Posted on 12/18/2011 4:23:33 PM PST by presidio9
Newt Gingrich on Sunday reiterated his argument that there is something "profoundly wrong" with the United States' judicial system, and argued that the balance of power in American government should come down to "two out of three" branches of the government.
In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Gingrich continued to defend his controversial position that Congress and the president should have the authority to ignore the rulings of federal judges when they disagree with them.
Citing what he describes as "extreme behavior" on the party of the judicial system, Gingrich proposes a system wherein "it's always two out of three."
"If the Congress and the court say the president is wrong, in the end the president would lose. And if the president and the court agreed, the Congress loses," said Gingrich. "The founding fathers designed the Constitution very specifically in a Montesquieu spirit of the laws to have a balance of power - not to have a dictatorship by any one of the three branches."
"How does the president decide what's a good law and 'I'm going to obey the Supreme Court,' or what's a bad law and 'I'm just going to ignore it?'" asked CBS' Bob Schieffer.
"I think it depends on the severity of the case," Gingrich responded. "I'm not suggesting that the Congress and the president review every decision. I'm suggesting that when there are decisions... in which they're literally risking putting civil liberty rules in battlefields, it's utterly irrational for the Supreme Court to take on its shoulders the defense of the United States. It's a violation of
Yeah these idiots are complaining because Newt agreed with the Constitution. It’s like a god-damned madhouse here today.
>> There you go again, spouting off about how stupid everyone else is, as evidenced by the fact that they don’t agree with you >>
No, as evidenced by the stupidity of a given particular argument. And no, not everybody. And actually, I engage in a lot of disagreements that are amiable and with mutual respect. But I don’t suffer shallow happily. I just don’t.
I should hope so. He’s already on thin ice with many conservatives.
Gosh, Bob, that's easy: If it's what the left wants then enforce it, if not ignore it. That's what Obama does.
In 1958, all nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court signed on to a judicial opinion in the case Cooper v. Aaron that asserted that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution was supreme in importance to the constitutional interpretation of the other two branches of government, and that this judicial supremacy, all nine justices asserted, is a “permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.”
Justices and judges serve for life, DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR. Ruling contrary to the letter of the Constitution is not Good Behavior. Impeachment is the answer.
Justices and judges serve for life, DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR. Ruling contrary to the letter of the Constitution is not Good Behavior. Impeachment is the answer.
Justices and judges serve for life, DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR. Ruling contrary to the letter of the Constitution is not Good Behavior. Impeachment is the answer.
Actually it is in t he Constitution; it's called impeachment and it hasn't been used nearly as often as it should be.
If I had to pick two things that more than anything else were destroying our free republic, the judicial supremacist lie would be one of them.
It’s a big lie that has infected pretty much our entire legal and political class, sadly.
Unless we can turn that around, I don’t see any possible way for us to survive in liberty.
As long as that lie holds sway, we are living under a judicial oligarchy, not in a constitutional republic.
And he is right to cite the application of Miranda rules to the battlefield. That was a decision that everybody on the SCOTUS knows was mistaken -- and they knew it when the decision was announced.
The majority opinion was written by the senile John Paul Stevens (or his liberal clerks). As support, it cited segments of the Geneva Accord -- segments that said the exact opposite of what the senile Stevens contended.
As such, the decision was totally in error. Everybody knew it. But the majority supported it nonetheless...because it furthered their political agenda.
Pretty scary when you think that Occupy Wall Street could elect a President and congress, and destroy our country if not for the checks of the Supreme Court.
I like the idea of overriding the supreme court, much like veto overrides. I also like the idea of simply “retiring” judges so they don’t get comfortable.
I’m glad Newt has joined the discussion — but Rick Perry has been all over this for years. He wrote about it in his book that Newt obviously read.
Oh, I wont flame you for that. I am in agreement.
In reading the article, keep in mind that it’s from C-BS, and pay close attention to what is in quotes, and what is putting words in his mouth. I’m sure they got it mostly right, but paraphrasing allows for use of innuendo and loaded words, that the speaker never said or intended.
what is the proper response,sir?
We are aware of the spotted owl ruling as well as many environmental rulings that took land and jobs away from American citizens. Some rulings have interferred with drilling for oil. Let’s see how the SCOTUS rules on Obamacare and IF they side with Obama..come back on FR and see if Newt is right. Will the Supreme Court view Obamacare as being constitutional? or will they strike it down. BET a lot of Americans would be ready to march on DC and arrest them. BTW...a federal judge was recently impeached for doing hard core drugs while ruling on major cases.
But how do you fix it when virtually every law school in the country is drunk with their own arrogance?
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.