If Newt Gingrich restores America as it should be, we'll never have any more commie RATS in the White House again. American Exceptionalism comes back in the Happy Newt Year, starting January 2013!
Go Newt! Blast the commie RATS with a Newt-ron bomb!
Posted on 12/19/2011 9:54:13 PM PST by Jim Robinson
For nearly a decade, 2012 contender Newt Gingrich has been floating some controversial ideas aimed at reining in the federal judiciary. He's called that branch of government "grotesquely dictatorial" and elitist. Should he become president, Gingrich says he'll ignore Supreme Court decisions if they don't square with his interpretation of the Constitution or what he believes the country's founders intended.
Gingrich says federal judges should be called before Congress to explain their decisions, suggesting Sunday that he'd even approve of arresting them if they refused to show up. It's an issue raised Thursday in Fox News' GOP debate in Iowa, with Gingrich responding, "I would be prepared to take on the judiciary if, in fact, it did not restrict itself in what it was doing."
Former Pennsylvania Rep. Bob Walker, a Gingrich supporter, says the proposals are spot on.
"What he's suggesting is a very, very important change in the direction of how we deal with the courts acting more like legislatures than like courts," Walker said. He adds that it's time to "rebalance" the system. For Gingrich, in some cases, that would mean abolishing certain courts altogether.
There are plenty of critics taking aim at Gingrich, including those who say he's misread the Constitution and Federalist Papers. Roger Pilon, vice president of legal affairs for the CATO Institute, says Gingrich is challenging the very system established at our nation's origins.
"If you're going to attack it, you're really attacking the (Constitution's) framers," he said.
Others who agree with Gingrich that the federal judiciary has often overstepped its bounds say the solutions he's proposing are unworkable.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
BenKenobi.
Fears to use the force he does.
It seems to me the people of Iowa unseated three justices a couple of years ago because of their ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.
Conservatives have used "activist judges" as a battle cry for a long time. In Iowa, if this issue resonances with the voters you'll see it in the up coming state primaries as well.
Uh huh. And if Gingrich can take over the Judiciary as President, how do you feel
about the next Democratic President doing the same thing after Gingrich’s term is over?
[ Fears to use the force he does. ]
You mean IRS audits or cutting of brake lines?..
Why not use the persuasion technique from a famous movie ("make them an offer they can't refuse") to bring these marxist judges back to the jobs originally intended by the framers...
Two problems solved...
All spending bills originate in Congress.
Judges could be selectively de-funded.
Their salaries and their staffs could be eliminated.
Their chambers and courtrooms could be closed or leased out to new tenants.
If Newt Gingrich restores America as it should be, we'll never have any more commie RATS in the White House again. American Exceptionalism comes back in the Happy Newt Year, starting January 2013!
Go Newt! Blast the commie RATS with a Newt-ron bomb!
IMHO...
America should be sticking to the Constitution, enforcing the law, using legal means to fix problems and taking care to not retreat from or even ignore activist judges but not overstepping the Constitution either.
Anti-American groups are aggressive so the response must be aggressive.
I am no fan of Congressional hearings because they are nothing more than populist grandstanding and the hallmark of the establishment at this point. The populace is so used to hearing crime and immorality of fantastic proportions that the most heinous revelations in a hearing are but a headline for a day or two. The absurdity of fast & furious is a recent example of this; it’s just beyond any semblance of legitimate government in the audacity of both the operation and the Executive branch’s response.
The Executive branch certainly does have tools in it’s toolbox to control the out-of-control judiciary that a moral, law-abiding administration could use to imbue those same traits in the Judicial branch from which they have receded.
The ranks of judges need to be cleaned up constantly using impeachment and every legal means possible.
To arrest judges simply for not showing up and testifying before a Congressional committee, IMHO, sets a precedent that could eventually be used for anarchy. If a judge is indicted for a crime, then of course arrest procedures should be followed as prescribed by law, but I don’t favor making a C-Span circus out of grilling judges.
We need to remember that the reverse can happen if a leftist President and Congress are elected; they could use the very same tactics to remove judges that are not activist enough for their tastes.
That’s why I think Federal judicial housecleaning should be continued on an ongoing basis in a methodical manner that does not overstep the Constitution and is truthfully justified and documented and done very transparently and according to law.
The real root of problems is groups that are very powerful and anti-American, have significant financial backing and have their influential fingers all throughout both parties; the mainstream big-money interests are happy to sell out moral principles and American citizens and put their support behind anti-American elements, to wit, the 2008 election.
We also need a simultaneous ongoing societal shift in America, a grassroots shift towards morality, to support fixes made to the government.
"Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans,
has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced,
instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who
have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found.
Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats
or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians
or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show.
In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters,
and 14 registered Democrats."
- Boston Globe 7/25/2005
Romney Rewards one of the State's Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge
Romney told the U.S. Senate on June 22, 2004, that the "real threat to the States is not the
constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate,
but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage . . ."
Romney sounds tough but yet he had no qualms advancing the legal career of one
of the leading anti-marriage attorneys. He nominated Stephen Abany to a District Court.
Abany has been a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which,
in its own words, is "dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision
on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated."
- U.S. Senate testimony by Gov. Mitt Romney, 6/22/2004 P>
"Romney announces he won't fill judicial vacancies before term ends
Despite his rhetoric about judicial activism, Romney announced that
he won't fill all the remaining vacancies during his term - but instead
leave them for his liberal Democrat successor!
Governor Mitt Romney pledged yesterday not to make a flurry of lame-duck
judicial appointments in the final days of his administration . . . David Yas,
editor of Lawyers Weekly, said Romney is "bucking tradition" by resisting the urge to
fill all remaining judgeships. "It is a tradition for governors to use that power to appoint judges
aggressively in the waning moments of their administration," Yas said.
He added that Romney has been criticized for failing to make judicial appointments.
"The legal community has consistently criticized him for not filling open seats quickly enough
and being a little too painstaking in the process and being dismissive of the input of the
Judicial Nominating Commission," Yas said.
- Boston Globe 11/2/2006
I really wish we were talking about massive tax reform instead.
There is only one way to do this and it is by way of Gingrich’s plan.
Preventing Obama from stacking the deck against the average citizen in the short term
The time has come to have someone with the cajones to do something “constitutional” about it and Newt has simply stated that he will. Other Republicans shiver and shake at the mere mention of causing any politically incorrect ripples in the water at Washington D.C..
I’ve got mixed feelings about this. I feel it was giving the opposition a wide-open sound byte: “Newt wants to arrest the Supreme Court!”
He could have been a lot more finessed about that, refraining to say what actions he would take against Justices that refused Congressional subpeonas for appearance.
Other than that, I think I’m interested in this idea.
“John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!”
Jackson, Andrew
While most conservatives agree that legislating judges are ruining the balance of the three divisions of our government, I think a lot of us also recoil from the idea of the party in power hauling judges before Congress in chains because of a bad decision.
The constitutional way to change is by accumulating legislative power to make reforms.
Newt returning to his anti-productive bomb throwing ways simply makes me remember why he was forced out of power after leading the Republicans to victory.
Let’s rally around Perry.
VP of legal affairs. Probably a lawyer. I've noticed that the most virulent critics of Gingrich's proposals regarding reigning in the court are lawyers.
Which leads to an interesting question -- are they in fact the experts in the matter whose opinions should be considered over a non-lawyer politician's position, or are they so indoctrinated in the "power of the courts" that the suggestion simply destroys their worldview?
I believe Newt is right on this one. Part of his oath to support the Constitution would be to discipline any judge who issued a decision which was unconstitutional on its face. They are not legislators.....and shouldn't act like they are.
Nobody on this thread will miss the 9th Circuit if its shut down.
The list of judicial overstepping is virtually endless. Consider Kelo, or California’s Prop 187 on immigration and Prop 8 on gay marriage that both won electorally, then were taken to the courts where black robes decided they were unconstitutional.
Newt famously comes up with big ideas, the details of which often need refinement, but give him credit for having the big ideas and willingness then to work on those details.
I'll go with the latter.
It is usually the lawyers who most hate jury nullification, too.
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.