Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newt Gingrich follows FDR with court-packing scheme
San Francisco Examiner, opinion ^ | November 25, 2011 | Ken Klukowski

Posted on 11/25/2011 5:13:14 PM PST by Navy Patriot

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s idea for checking judicial activism is a textbook case of historical revisionism that is strikingly similar to the court-packing scheme of liberal icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Gingrich said Congress should just pass a law eliminating specific judgeships, presumably immediately ousting the activist judges currently filling those seats.

Gingrich lionizes an incident now regarded as profoundly troubling by constitutional scholars. When Thomas Jefferson replaced John Adams as president in 1801, the outgoing Congress created new federal courts and judgeships which Adams promptly filled. The new Congress repealed the law and the judges were ousted.

Jefferson considered trying to impeach the entire Supreme Court. As Rep. James Bayard said at the time in objecting to Jefferson’s plan:

“He uses the Legislature to remove the judges, that he may appoint creatures of his own. In effect, the powers of the Government will be concentrated in the hands of one man, who will dare to act with more boldness.”

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


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: activism; courts; federalcourt; judicial; scotus; supreme
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: hinckley buzzard

Congress can disestablish courts, but it cannot remove judges except by impeachment and conviction. So, the court/seat on the court will exist for the remainder of the career of whatever judge sits on it.


21 posted on 11/25/2011 6:14:22 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
The person who wrote this article, Ken Klukowski, is a conservative.

Yes, a compassionate conservative that is enamored with courts and their compassion and concern,...............for criminals and Marxists.

22 posted on 11/25/2011 6:29:46 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

I’m for eliminating judges altogether.

One thing mankind is not capable of is making sound judgments, it’s time we stop kidding ourselves.


23 posted on 11/25/2011 6:31:09 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
the court/seat on the court will exist for the remainder of the career of whatever judge sits on it.

It's not exactly clear. Certainly the judge is appointed for life, but the court itself has no such protection.

Likely Congress can make the court disappear, giving the judge no facilities, clerks, or staff, or anything else except pay. Such a judge would be in a world of hurt.

24 posted on 11/25/2011 6:41:50 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

Look him up. Most of his writings on this subject that I have read are against judicial tyranny and the usurpation of power by the federal judiciary. This article is opposing the opposite extreme of having the other two branches control the judiciary in such a manner as to render it dependent. An independent judiciary is essential for a constitutional government.


25 posted on 11/25/2011 6:46:36 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: chris37
I’m for eliminating judges altogether.

Technically possible, but things would fly apart badly before it got done Constitutionally.

A mechanism to make judges responsible is likely the best way out.

26 posted on 11/25/2011 6:48:38 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

That would be unconstitutional considering judges are guaranteed the same remuneration as when they were appointed. Taking away office expenses has the effect of denying the judge remuneration. Furthermore, taking away their jurisdiction and not seating them on a new court (perhaps a court the combines two old jurisdictions that have become too small), is at best a poor attempt to circumvent the constitution, and perverts the rule of law.


27 posted on 11/25/2011 6:50:35 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
An independent judiciary is essential for a constitutional government.

Said independent judiciary must not be independent of the reasonable law abiding citizens. Repeatedly, unreasonable judicial fiat has been mitigated by rejection by the electorate at the ballot in venues so empowered. Federal judges should be so restrained, and a mechanism to impose that restraint is reasonable.

28 posted on 11/25/2011 7:00:12 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

When a judge makes a flagrantly unconstitutional ruling there is a remedy; It’s called impeachment.


29 posted on 11/25/2011 7:02:27 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
Taking away office expenses has the effect of denying the judge remuneration.

Simple, pay 'em cash in lieu, they be screwed.

30 posted on 11/25/2011 7:03:53 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
There are empty buildings near Dawson ~

Isn't that in Alaska?

31 posted on 11/25/2011 7:06:37 PM PST by Publius6961 (My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto

When months count, impeachment is only decades away.


32 posted on 11/25/2011 7:08:08 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Normally that's something conservatives would agree upon. But no, some around here adjust their views based on who said it. It was Newt, so he must be destroyed, his words must be twisted into oblivion.

I have noticed the same thing. I believe in equal opportunity bashing whether a quote comes from Palin, Paul or Cain.

33 posted on 11/25/2011 7:08:15 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

If you are suggesting that a simple majority vote in both houses and the approval of the President should be able to render any judge powerless, then you are suggesting tyranny. Our revolution, Constitution, and laws were setup to prevent just that sort of seizure of power.


34 posted on 11/25/2011 7:09:05 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

I’m a Presbyterian; I am used to things going very slowly. It helps to prevent rash actions of people who are not thinking about the consequences.


35 posted on 11/25/2011 7:10:51 PM PST by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Is there a reason some federal courts couldn’t be in Alaska?


36 posted on 11/25/2011 7:11:17 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
Thomas Jefferson simply had Congress rescind the law and he fired all the judges.

What kind of tyranny was that?

Sounds like to me Jefferson had his ear to the ground and found out the people had lost confidence in the courts.

Just like any democratic body, a loss of confidence should result in a replacement of the government ~ and the courts are part of the government. Think of them as a pre-regulatory Executive Branch covered by Civil Service laws ~ you cut of the funds they go away.

37 posted on 11/25/2011 7:14:55 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto
If you are suggesting that a simple majority vote in both houses and the approval of the President

Generally, "electorate" means more than a simple majority vote in both houses and the approval of the President.

38 posted on 11/25/2011 7:16:35 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

it was noted that the remuneration deal probably affects only the members of the Supreme Court. The lower court judges are just simple employees.


39 posted on 11/25/2011 7:17:09 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot; All

Done for the evening, goodnight.


40 posted on 11/25/2011 7:17:22 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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