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 ...
Specifically ...?
Plus that he did the recruiting and led the charge to it's ultimate success.
He's more than a leader. IMO our best shot in 08.
Newt became Speaker in '95 after crafting a program for the Republicans to take control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.
The Congress then implemented 9 of the 10 programs outlined in his "Contract for America."
In 1998 that Congress was faced with the Clinton - Lewinski matter, over which Newt presided until they were able to get him to resign in '99.
It can hardly be said that Newt did nothing during his brief tenure as Speaker.
As to his becoming POTUS? Not likely. But don't take away from what he was able to accomplish as Speaker.
And, let's not discount Newt's ability to articulate conservative policies in a way few other can.
"If the government got to that point, we would be at the doorstep of civil war."
We might not be far from that point if liberals like Pelosi take control of Congress, and Broom Hilda is elected President in 08. At least we would have justices Alito, Roberts and company to keep them in check.
Andrew Jackson. Worcester v. Georgia. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" (although it is in great dispute that he ever said that and technically he did not defy the SCOTUS. They backed down because he was about to do so)
I haven't read all the mssgs. but has any one thought of term limits for the SC judges? I don't know, what 10 years then they have to be re-confermed for another 10 years then OUT.
I thought.
Ditto. A great idea. The Supremes have caused enough damage.
That's not quite true. He got himself a girlfriend, just like his buddy Bill had.
Newt is a huge disappointment. I'd prefer he go seek tenure somewhere as a history professor.
He's all blather.
This "What if..." scenario is dangerous. I figure if it had been in use in the 18th century, the Constitutional Convention would still be in session!
While SCOTUS may be powerless to enforce its decisions, the People and other parts of government has bound themselves up by taking the "Rule of Law" to the extreme. Whatever the courts want, they simply dream up a new constitutional right, such as abortion.
Who lead "CONTRACT WITH AMERICA"?
If one will go back in history...an opinion is just that an opinion, a President can disregard it, especially if it doesn't line up with the constitution. Past president's have done that a number of times.
When the Supreme Court illegally -- and erroneously -- rules that abortion is somehow provided for and protected under a Constitution that does no such thing, then isn't recognition of that extra-legal ruling itself criminal? How does a court demand legitimacy if it rules in contradiction to the law itself?
To confound matters even more, at what point does law become defined as the will of the people? After all, in the absence of any moral absolute, aren't right and wrong subject to whim as much as any other purely social construct? Then the role of the courts becomes to divine the will of the people and codify it into precedent.
You're ill informed. Congress already has the constitutional authority to limit the jurisdiction of the Court.
ROTFLOL
--Suppose some future liberal Congress passes a bill to ban all firearms ownership, signed into law by a liberal President. --
If the people were foolish or apathetic enough to elect all those liberals in the first place, then they would deserve what was coming to them. No court decisions could save them from their own lack of judgment.
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.