Newt Gingrich Says He'd Defy Supreme Court Rulings He Opposed [Obama Campaign Ad Material!]

LATimes ^ | December 17, 2011 | David G. Savage

[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.

[RobbyS]

Jackson said the same thing to Marshall about the Cherokee cases.

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

Of course not. But why give Obama ammunition? Remember, nuance will be lost in the general election. Obama will turn the campaign away from him and onto Newt. Independents will flee in droves. Is this what you want?

Doubt it.

As the only ones who use Activist Courts/Judges to advance their agendas which they can not enact through the legislative process are Far Left Moonbats who only make up about 20% of the electorate.

I'm willing to wager that even most of the so-called "Moderates" are not that enamored with the way the Supremes have ruled on many issues.

MOREOVER, considering how often Dear Leader has "usurped" powers not delegated under the Constitution his attacking Newt on this issue would open him up to scrutiny he would not want.

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

What next? We hang all the Islamic convicts in the public square?

NOW, you are finally making sense.

I'll volunteer to pull the lever; hell, I'll even furnish the rope.

[Jim Noble]

Why is this an implosion?

Gingrich is exactly correct. Each branch has a coequal right to interpret the Constitution, and to give effect to its interpretations - within its proper scope.

There are many,many Supreme Court decisions which obviously violate the Constitution and should be ignored (or defied) by ay officer who has taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend said Constitution.

This is a huge reason to support Newt. I don’t see a problem with it.

[dirtboy]

You are an ignorant fool. This country relies on a balance of powers. And at times one branch usurps powers that are not theirs to take. When a court effectively acts as legislators, the President should not have to accept such.

[Jacquerie]

Newt has long argued for a renewal of Constitutional separation of powers.

Here is superb analysis from the Heritage Foundation.

[indianrightwinger]

Will you make the same argument if Obama ignores SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare?

[dirtboy]

I imagine Obama will do just that if he remains president and SCOTUS rules against Obamacare. However, in the case of Obama, he would be supporting federal usurpation of powers and in turn would be abusing his own enumerated powers as well. If Newt wins the presidency and makes the case that SCOTUS or an appeals court was legislating or acting counter to the 10th and repealing what is a state-level power (like what happened in Sullivan, then there would be a conservative basis to disregard that ruling by not instructing the DOJ to act on it.

You have to add context to any action instead of mindlessly throwing out apples and oranges without any effort to make a distinction between them.

[dirtboy]

This site is becoming a real cesspool.

Feel free to leave at any time, jackass.

[Rennes Templar]

The reason Gingrich has jumped out front is precisely because he has been telling it like it is.

[Zack Attack]

"The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial and far too powerful," he said in Thursday's Iowa debate.

Sounds more like the White House is the one I've been hearing the most complaints about being dictatorial to me Newt. Should Obama also "ignore" Supreme Court rulings "he" disagrees with?

[Zack Attack]

I tend to agree with the crux of his point but the way he says things at times can seriously turn people away.

We already have many people fearing the balance of power is shifting too much to the current White House and its’ “if congress won’t go along we’ll just have to do this on our own” attitude.

[supercat]

I tend to agree with the crux of his point but the way he says things at times can seriously turn people away.

Indeed. I would have worded as, "As President, I will recognize and uphold the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supreme Law of the Land forbids the the Supreme Court any authority to issue rulings contrary to the Constitutions. Any such rulings that it issues are illegitimate, and should be regarded as such."