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
Gingrich proposes a system wherein “it’s always two out of three.”
Goodness.
Newt made a good point in the debate the other night and if they had given him a chance to respond to Ron Paul I think he would have brought Mr Constitution down a notch. The Constitution sets the existence and function of the Supreme Court. It leaves it to congress to create the lower courts.
But two out of three? Is Newt serious? Does he not believe in the reason behind the checks in checks and balances?
He is right that there is something wrong with the Judicial system. Its one thing to strike down laws when they are unconstitutional. Its quite another to legislate from the bench or “direct” the other branches to establish laws.
“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.”
Well thats exactly what we have right now with the un-challenged rule by Executive Orders.
It has been the illegal use of Ex. Orders starting with 12582 in 1994 and continuing up to this year with several more that have accomplished the implementation of the UN’s Agenda 21. All without Congressional approval of any kind.
Remember Clinton’s boy Paul Bergala stating “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool huh?”
Yes, there is something rotten in our judicial system. But two out of three is definitely not in the Constitution, and definitely NOT the answer.
Newt is way out of line with this. I was ready to hold my nose and support him. Not anymore.
Best two out of three sounds like Newt’s marriage philosophy rather than an interpretation of the constitution.
Gingrich is also right when he says that the Framers had intended for the Judicial to be the weakest branch of the government. This was a reaction to the abuses of royal appointments in the English system. In fact, Article III makes no mention of lifetime appointments.
As usual, Ron Paul talks out of his ass, and ignores facts when they are not convenient.
“Its quite another to legislate from the bench or “direct” the other branches to establish laws.”
That was always my basic understanding...Legislative created laws, executive reviewed and approved and Judicial arbitrated when necessary. Judicial SHOULD NOT have the ability to create law...it is for interpreting the Constitution, reviewing laws, and deciding cases involving states’ rights.
No?
This was an OPINION, not a statement of purpose. The Chief Executive has no power to start firing judges.
It’s not in the Constitution like this, Mr. Gingrich.
There’s no doubt that Newt Gingrich is right about judicial overreach. The US Supreme Court is undoubtedly out of control. However, I completely disagree with Newt’s proposed solution, because imagine if the left decided to do the same thing! Like you wrote, there are checks and balances already available to maintain co-equal branches of government.
There’s no doubt I’d love to see a lot of judges impeached. Some of them really need impeaching, so that the rest of the black robed tyrants learn a bit of restraint. That’s the problem there. Congress has abdicated most of its power to control the courts for the simple reason the left likes tyranny, but impeachment is still an option.
This 2 out of 3 branches won’t fix the problem. It would only make it worse. How can Newt and other conservatives possibly forget the first two years of the Obama administration when we were hoping and praying the Supreme Court would somehow help slow down the left’s mad rush? Imagine if the Supreme Court ruled against Obamacare only to have President Obama and Congress ignore the ruling!
A new structure wont fix the problems in the judiciary. This is one of those situations where “we dont need more laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have.”
The problem isn’t with the courts but with the judges themselves.
I would also return to informing the jurors of their rights under the law. That in itself would go a long way toward fixing the courts.
Way to give Obummer all the ammo he needs to destroy you, Newt.
Good Lord does ANY REPUBLICAN understand the concept of bluff and guile or is that just a Democrat trait?
Idiots. I give up on the whole lot of them.
He sounds like a BIG government progressive to me...
Gingrich proposes a system wherein “it’s always two out of three.”
What is your understanding of the Judicial Branch when it comes to making laws? Are they not SUPPOSED TO BE the three in the two out of three?
Please explain.
He didn’t say it was a simple matter of 2/3. He said if the other two branches didn’t favor a ruling, the Court “would lose.” Not by mere count but by actions taken by the other two branches. It’s pretty obvious the Legislature can go around a ruling, even without the President. Or if the Legislature and Judiciary have decided that the President ought to back off, reverse course or even step down — he’d better.
Gingrich tried to make it simple for a brief interview. Anyone who understands what’s meant by “tyrants in black robes” ought to be thanking him for bringing this issue to the fore.
We are thisclose to having 5 solid commies on the Supreme Court. If you DON’T want the country governed by Kagan, the Wize Latina, et al, think real hard about what Newt said.
Freepers need to read Men In Black, by Mark Levin. Pres and Congress has powers to check SCOTUS. Newt is using some of its concepts to check the courts. Dems definitely will freak out and every lawyer in the US (Dem and GOP) will freak because they have been able to tap the courts to abuse the country.
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.