Posted on 12/17/2011 3:51:50 PM PST by Steelfish
No, Marlowe is right. Even if the Congress will not remove a court entirely, it’s only reproach of the president will be impeachment. For that to happen the Senate must have a super-majority, iirc. That means the Dems would have to control both the House and have a super-m in the Senate...67 votes(?).
In any case, the Republicans would have to lose huge in the House and Senate PLUS have a presidential win for that to become an issue. IOW, it won’t happen.
Therefore, Gingrich would be free NOT to enforce anything any court says that is oligarchical.
RE: Self-immolation is also gutsy.
Judging from your propaganda-boy-for-the-GOP-establishment position, I have no doubt you’re an expert on the ball-less.
You are an ass. And you can kiss mine.
Yes, I read “Men in Black” as well as Bork’s “Slouching Toward Gomorrah” Of course, the liberal judiciary is out of hand. It was in the 1960s as it was at the time of Reagan.
Guess logic doesn’t appeal to you.
>> “Obama will turn the campaign away from him and onto Newt. Independents will flee in droves” <<
.
What are you smoking?
Noot has pulled a whole hutch of rabbits out of a baseball cap with this. There’ll be no stopping him if he holds steady on this one.
Nobody likes Lawyers nor Judges.
Correct- but they like constitutional government.
IOW you want someone who will just tell the people what they want to hear and avoid actually telling the truth like Newt did with the Palestinians and he is doing with the Supreme Court here.
You want Newt to act like Romney.
Why don't you just come out and say what everyone on this thread has already figured out? You want Romney or someone exactly like him.
Why are you on Free Republic if you want to criticize our politicians when they say stuff that we on free republic have been saying for years?
What you are pushing as logic is cowardice
>> “I think we’d be more effective if we returned to informing jurors of their rights.” <<
.
Correctamundo!
And a conservative congress could do that (if they got Boehner the Boner out of the way)
I’m no fan of Newt, but I agree as well. Part of the checks and balance system includes not allowing the Supreme Court to dictate law from the bench as they did with Roe v. Wade.
Desiring a candidate who only says soothing things says that you will never know what the candidate really believes or what he will really do.
You realize, of course, that this is the original meaning of the word “soothsayer”.
I heartily agree with your election evaluations. I share your fear of Newt’s bomb throwing, almost talk radio platitudes. While we may all share this belief it serves no purpose dropping these ideas now. What frightens me most is Newt’s standing with the women vote, he -at times- is not real likeable and can sometimes come across very harsh. No, I am not a Romney guy, right now I don’t have a candidate so I can remain a little objective, but here in CA it really doesn’t matter who i vote for, as blue is the darkest blue here.
“All I am saying is that we can’t go with a candidate that will lose the crucial independent bloc, and the vital female 19-49 demographic.’
You’ve swallowed the Rove/RINO propaganda hook, line and sinker. The dead fish Romney is their candidate, and he can’t get above 25% support among GOP voters. Ask JR what he thinks about Romney.
The Federal Court was formed as a result and from the constitution. The court is to defend the constitution and not ignore or interpret it.
If they do either of the later, they must be removed. They have no legislative authority, no dictators powers, and should rule exclusively for the constitution.
They havent done that since nearly the inception of the court and congress has the authority to over rule. Which they will not do!
I agree with Newt’s sentiments. There have been several Presidents who ignored Supreme Court decisions; Jackson-”Mr. Marshal has made the law now let him enforce it,” Lincoln, and FDR. However, while taking a technically correct Newt may appear too radical. He has admitted the attacks upon him have taken a toll.
The Founders intent was to have a checks and balances system, but they are not meant to be equal like so many think. Looking at article 1 dealing with the executive branch, article 2 dealing with the legislative branch and reading article 3 on the judiciary you have to recognize he disparaging difference. Heck, the Supreme Court didn’t even have a building of its own til well into the 20th century and only met for a few weeks per year when they were established. Our Founding Fathers never meant for the majority of nine to rule the land.
More power to Newt, we need more Americans like him who know our history and are willing to work to reestablish it.
However, in this case, (the Chekoree indian tribe I believe) the SC was correct and the treaties were binding and should have been respected.
Didn’t Jefferson remove several Justices that made rulings that were not in the Constitution? I believe they were impeached.
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.