Skip to comments.
Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court
Newsday & AP ^
| September 29, 2006,
Posted on 09/30/2006 6:25:20 AM PDT by US Navy guy
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court decisions that are "so clearly at variance with the national will" should be overridden by the other branches of government, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: congress; politics; ussupremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
What a GREAT Idea! Also the US Congress sould try Impeachmont and Trial was a GREAT Check and Balence!
To: US Navy guy
Perhaps, Newt, the problem is the Congress who keeps writing these laws that the SC overturns and interprets.
The Congress could reign in the SC any time they want to. All they have to do is have the cajones to do so.
Heck, most of the Congresscritters admit that they don't even read most of the legislation they vote on.
2
posted on
09/30/2006 6:30:07 AM PDT
by
TomGuy
To: US Navy guy
That is the way the system is supposed to work.
I guess the AP is scared.
It is checks and ballances not the black robe monarchy.
3
posted on
09/30/2006 6:30:23 AM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: US Navy guy
So if the "national will" of the people and Congress ever gets to the point as to desire sex with 7 year olds to be legal, and the Supreme Court says no, can't do it, Congress should be able to "override" the Supreme Court? Bad idea.
4
posted on
09/30/2006 6:31:21 AM PDT
by
uptoolate
(Their 'innocent' civilian is their next suicide bomber)
To: US Navy guy
Impeachment of the federal judges is already allowable under the constitution.
In my opinion, the constitution needs to be amended to hold liberal judges to a 6-month term, and after wards replaced by someone who holds a lifetime appointment in the mold of Justice Scalia.
5
posted on
09/30/2006 6:32:59 AM PDT
by
AlGone2001
(He's not a baby anymore...)
To: US Navy guy
Blah, Blah. Newt's running for office.
Hey Newt, what did you do about this when you were Speaker? Oh that's right--nothing.
Nothing new here. Politician's lips are moving = Politician lying.
6
posted on
09/30/2006 6:33:43 AM PDT
by
Founding Father
(The Pedophile moHAMmudd (PBUH---Pigshit be upon him))
To: US Navy guy
7
posted on
09/30/2006 6:34:29 AM PDT
by
Vision
("As a man thinks...so is he." Proverbs 23:7)
To: uptoolate
True.
IIRC, the Clinton administration proved that governing by popularity polls (National will?) wasn't such a good idea.
The reason is that the 'National will' does not have all the information to make informed choices.
8
posted on
09/30/2006 6:34:55 AM PDT
by
TomGuy
To: Founding Father
Newt(In MY opinion) has a morality problem of his own, he cannot be true to his marriage vows. THAT puts him out of contention for ANY further public office.
To: TomGuy
Forget 'national will', how about variance from the Constitution and BOR?
10
posted on
09/30/2006 6:38:42 AM PDT
by
budwiesest
(Time to end the war on hippie lettuce.)
To: Founding Father
You must be a Mitt man, GA man, or maybe a Johnny Mac airdale man.
11
posted on
09/30/2006 6:41:04 AM PDT
by
tiger-one
(The night has a thousand eyes)
To: TomGuy
Perhaps, Newt, the problem is the Congress who keeps writing these laws that the SC overturns and interprets. Actually, the Supreme Court overturns centuries of common law and traditional interpretation of existing statutes. Clearly, only the most convoluted reading of the Constitution would show that state laws banning abortion, many predating the Constitution or the Court, are unconstitutional.
Despite Susan Estrich's et alia's bleatings to the contrary, the chief threat to rule of law these days is the lawlessness of the courts.
12
posted on
09/30/2006 6:42:12 AM PDT
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(The hallmark of a crackpot conspiracy theory is that it expands to include countervailing evidence.)
To: US Navy guy
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, California:
Please be advised, you are hereby given 30 days notice to find new employment.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, California is in keeping with recent court rulings, being seized under emminent domain, for the greater public good.
You are henceforth compensated in the amount of Twenty (20) US Dollars.
Your servants for the greater Public Good.
Congress of the United States of America."
To: US Navy guy; uptoolate
The process already exists, it's called Amending the Constitution. I concur with uptoolate, we cannot abandon the Republic to the tyranny of a democracy, even if that is two branches against one.
Remember, too , that the court has changed and while great weight is given to past decisions, many have been overturned by a new ruling.
14
posted on
09/30/2006 6:45:12 AM PDT
by
NonValueAdded
(Treaty Fetishism: "[The] belief that a piece of paper will alter the behavior of thugs." R. Lowry.)
To: US Navy guy
I don't think this would be such a great idea. Suppose some future liberal Congress passes a bill to ban all firearms ownership, signed into law by a liberal President. The Supreme Court then rules the law unconstitutional. Congress can then overrule the Supreme Court without having to go thrue the difficult process of amending the constitution.
To: US Navy guy
Well, the Supreme Court has no executive powers of its own, so technically, it can rule on cases from now till St. Swithin's Day, and if the other branches -- or The People -- refuse to observe its dictates, it is powerless to enforce them.
16
posted on
09/30/2006 6:51:58 AM PDT
by
IronJack
To: TomGuy
Congress can limit SCOTUS' jurisdiction pursuant to Article III, §2, but SCOTUS ignored such a limitation in their
Hamdan ruling...
Perhaps, Newt, the problem is the Congress who keeps writing these laws that the SC overturns and interprets.
17
posted on
09/30/2006 6:52:06 AM PDT
by
Ready4Freddy
("Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.")
To: IronJack
Then WHY doen't President Bush and the US Congress tell the USSC to PACK SAND!?!
To: uptoolate
Hope you are wearing something flame retardant.
You argument, sex with 7 year olds, is something straight out of the liberal dimocrat play book. Take an issue, then take a position, and then run away off to an extreme and use that as the basis of our counter argument.
Sex with a 7 year old as a common, nation wide practice! If that is the best you can do I have to wonder.
19
posted on
09/30/2006 6:56:23 AM PDT
by
Nip
(SPECTRE - taking out the enemy one terrorist at a time; at night; without warning or mercy)
To: US Navy guy
What specific issue would you like to try this with first?
20
posted on
09/30/2006 6:57:12 AM PDT
by
Not A Snowbird
(Official RKBA Landscaper and Arborist, Duchess of Green Leafy Things)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson