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 The new Congress repealed the law and the judges were ousted.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 ...
Not that he'd do this right.
Isn’t Gingrich the one who implied, “right wing social engineering,” was the greatest threat to the U.S.?
He's slicker'n airy nekkid butt on a cold, snowy night ~ what Newt would do is RELOCATE THE COURT.
There are a lot of places to put a court. The judges don't get to chose that part.
There are empty buildings near Dawson ~
Next case.
yitbos
Aptly proved by Beauford Pusser.
Only through a political and economic Big Bang may our country save itself. Part of that is to clean the Marxists out of the lower courts. Disestablish them and start over. It is constitutional. It is necessary. What is left of our republic will not survive another rat or placeholder pubbie President.
It must be getting tough to find something new to lay on Newt every day.
Wouldn’t it be easier to take things out of their purview by limiting their jursdiction?
That claim has nothing to do with reality.
The statement was specifically about one-size-fits-all gov't entitlements being bad whether imposed from the left or the right.
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.
Finally, the Republicans must assume responsibility themselves, and properly police the nominations and firmly and unitedly deny confirmation to leftist radicals and ringers.
Unless they didn't exist.
The person who wrote this article, Ken Klukowski, is a conservative.
Newt's targeting lower courts.
Men in Black, by Mark Levin. Radio talk host and professor of constitutional law. His book outlines the power that Congress and the POTUS has to counter the SCOTUS and other federal courts.
Jefferson thought so, and the SCOTUS did not intefere, so I guess I'd believe it. No wonder the current crop of "constitutional scholars" are uneasy though. It threatens to upset their little fiefdoms in the appellate court system where they can "pass" laws the legislature won't touch. Original intent scares the bejesus out of leftwing looneys.
Actually, this article indicates how fearful the left is of Gingrich.
This is call to arms to anyone who will listen to pressure Republicans to reject Newt or dissuade him from employing this tactic in a Republican controlled government.
The reason? It will work, and very quickly if Republicans show stones. It's Constitutional.
So much for anti Newt posting, and there is concern that this would not be carried through properly. History, including Newt's.
Did you read the whole article? He explains the dangers of letting someone do what Newt suggests: Eliminating judgeships whilst a judge is living. If you could eliminate a bench whenever you wanted and kick the judge out, then you could eliminate that seat and then just recreate it at will. Think of the tyranny that could be imposed if courts could be dissolved and then reconstituted at will. You’d basically have a situation where whenever the opposing party is in power, they could just purge their opponents from the judiciary. That’s why in order to remove a judge, you should have to impeach them and convict them.
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.