I give credit to Gingrich for recognizing that they must be reined in. The dunderhead Romney sure as hell won't. He blames the judges in Massachusetts for gay marriage on his watch but refuses to lift a finger to oppose them.
Someone sometime has to rein in the Black-Robed Priests.
And it looks like Newt is the only one with the guts to do it.
I really wish we were talking about massive tax reform instead.
Constitution’s there for a reason. Call me a traitor, but I think the first obligation of the president is to uphold the constitution.
I think Newt’s plan is the worst thing that could happen. Better to do nothing than to tear down what has been built.
The constitutional way is to appoint justices who will uphold the constitution in their rulings. If the republicans had done that instead of nominating Souter and O’Connor, it would be a much different picture today.
I agree: better to have the courts disempowered and fight things out in legislatures.
Bob Walker, a name from the past whom I always liked admired! Very happy to learn he is supporting Newt Gingrich!
We know that Gingrich is right and that his detractors aren't presenting his position on the Courts accurately. After all, most of them are lawyers....lol.
Read and learn: www.newt.org/ = PDF FILE
The president wouldn't have much say about it if Congress issued an arrest warrant for contempt for failure to appear for a Congressional subpoena. The president could approve in one hand and disapprove in the other and see which one filled up first.
Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!
Congress can dissolve any court it chooses at any time save the SCOTUS. The President has no such power. Gingrich should have acted when he was Speaker.
Well, the news tonight about the Tea Party vote - with 23,000 on a conference call - voted for Newt - 30%, Bachmann 28% and Romney 20%...would seem to refute FOX’s claim.
So it doesn’t sound like these people - a conservative block - are worried about Newt’s stance on the courts. Unlike BOR and others, conservatives know very well what the courts have become - another arm of government for the Socialists.
How many times, in state after state, have people voted in issues the opposite way in which the Socialists wanted, so they send it to one of their courts and the peoples votes are tossed out?
The Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights to protect us from the government. What did we do? We went to the government and asked THE GOVERNMENT to tell US the meaning of each one of those amendments. WE should be telling them, including the judiciary, what each amendment means. Those rights belong to us.
Newt can and will ride this horse to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! GO NEWT! Git’er done!
Article III
Sec. 1
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
-------------------------------------------------------
". . .vested in one supreme Court . . . . as the Congress may . . . establish."
The Newt is asking for a mandate to reign in the courts from legislating from the bench. When he's elected he will have the mandate.
Sounds like a strong Conservative principle.
yitbos
When did he say these exact words?
nOOt is right.. and the lawyers HATE IT... they just hate it..
Next you know.... Newt would be advocating serious Tort Reform..
OH! thats right he already did.. they simple HATE that too..
He must be trying to STAMPEDE the lawyers.. the bovine milkers that they are..
Horse manure.
This guy is with the CATO Institute? Yikes.
The US Constitution offers a fairly sparse job description for the Supreme Court, especially compared to the other two branches. Most of the "power" the Supreme Court now has it took for itself along the way. Shame on those who let it happen, who let the courts embed themselves at the top of the government food chain to the point where, for example, a single scumbag in black can overrule millions of referendum or ballot initiative voters.
Gingrich simply wants to (finally!) bring the judiciary back to the coequal branch of government status it was supposed to have from the beginning. I'm pretty sure the framers never intended for the judiciary to legislate from the bench or govern by fiat.
Bravo for Newt. And to hell with the CATO Institute if they can't do better than Roger Pilon. Apparently even a layman like me knows more about the Constitution than he does.
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.
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.