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 ...
If he believes the Scotus justices are wrong, he is required by his oath to oppose their rulings.
The Constitution says:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." "
Newt is correct in both fact, and law.
So you are OK with Newt selling out conservative principles instead of saying what needs to be said
well he seems to have sold out his principals and saying along time ago...or humane illegals and mandate needed to be said
The Constitution says:
“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” “
To do that, He’d have to ignore half of the Supreme Court’s rulings.
“The way you do that is to appoint conservatives to the court..”
Yeah right, like we have all the time in the world to change all the malefactors that have made it onto our courts. If Newt managed to be president for two terms, the effect he might have following your prescription would be miniscule.
I think that following our Constitution, there is a way to remove for cause, judges who act outside the bounds of that document and that is what Newt is proposing!
Dumbkopf!
And yet no president in our 230 year history has defied a SC decision. No one! This is the stuff Obama will hit Newt with in ads after ads until Newt instead of Obama becomes the target. It’s called winning by deflection.
Why on earth would you believe that Newt's clearly correct analysis is evidence of "implosion"?
The elites are panicking. I can’t bear to watch even FOX as they whine that Romney is IT and Newt is never going to do. They trashed Sarah, too. Time to throw them under the bus and do this our way.
Steelfish, independents have ALREADY flown away from Obama in droves. That’s why his re-elect numbers are bad and getting ‘badder’ all the time.
Nothing Noot called for is in any way unconstitutional.
congress has the constitutional power to limit what the supreme court can even consider if it so chooses.
Yes, and it will be interesting when the 'Rats, who revere Jackson (indeed, his followers organized their party), try to call Newt on this.
what? no president has defied the supreme court?
lol
um... I think I remember something about Lincoln saying... the supreme court has ruled... now let them enforce it! and also something about the constitution not being a suicide pact.
Saying is one thing. But before doing the LOL thing, give me one example of defiance, just one. Remember Eisenhower did not like Brown v. Board of Education but he sent in federal marshals to enforce the SC decree.
The constitutional way to do it is to impeach them, block liberal nominees, and have Republican presidents appoint hard right judicial nominees like Justice Thomas.
He is saying what needs to be said. Law schools are telling their students that judges are the final authority in this land. Even conservative judges buy this. Not for nothing did Bill Buckley speak of the Supreme Court as the American papacy. Even Catholic lawyers accept the word of the court as the final word on the morality of things.
Of course, even the SC reads the papers. This is why a conservative court blinked when challenged by FDR. But the mindset of many judges today is that they are free to rewrite the law. Black, for instance, rewrote the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Blackmun simply disregarded the facts of biology in his Roe v. Wade opinion, and in Doe vs., Bolton, the Court gave “health” such a broad meaning that an ocean liner could sail through it. A few judges in Masachusetts simply decided that a dog has five legs by including the tail as a leg and ignored the whole body of law about marriage. When they know that the legislature is corrupt and the governor weak, they know they have nothing to fear. No, they are not all powerful, but right now no one is checking them. I don’t want even Roberts to have the power he has now.
You are buy the doctrine of judicial supremacy. How many judges have been impeached? Those that have been are impeached for larceny and such, not for abuse of power.
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.