But, like the GOP establishment, you prefer the limp-wristed castrati type.
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 ...
Newt is correct, the judicial was not meant to be dictator.
The final arbiter in all cases has always been the ability of congress to impeach and remove a president. That is the last court of appeal.
(well, there is always revolution I suppose)
The phrase actually used is “during good behavior”.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
...the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive...
I do like what he says. Go Newt.
You simply don’t seem to be getting the point. We all know that the judiciary has gotten out of hand. But the way you do this is to impeach judges and appoint the Justice Thomas types. You don’t throw out explosive rhetoric that will detonate in your face come the general election. It’s all about winning, not satisfying one’s basic (base?) instinct. Obama did the same. He never wore his Alinsky credentials on his sleeves. Why is this so impossible for intelligent people to realize? Or have we downgraded the IQ among some of our FReepers?
I’m getting these same “Look at their accomplishments” message again and again and again. Mercy!!!
Before jumping to conclusions and falling for MSN sound bites, maybe you should actually READ what Newt has to say about it.
Newt has a....
“NEWT 2012 Position Paper Supporting Item No. 9 of the 21st Century Contract with America:” complete position paper http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf
Here is a sample.
9. Restore the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated
powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or replace
judges who violate the Constitution.
In the last half-century, a political and activist judiciary has stepped far beyond its proper
boundaries.
The time has come to reestablish a balance among the three branches of government
according to the Constitution.
Article I of the Constitution covers the legislative branch, because the Founding Fathers
thought it would be closest to the people and therefore the strongest branch.
Article II concerns the Executive Branch because the Founding Fathers had lived through
an eight-year war with the British Empire and knew there were times when there would
have to be a strong executive and a competent Commander-in-Chief implementing the
law and defending the nation.
The Judicial Branch did not come until Article III because the Founders wanted it to be
the weakest of the three branches.
The Federalist Papers explicitly recognized that the Judicial Branch would be weaker
than the Legislative and Executive Branches. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote
reassuringly that the Judicial Branch would lose any confrontation with the two elected
branches:
“the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that
it can never attack with success either of the other two.”
The Founding Fathers felt strongly about limiting the power of judges because they had
dealt with tyrannical and dictatorial British judges.
In fact, reforming the judiciary was second only to “no taxation without representation”
in the American colonists’ complaints about the British Empire prior to the revolution. A
number of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence relate to judges dictatorial
and illegal behavior.
Since the New Deal of the 1930s, however, the power of the American judiciary has
increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives of the people in the
other two branches. The judiciary began to act on the premise of “judicial supremacy,”
where courts not only review laws, but also actively seek to modify and create new law
from the bench. The result is that courts have become more politicized, intervening in
areas of American life never before imaginable.”
http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/contract/21st_Century_Contract_Legislative_Proposals.pdf
But...........(drum roll please).......
You asked for it!
(Sorry, but it was irresistible!)
And I'd LOVE to see a few overreaching elitist judges tossed out on their ass.
Another 3 pointer for Newt.
Ya, and if Newt over reached, he could be impeached. See, that is how the Framers of the Constitution intended government to work.
Do you actually believe that judges, once appointed, have unlimited powers? I for one do not!
But the way you do this is to impeach judges and appoint the Justice Thomas types.
From the article:
and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings.
So Newt is pressing for just that while upholding the powers of the executive.
Seriously, you sound like a stinkin' lib with your objections here.
But, like the GOP establishment, you prefer the limp-wristed castrati type.
I take it from your headline editorial that you support ROMNEY.
I agree with Newt also. It’s time to challenge the tyranny of the judiciary.
Self-immolation is also gutsy.
Newt is right.
You mean as in “THE TRUTH”? YES, It is exactly what I want. I want the TRUTH. Always the truth. Nothing but the truth. So help me God!
Someone willing to speak the truth, how unusual? How REFRESHING!
Maybe you are right? Independents are too STUPID to understand these complicated issues. /sarc
Aww, you upset because Newt schooled that fake lawyer Megan?
Impeach Earl Warren!
I have no idea why any Supreme that spoke in favor of “a living Constitution” is not immediately impeached. They are basically telling Congress to shove it...
Oh yeah, it's a great precedent!
Wonder what you'll think when Obama decides to follow his lead. I mean, it's just dandy when you trust the guy in charge -- not so much when you don't.
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.