The Prop 8 Ruling is Good News for Newt Gingrich (9th Circuit legalizes homosexual "marriage")

Slate ^ | February 7, 2012 | David Weigel (Journ-o-list)

[2ndDivisionVet]

Folks, we're not even being contrary when we point this out. For the 9th Circuit to rule Prop 8 unconstitutional, just as Gingrich is looking again for his footing -- just as Rick Santorum is about to steal his headlines -- is a Gingrichian dream. Look! He agrees:

(TWEET FROM NEWT AT LINK)

The link goes to the 9th (coincidentally) of Gingrich's solutions for fixing the judiciary, to prevent it from doing things that conservatives don't like -- abolishing courts that make "un-American decisions." He's been on the record wanting this treatment for the 9th circuit for a long, long time. In 2010, he donated to Iowa conservatives' efforts to defeat the judges who legalized gay marriage there. This is Gingrich's turf.

Is it Romney's?(continued)

[2ndDivisionVet]

Milt wants no part of that issue.

[Steelfish]

This will be a hot button election issue and so far no word from the White House. OBama is now on record as favoring Gays marriages. Makes winning PA easier for Santorum- native son, and if a couple of other blue-states turn red, Obama is kaput.

[TheOldLady]

Boop His Cute Little Tootsies!

Pretty Baby Looks Innocent Now
But He'll Be Huge and Fiery Soon
Donate!

Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

[Jacquerie]

President Newt will ask Congress for a bill that disembowels the Ninth Circus.

I don't see what the big deal is over Newt's attitude toward the Judiciary. We are not even talking impeachment, which is after all just a firing by the representatives of the people. Every court below Scotus exists at the pleasure of the elected branches. It is a check that our reps should exercise.

[Vigilanteman]

Correct. I have my differences with Newt. But he is spot on about reigning in the courts.

We are supposed to have a system of checks and balances.

As it is now, court nominees might undergo a grueling confirmation hearing, but once on the bench, they have few checks, few balances and no accountability. That has to change.

Not to make the courts more reflective of popular will, but to keep them from expanding their dictator-like powers into the legislative and executive processes.

Once upon a time, there was something called judicial restraint. If they are unwilling to exercise that restraint, they should fear consequences.