Posted on 12/18/2011 2:22:39 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Republican president hopeful Newt Gingrich doubled down on his criticism of federal judges and the Supreme Court on Sunday as chief rival Mitt Romney defended his record against likely Democratic attacks.
With close to two weeks before GOP voters start choosing their nominee, Gingrich is courting the conservative primary voters he will need to win in Iowa and sustain his campaign against Romney, whose superior organization and pile of cash has him seeming ever more confident as he looks ahead to the general election.
"There is steady encroachment of secularism through the courts to redefine America as a nonreligious country and the encroachment of the courts on the president's commander-in-chief powers, which is enormously dangerous," Gingrich said on CBS's Face the Nation.
Polls in Iowa and nationally show Gingrich ahead of Romney in the race for the GOP nomination. Gingrich has acknowledged that Romney's repeated attacks have taken a toll on his campaign and is looking to stay at the top.
To do that, Gingrich is focusing on ideology as he courts the Iowa conservatives he needs to win the caucuses and challenge Romney's well-organized campaign in what could become a drawn-out primary. He has mounted a broad attack on federal judges and the Supreme Court, arguing that they are legislating from the bench and have more control over the country than they should.
It's an argument that drew sustained applause during a debate last week in Sioux City, Iowa -- and one that could have particular resonance in a state where Republicans fought a protracted battle with state Supreme Court judges over gay marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
An actual tea party would involve drowning the socialists in the tea.
My sentiments exactly..
I have long felt it was time to challenge the Judiciary head on.
I’m tired of judges creating new rights that didn’t constitutionally exist or suppressing those that do. What many call “Rule of Law” is actually the “Rule of Lawyers.” I don’t have to be an attorney to understand plain English.
When the Supreme Court, or lower ones, leave the original intent of the constitution or ammendments to it, they have exceeded their constitutional authority. Mechanisms need to exist to stop rulings by the courts that exceed or defy original intent.
Our whole legal system is not up to snuff. You can’t run a 21st century nation with a 17th century legal system.
We have a country where we can design and build an airliner with a million pieces in 5 years but a simple legal question can take 10 years to decide.
It isn’t working.
IIRC, the IA judges are regularly up for retention votes. If so, the people booted those judges in 2010 via the ballot box, not through impeachment.
Still, the same result, which should prove to be fertile ground for Newt. For 50 years we’ve needed a President to signal Congress that he would support an overhaul of the lower court system. Newt is it.
Speaker Gingrich really does GET this.
He truly understands the most critical problems (including the number of really sick puppies in the courts) from spiritual, historical and political perspectives.
With a all of us spending more time on our knees, and with a Republican sweep in the House and Senate, we could see some authentically GOOD reform.
From Article III, “In all cases . . . and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”
Twenty-six States have challenged Obamacare. I do not know why their case did not immediately go to Scotus.
I am not aware of any other law in our history that was taken to court by a majority of the States. Our republic is very sick.
You might want to take the time to see what this pastor has to say about Newt. It coincides with something similar I recently read (wish I could remember where).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2822096/posts
Hello, Megyn!!!! You, my dear, are NO lady.....nice try though.
Isn’t Bachmann a lawyer and a serious candidate?
How did she mess up? I didn’t see it.
Does she believe that judges have unlimited power under the Constitution - to make law instead of interpreting the laws established by Congress and signed by the President?
Critics are smirking that Newt is ‘shooting himself in the foot’. WRONG - Newt is emphasizing a pressing problem others only complain about.
Uh oh....Lady on the Lake (Megyn) is going to try to insult you like she thought she was doing to me!!
That's what she says. At least twice that I've seen.
Listen to Mark Levin supporting judicial reform. Doesn’t agree with subpoenaing judges, but definitely agrees with reigning in the lower courts which are a creation of congress and although Gingrich is not necessarily his man, he agrees that judicial activism must be challenged:
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-calls-out-ann-coulter-for-unfairly-trashing-newt-gingrich/
If the electorate were all committed evangelicals, most would give the nod on principle to Newt if he were the candidate.
But a viable candidate today also has to be Ratproof. This means not just doing things right, but positioned in life such that dirty tricks such as were played on Herman Cain would simply not be possible.
Bachman is a lawyer. But I lost a lot of respect for her with all her Newt-bashing after talking so glowingly about him in years past.
More importantly, though, it seems to me that if you have to whine at a debate “I am a SERIOUS CANDIDATE”......you probably aren’t.
Hank
My, my, what kind of language is that for a Lady?
I thought that slang version for vagina was right there with Runt?
Be nice laddies.
HEY!! I didn;t say a thing to her....she replied to me with that nasty slang. Lady???
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.