Posted on 11/25/2011 5:13:14 PM PST by Navy Patriot
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrichs 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 The new Congress repealed the law and the judges were ousted.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 Jeffersons 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 ...
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.
Yes, a compassionate conservative that is enamored with courts and their compassion and concern,...............for criminals and Marxists.
I’m for eliminating judges altogether.
One thing mankind is not capable of is making sound judgments, it’s time we stop kidding ourselves.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When a judge makes a flagrantly unconstitutional ruling there is a remedy; It’s called impeachment.
Simple, pay 'em cash in lieu, they be screwed.
Isn't that in Alaska?
When months count, impeachment is only decades away.
I have noticed the same thing. I believe in equal opportunity bashing whether a quote comes from Palin, Paul or Cain.
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.
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.
Is there a reason some federal courts couldn’t be in Alaska?
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.
Generally, "electorate" means more than a simple majority vote in both houses and the approval of the President.
it was noted that the remuneration deal probably affects only the members of the Supreme Court. The lower court judges are just simple employees.
Done for the evening, goodnight.
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.