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 ...
Kagen? Sotomayor?
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.
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
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
You can watch the video clips here: http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-gingrich-on-face-the-nation/
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.
BEST news I’ve heard today! Go Newt!
Sorry for giving you the wrong link in post #5. I’ll ask the moderator to delete it.
I’m with Newt on this. Judges are exceeding their authority and need to be stopped.
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
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.
if he abuse it, yes, but to be honest, too many judges have abused their power and should be fired
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.
In other words....Newt just outlined what the LAW IS!!!
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.
Gingrich is talking ONLY of keeping judges in line with the constitution, and using the constitution to do it.
Why a problem with that?
I think that is correct actually, they appoint-confirm them they can revoke their confirmation....
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.
Could not agree more.Why would he ever say such nonsense? His candidacy is falling apart.
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.
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?
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth AmendmentSection. 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.
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.
Looks like Newt has made a huge mistake.
If Newt really said this he is unfathomably stupid.
Why not impeach rogue judges. Can they be impeached?
Did you read the article or just comment on the headline?
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.
I like what he said and I want to like Gingrich but I keep thinking of all that money he took from Freddie Mac.
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.
Imperial Newt is not news. He was and always has been.
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?
Correction ... see post 27
Well now, that is a lot different then just sending police to take out a judge because he was abusive.
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?
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.
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!!!
Newt is a train wreck. We will get killed if e is the nominee.
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.
They needed 60 votes in the senate.
“Because I said so” wouldn't be an acceptable answer for their nonsensical rulings like queer marriage and a number of others.
Ergo, the Tea Party was the result of these and a long host of other issues.
Because he went through highschool back when we actually had to read the constitution.
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.