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
Nice to see the rival campaign activists have ruined the thread by the second post. No need to read anymore of their spinning.
Merry Christmas
Your analogy, with due respect, was flawed logically and not funny.
So you are oh for 2.
Newt frequently spouts off about big Government solutions to problems, like making inner city kids clean library toilets.
Thomas Jefferson said if the judiciary has sole power of constitutional interpretation, then the Constitution “is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
We will have them to thank when Mitt Romney ends up with the nomination by default.
Getting harder and harder to support Newt. I wonder where he comes up with some of the stuff he says?
Actually that's not what he said. That's just how the left spun it.
I’m not so sure that an Executive order is outside the purview of the powers of the presidency, but we have ceded far too much authority to the unelected heads of departments to legislate by regulatory rulings.
For example?
Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing...Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law.
The law is the Constitution.
“I was ready to hold my nose and support him. Not anymore.”
If you are willing to make your decision based on a single CBS article, then you likely wouldn’t have voted for him anyway.
Good luck with the alternative, Romney.
So the opinions of the President have no impact on his worldview or policies or the nation?
If the President is of the opinion that Communism is the greatest political system ever devised, but does not make that a statement of purpose, that’s okay with you?
Alright, here’s what Newt actually said:
“Here’s the key — it’s always two out of three. If the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. 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. 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.”
There was no ‘should’ in his argument. Notice how that changes the entire nature of the argument.
I love Newt’s insistence that a president CAN ignore some scumbag federal judge, or even a liberal activist Supreme Court which oversteps its bounds - - telling the Commander-in-Chief how to run the armed force or defend the nation from foreign enemies, for example - - but I think he is oversimplifying things with this “two out of three” and thereby confusing easily-confused liberals.
“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.”
FWIW, this exact power is given to Parliament, in the Canadian Constitution. (The “notwithstanding” clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)
Alright, here’s what Newt actually said in the interview:
“Here’s the key — it’s always two out of three. If the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. 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. 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.”
The article is misrepresenting Newt’s position, because there was no ‘should’ in his argument. Notice how that changes the entire nature of the argument.
One of the most famous cases of a governor bowing down before the judiciary was just a few years ago when Governor Jeb Bush of Florida got stared down by a freaking county probate judge, and as a result the nation got to watch on their televisions the excruciating month-long starvation murder of Terri Schiavo.
And notice how many Freepers are doing drive by’s and making snarky comments based solely on the headlines? Same thing going on at Lucianne and some others too.
Newt may not be able to survive a media full of BS headline writers and a nation of drive by faux political philosophers (and those are the good guys).
There you go again, spouting off about how stupid everyone else is, as evidenced by the fact that they don’t agree with you.
And please don’t try that line, again, “ever heard of generalization?”
If all you’ve got is “everybody else is stupid and a shallow thinker or doesn’t have life success or name ID or connections,” that dog won’t hunt.
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.