the subject and talk about another reform or, more specifically, removing barriers to job creation.

In the general election, Obama’s best strategy is to run on the “check and balance” theme to avoid the Republicans controlling the House, Senate and White House. Independents may buy this line, especially if Gingrich threatens the Judicial Branch.

We are in this to win — not make ideologically correct speeches and then lose.


35 posted on 12/18/2011 12:57:05 PM PST by Andy from Chapel Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

Imperial Newt is not news. He was and always has been.


36 posted on 12/18/2011 12:57:33 PM PST by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goat granny

It wasn’t that long ago when the GOP held all three branches of Govt.
Why wasn’t it done then? When they had the power to do it, why wasn’t done?


37 posted on 12/18/2011 12:57:47 PM PST by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
This response to what Newt said is pure rotten liberal bull shit. I have never heard such trash. Did any of you really listen to what Newt said? Obviously this is a hit piece and Newt is right. I cannot believe how many FR’s are oblivious to the Constitution and Judges are not the final word. What is the matter with some of these fools?
38 posted on 12/18/2011 12:57:52 PM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Correction ... see post 27


39 posted on 12/18/2011 12:58:35 PM PST by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ez

Well now, that is a lot different then just sending police to take out a judge because he was abusive.


40 posted on 12/18/2011 12:59:04 PM PST by ConfidentConservative (I think, therefore I am conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
.


I support newt one-hundred percenton this ...


Newt's proposal to NOT to arrest judges Nazi-Style ... but only if they have been Constitutionally FIRED by BOTH the Congress and the President ...


On one has ever said this (to my knowledge) ... BUT ... why do so many "conservative" judges go bad ?

Perhaps ... because of the STUPID life-long appoimtment, they have been successfully black-mailed ...

Just a thought ...


.
41 posted on 12/18/2011 12:59:49 PM PST by Patton@Bastogne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: montag813

I think he’s a helluva lot smarter than you in these matters. If you’re going to impeach a rogue judge you’ll probably have to subpoena him. And if he refuses the subpoena you may have to compel him to appear. Who you gonna call?


42 posted on 12/18/2011 1:00:19 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ez

Newt loves this country, has studied it intensely and he’s ready to take it back of long years of ignoring our foundation. No other conservative candidate has done that. Nothing against them but they don’t have what it takes, it’s as simple as that. Each one should bow out, IMO. IF they are truly conservative, it should be about our country first, not them.

Who could say he’s not conservative with a straight face? LOL! He’s the most conservative - he’s aware what can be done and should be done more than any conservative does and wants to get our country on the ‘right’ track. It certainly will upset the rino elite country club and their liberal counterparts.


43 posted on 12/18/2011 1:00:21 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte

Nobody on FR will argue about activist judges being plenty and wrong. But, the remedy proposed is extra constitutional and typical of Newt. He wants to become the Czar of the United States. No thanks!!!


44 posted on 12/18/2011 1:00:26 PM PST by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

Newt is a train wreck. We will get killed if e is the nominee.


45 posted on 12/18/2011 1:00:41 PM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

I would like to see Dems use this power.
How is holding judges to constitutional ruling a bad thing?
Ruling strictly to the constitution is good for all. But I think you do not understand the issue.


46 posted on 12/18/2011 1:01:10 PM PST by wwcj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman
It wasn’t that long ago when the GOP held all three branches of Govt. Why wasn’t it done then? When they had the power to do it, why wasn’t done?

They needed 60 votes in the senate.

47 posted on 12/18/2011 1:02:15 PM PST by Digger (If RINO is your selection then failure is your election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: allendale
I see no problem with calling a Fed Judge to explain their ruling and how it complies with the US Constitution if Congress deems it to be off base.

“Because I said so” wouldn't be an acceptable answer for their nonsensical rulings like queer marriage and a number of others.

48 posted on 12/18/2011 1:02:23 PM PST by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman

Ergo, the Tea Party was the result of these and a long host of other issues.


49 posted on 12/18/2011 1:02:31 PM PST by mazda77 (and I am a Native Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: allendale

Because he went through highschool back when we actually had to read the constitution.


50 posted on 12/18/2011 1:02:54 PM PST by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-317 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson