Posted on 12/29/2011 9:29:23 PM PST by stevelackner
Gingrich is 100% correct about the activist judges and courts. They need to be brought down!!
Romney will simply kiss their asses.
What is being discussed is in the framework that the rule of our government has turned from being based on the morality as seen by the Founders and in our Constitution to being based on opinions by judges with questionable morals
Yes and Mitt’s behavior is a protected by the Constiution!
I suppose placemark.
"I was in support of holding the judges accountable before I was against it."
What a load of hogwash. The Republican Party is in dire straits if an idiot like this can be one of the Party's Presidential frontrunners. The GOP needs a good cleaning out of the rot and decay before the entire Party is brought down. If Myth Romney manages to steal the nomination, I truly believe that the GOP will disintegrate and go the way of the Whigs.
Adult stepdaughter? Just wondering how many think that should be a crime. Paging Woody Allen and Morgan Freeman.
When these activist judges get through, incest will be a constitutional right and so will murder, rape and sex with children. Newt was right.
I knew about Woody, but what about Freeman?
Gingrich is not just about saying judges need to be “brought down.” He has said they should be impeached. That should not be controversial at all, it is explicitly provided for as a power of Congress in the Constitution, as explained originally by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 81. The idea of subpoenaing judges, and if need be arresting them to enforce the power to bring them before Congress to testify, is more unprecedented and controversial, but is still nonetheless about bringing them before Congress to testify about their own rulings so that Congress can be informed before impeaching the judge. That itself does not seem altogether terribly radical to me. Federalist No. 81 states:
“It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force. And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments.”
Yeah well after the 3 branches are finished it’ll likely be the only freedoms we have.
Thanks stevelackner.
Nicely done contrast and dissection of the two rulings. Your summation was inspired. I hope the SCOTUS chokes on your highlighting of their irrationality.
I will first say I haven’t given this a minute of thought until I came to this thread. With that said, my knee jerk reaction is that I’m actually rather surprised it is a crime. Isn’t the thrust (poor word choice) behind incest laws that there are underlying biological/genetic “safety” issues?
I thought anti incest laws were to prevent two people who were too close genetically from running the risk of producing defective offspring. In the case of Step relatives this genetic issue does not exist, so the measure for judgement should be age and consent.
“Romney will simply kiss their asses.” True, but only after he has thoroughly brushed his teeth and gargled; so he will be minty fresh!
Yeah; try expressing the truth about the gangsta's, 4th generation welfare, etc., and you will wind up charged with a "Hate Crime", "Racism", etc.
The only place Kennedy supports this idea of "Freedom" is when it comes to faggots and dykes, or other Progressive, Family-destroying "interpretations".
The Morgan Freeman thing was an incestuous affair with a step-granddaughter - beginning when she was 17 - and lasting for at least ten years. His 1st wife of 20 something years (the girl's grandmother) was reported to have left him for that reason. There were also reports that he was doing a Woody and marrying her.
The internet was full of photos of the 2 together at the time.
which is foreplay for sodomy.
“He has said they should be impeached. That should not be controversial at all, it is explicitly provided for as a power of Congress in the Constitution,...”
Yes...and his statements regarding such activist judges gave me great hope. Am I correct in my belief that speaker Gingrich is the ONLY candidate who has obviously thought about this particular manner of handling activist judges and brought it to our attention?
The Left certainly would fear a Gingrich presidency.
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.