Posted on 12/17/2011 3:51:50 PM PST by Steelfish
Newt Gingrich Says He'd Defy Supreme Court Rulings He Opposed
By David G. Savage December 17 Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings.
"I'm fed up with elitist judges" who seek to impose their "radically un-American" views, Gingrich said Saturday in a conference call with reporters.
In recent weeks, the Republican presidential contender has been telling conservative audiences he is determined to expose the myth of "judicial supremacy" and restrain judges to a more limited role in American government. "The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial and far too powerful," he said in Thursday's Iowa debate.
As a historian, Gingrich said he knows President Thomas Jefferson abolished some judgeships, and President Abraham Lincoln made clear he did not accept the Dred Scott decision denying that former slaves could be citizens.
Relying on those precedents, Gingrich said that if he were in the White House, he would not feel compelled to always follow the Supreme Court's decisions on constitutional questions. As an example, he cited the court's 5-4 decision in 2008 that prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had a right to challenge their detention before a judge.
"That was clearly an overreach by the court," Gingrich said Saturday. The president as commander in chief has the power to control prisoners during wartime, making the court's decision "null and void," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I’m surprised to see so many Freepers suddenly in support of ignoring the Supreme Court. If Obama continues with Obamacare even if it’s struck down by SCOTUS, that would be ok with these people? This site is becoming a real cesspool.
This is playing well to the Right.
Romney and his elitist buddies think he is suppose to coronated.
Dave you have no idea how brain dead the Lawyer class is. They refuse to believe that Congress can and has passed legislation that is not subject to review by the court. Back in the B1-Bomber Bob days they had cantions at the very thought of Congress having that power.
Do you remember how McCain told us, You have nothing to fear from this man Obama?
You completely missed the point. Removal, whatever form, comes after the face. Does not change the ruling.
Bottom line. There are supposed to be three co-equal branches of government and Newt CORRECTLY wants the executive and legislative branches to reclaim their co-equalness.
Obama thumbs his nose at the law every day. He refuses to enforce the immigration LAWS and uses the Justice Department and the courts to undermine the laws that are on the books. He does it because Congress refuses to impeach him.
Any President is free to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court, especially where they interfere with the duties and obligations of the Executive Branch. Newt is absolutely correct and I have been saying the same thing for years.
If the Supreme Court issues a ruling that the president ignores, how is that different from a president who refuses to enforce immigration laws?
The remedy is impeachment. The Congress can either choose to impeach the president or the Supreme Court.
“Obama Says He'd Defy Supreme Court Rulings He Opposed”
The huge majority on FR would be howling, and rightly so. Conservatives would call Obama a dictator, and call for his impeachment.
But replace “Obama” in the above phrase with “Gingrich”, and most people here are suddenly OK with it.
Look I’m new and well of course be called all kind of names but some of us here can wear 2 hats, one as a conservative and the other as a political junkie. I live for elections and precincts returns and exit polls and such. Just because someone suggests that Gingrich shouldn’t be so abrupt and pointed in some of his statements doesn’t make someone a candidate as a trader. I have very serious concerns about Gingrich as the nominee in the general election. I get the feeling with his -lets face it- Giulliani type personal foibles he will lose some on our side and many soccer moms may be turned off by him. I could be wrong but this is a valid point that doesn’t have to lead to a poster to be threatened with being a trader.
Judges can rule something Constitutional or Unconstitutional but that does not make it so. And there are methods to bring the Judiciary to heel when it goes too far. They are not unaccountable to the other two branches.
I think you have a valid point here. Newt is not advocating executive dictatorship, but a needed adjustment in the balance of powers.
I don’t know if it’s wisest to play this card now, in the general, or afterward. What we’re talking about, IMHO, is impressions rather than substance, and IMHO again, I think your point is about impressions and elections.
How good a point you have depends on something we don’t know yet: how this plays out.
With it getting this much play, I think we’ll have a much better idea, sooner rather than later.
thanks for your posts.
I take Reagan as my model. Lectures from you are not needed. In order to win, you must not sound threatening to crucial demographics. Reagan kept it simple: “Government is the problem.” You weaken the candidate you support by encouraging him to say stuff that won’t fly in the general election even among dyed-in-the-blue Republicans. The notion that a President can simply ignore SC decisions cuts both ways. We have had a liberal court since the 1960s. The way to reverse this is by appointing solid conservative judges (many of the liberal judicial appointments were made by Republican presidents (think Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun of Roe v. Wade fame, Souter, and even Kennedy by Reagan) or by impeachment.
No one here is supporting Romney but why he leads in some polls is that in spite of his moderate-liberal views, he is seen as a steady hand, something that is re-assuring to a vast swath of the voting public. Newt’s has super conservative principles but he needs self-discipline and not, in addition to some heavy baggage he carries (Freedie Mac/Global warming) provide free fodder to the Obama campaign. Why is this so difficult to many of these FReepers here to grasp? Shouldn’t the campaign be about Obama and not our candidate?
Newt is throwing red meat out there for pit bull conservatives and it is working. I see many who were slamming him a week ago liking this new tone.
Now that’s a decent and well argued response unlike some of the nuts that keep calling names and can’t carry through a logical debate of ideas.
{Nobody likes Lawyers}
Bingo!!!
I take Reagan (Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, John McCain, George HW Bush, Mitt Romney) as my model.
There, fixed it.
Article. III.Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as The Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as The Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as The Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
DOMA or do you not remember that?
The equation is simple: if Newt can show that he is with popular conservatism of the Tea Party, he wins, and if he tiptoes around to avoid the Democrat’s attack ads and the Washington GOP pundits tsk-tsking, he loses.
Right move, and double up on that, Newt.
Correct. Congress also has the power to limit the kinds of cases that federal judges could hear on appeal. All this is proper and constitutional. But that is NOT what Newt said. He spoke about not following Supreme Court judgments. This is totally different. Just think the howls of protests we’d hear on this site if Obama said something like this. Much as we embrace Newt’s constitutional values he may just have cooked himself with this remark. Expect leading conservative figures disassociate themselves from this remark in the next few days followed by a slump in the polls. Sad but inevitable.
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.