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 ...
Unfortunately, I excluded one option at preventing overreach of the court system and that is to exclude them from ruling on certain subjects as noted by this portion of Sec. III:
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Thus the Congress can, and has, excluded the courts from ruling on certain subjects (see “with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make”. That is the simplest and best approach. Sorry I omitted that one.
If such a large percentage of FReepers are too lazy, or ignorant, or just plain stupid, to understand this, then I hate to think what the general masses of civics-challenged voters will make of it. Just wait until it is "explained" to them by Mahr, Matthews, Stewart, The Spew "ladies", et. al., let alone the network "news" shows.
DO IT DO IT DO IT~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Interesting subject. I like the fact that Gingrich is not afraid to challenge the supremacy of the courts. They are often as arrogant, as elitist and as out of touch with the will of the people as he says. In the most simplistic terms: if we are supposed to have government “of the people, for the people and by the people, then how can a few unelected, unrepresentative individuals in black robes basically cancel the will of the people as expressed through their legislative representatives?
There is one issue that remains to be clarified: Even if the judges should be reined in, isn’t there a proper role for the judges to be the arbiters of constitutionality? In other words, the constitution is our supreme law. Therefore, all legislation must be constitutional. How can Congress alone be their own judges as to whether the laws they make are constitutional? Isn’t that a clear conflict of interest? And, don’t we all need some check on the power of a Congress that might pass unconstitutional, even oppressive laws (eg, Obamacare)? It seems there is an insoluble dilemma between wanting to control overreaching courts and overreach by the other branches of government at the same time.
Go Greta
OK, I'll put him back on the list :-)
Unfortunately, so did the WaPo...
Gingrich: Send U.S. Marshals to arrest uncooperative judges
this version omits the "Capitol police" modifier, and earned a RED styling on Drudge. See how this works?
Perhaps We The People should throw them ALL out and start over.
Those are reasonable questions except this one:
“Further, Newt should say why GSE’s should be able to bind consultants on governmental policy to non-disclosure agreements. What IP are they trying to protect? What competitors do they want to keep from getting a strategic advantage?”
That’s a question for the GSEs. The fact is they can. Why should Newt have to explain that?!
Because he's running for President.
Anyway, if you give him half a chance I suspect he probably will.
The Greta interview makes me feel much better about him.
Well I haven't left so the average can not have dropped very far.......... LOL
Well put. Right on the money.
He's saying CONGRESS can do these things and, in fact, Congress has such powers over the lower courts via Article I and Article III. If Congress doesn't pass legislation to do these things, he knows as a president he can't go it alone. That's a big difference compared to Obama.
Newt is making sense... Bob A. really messed-up
its historian vs lawyer... Newt won hands down
bob knew he was fumbling around.
Newt ate bob’s lunch / dinner. ;-)
Remember when Obama said he wouldn't defend DOMA in court because he claimed it was 'unconstitutional'? I sure wasn't happy with that.
FWIW either that thread was pulled or there is something wrong with the URL.
Some Conservatives might think this sounds like a good idea. But it isn’t. And worse, there’s no way the independent voters and republican moderates are going to vote forr Gingrich saying these things.
This is exactly the problem with Newt. He says some good things, and then he goes off the deep end. He’s unelectable, and the sooner we realize it, the sooner we can get back to finding a CONSERVATIVE candidate to beat Romney.
There is an impeachment in the constitution for bad judges. I guess if after you impeach them, they boarded themselves up in the courthouse, you might send the police.
But under what authority would you arrest a judge for a decision you disagreed with? That sounds like something Chavez might do. If they are wrong, impeach them. Otherwise, don’t go threatening them with arrest in order to try to influence their decisions. That’s just a batty idea.
Unfortunately, more than a few conservatives are actually agreeing with this, which won’t be good for the movement.
BTW, I convinced now that some of the endorsements we are seeing and will see for Romney are people who might otherwise have supported a good conservative, but see the disaster that is Newt unleashed, and are scared to death of 4 more years of Obama.
If the judge isn’t a supreme court justice, that’s what the SC is for, to review decisions made by lower justices, if one of the parties in the suit appeal the ruling.
As soon as you can start hauling judges in front of congress, you have put temporary popular opinion in control of our judicial process, and nobody will trust the judges anymore.
I know, conservatives love to say they don’t trust the judges now, but if we seriously set up a system that doesn’t “trust” the judges, we will have anarchy.
Conservative used to also mean “don’t change everything when you have no idea what unintended consequences will be”. We seem to have lost that — Gingrich never had it, he’s an activist conservative who wants to use government and power to make our lives better, only using “conservative” principles.
I don’t want to be ruled by a king, even if they are Ronald Reagan re-incarnated.
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.