Newt Gingrich Tackles The Court System

Flopping Aces ^ | 12-19-11 | Curt

[Starman417]

Newt Gingrich has proposed many solutions to the ever growing power of our courts. Power that has surpassed the other two branches of government:

Kelly: You have proposed a plan to subpoena judges to testify before Congress about controversial decisions that they make. In certain cases, you advocate impeaching judges or abolishing courts altogether. Two conservative former attorneys general have criticized your plan, saying it alters the checks and balances of the three branches of government. And they used words like “dangerous,” “outrageous,” and “totally irresponsible.” Are they wrong?

Gingrich: Well, the first half is right. It alters the balance, because the courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful, and I think, frankly, arrogant in their misreading of the American people.

(APPLAUSE)

There’s an entire paper at newt.org — I’ve been working on this project since 2002, when the Ninth Circuit Court said that “one nation under God” is unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance. And I decided, if you had judges who were so radically anti-American that they thought “one nation under God” was wrong, they shouldn’t be on the court. Now, we have…

(APPLAUSE)

I taught a short course in this at the University of Georgia Law School. I testified in front of sitting Supreme Court justices at Georgetown Law School. And I warned them: You keep attacking the core base of American exceptionalism, and you are going to find an uprising against you which will rebalance the judiciary.

We have a balance of three branches. We do not have a judicial dictatorship in this country. And that’s what the Federalist papers promised us. And I would — just like Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR — I would be prepared to take on the judiciary if, in fact, it did not restrict itself in what it was doing.

(APPLAUSE)

Kelly: These are conservative former attorneys generals who have criticized the plan, as I say, dangerous, ridiculous, outrageous, totally irresponsible.

Gingrich: Sure. I’d ask, first of all, have they studied Jefferson, who in 1802 abolished 18 out of 35 federal judges? Eighteen out of 35 were abolished.

Kelly: Something that was highly criticized.

Gingrich: Not by anybody in power in 1802.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

Gingrich: Jefferson himself was asked, is the Supreme Court supreme? And he said, that is absurd. That would be an oligarchy. Lincoln repudiates the Dred Scott decision in his first inaugural address in 1861 and says, no nine people can make law in this country. That would be the end of our freedom. So I would suggest to you, actually as a historian, I may understand this better than lawyers. And as lawyers those two attorneys general are behaving exactly like law schools, which have overly empowered lawyers to think that they can dictate to the rest of us.

The right and the left are upset with his proposals but something must be done. Impeachment and the abolishing of courts is one way. Many are saying that the abolishment of courts is unconstitutional but if it's a court Congress created, why can't they abolish it?

Here is the white paper Newt was speaking about in PDF format. It's an interesting read.

Matthew Franck argues that the abolishing of a court, and its federal judgeships, may be legal but Newt apparently wants to abolish a court and then create a new one which wouldn't be:

[Joe Boucher]

Whole lot of Federal, State and local judges that should be lined up and shot.
IMHO

[equaviator]

Lawyers...Can’t live with ‘em, can’t shoot ‘em.

[USS Alaska]

Gingrich: Sure. I’d ask, first of all, have they studied Jefferson, who in 1802 abolished 18 out of 35 federal judges? Eighteen out of 35 were abolished.

Kelly: Something that was highly criticized. By me said Kelly.

Gingrich: Not by anybody in power in 1802.

Newt bitched slapped the pretty, perky, smiley, smart Megan Kelly and she doesn't like it.

As a lawyer and also a TV personality, she now has the long knives out for Newt, so anything she reports going forward will really be slanted and vindictive.

[Venturer]

Newt was right again, however the Media spun it like he was wrong.

[apillar]

Well lets not forget that there IS precedent for this. Remember Andrew Jackson (a democrat by the way) famously said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." when the Supreme Court ruled against his plans to relocate Indians tribes. Then he proceeded to do it anyway, proving that the federal courts actually have zero power over the President if the Congress is not willing to Impeach him.

My only problem with Gingrich's Idea is "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". In other words, this may sound like a great idea with a Conservative in the White House, but imagine what an "Obama" could and would do with this sort of power if he could ignore conservative federal court rulings at his leisure.

[Bobalu]

Kelly was schooled!

[painter]

but imagine what an "Obama" could and would do with this sort of power if he could ignore conservative federal court rulings at his leisure.

He seems to be doing that right now.

[ex91B10]

"...this may sound like a great idea with a Conservative in the White House, but imagine what an "Obama" could and would do with this sort of power if he could ignore conservative federal court rulings at his leisure."

It's pretty clear that he's already exercising this kind of 'power'. Seems like a moot point.

[JoeFromSidney]

Article III of the Constitution requires the establishment of a Supreme Court, and other courts as Congress may direct. Thus Congress can establish or abolish courts, subject only to Presidential veto.

Moreover, since judges must be approved by the Senate, Congress may impeach justices for any reason for which both Houses can muster the necessary votes.

There's nothing at all radical in Newt's proposal. It can already be done under the existing Constitution. Is that power dangerous? Yes. But so are a lot of other things we've learned to live with and control.