Posted on 12/27/2011 4:43:41 PM PST by TBBT
If you’re a political junkie, you’ve got to love a presidential candidate who lights the fire Newt Gingrich has lit. Or at least you have to love the fire. Impeach judges? Subpoena them? Arrest them?
Zany, zany, zany Newt. Or is that correct, correct, correct Newt?
The case can be made that judges can be impeached for rendering unconstitutional opinions. But it probably can’t be made persuasively in an op-ed piece. I won’t try. But I’ll take on the other two.
They can be subpoenaed, and, because they can be subpoenaed, they can be arrested if they refuse to comply. Yes, I know that former Attorney General Michael Mukasey said, “The only basis by which Congress can subpoena people is to consider legislation.” And, yes, I know that Andrew McCarthy, in a National Review Online article headlined “There Is No Power and No Reason to Subpoena Federal Judges,” claimed this action would violate “separation-of-powers principles.”
Let me try to take this out of the realm of opinion, into the realm of fact.
First, the only fair reading of Mr. Gingrich’s comments is that he advocates subpoenaing judges as part of an impeachment investigation. If so, this surely can be done.
As background, Hind’s Precedents - the historical go-to guide, cited 20 times by the Congressional Research Service in “Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice,” its publication prepared just last year in the midst of the investigation of Judge G. Thomas Porteous - cites many examples of Congress issuing subpoenas, summonses and, yes, arrest warrants after someone has been impeached, but before the trial begins.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Newt’s the only candidate with stones enough to even suggest this. Go Newt!
Yes, and the Congress can declare certain matters immune from judicial review. Three co-equal branches means three co-equal branches, all of them subject to the Constitution, which the People have ratified and which they may amend if they so choose.
Newt is insane. Federal judges are above the law and untouchable. /s
Indeed, and his research is premiere. It stands alone and Gingrich is correct. On all counts.
Yep!!! And he stuffs the media debate weenies.
Problem is some people can’t get over the idea that Supreme Court means they’re “supreme” over the other branches of government if not over the citizens themselves. Of course they are only “supreme” over the other courts. They are at best equal to the other branches and there are ways to challenge them.
Find somebody with the gonads to implement it and you have a leader.
It’s past time to start impeaching some of the Black-Robed Priests. Newt’s got it right.
Newt’s outline to bring the courts back under the Constitution:
http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf
I have to say that Newt taking on this and the dangers of sharia have me looking at him again.
“Three co-equal branches means three co-equal branches, all of them subject to the Constitution, which the People have ratified and which they may amend if they so choose.”
Wrong! The Constitution says no such thing. You might want to do some reading. The founders didn’t like the way judges operated in England and they purposely made sure ( at least under the Constitution as they wrote it) that the Judicial Branch WAS NOT CO-EQUAL! If the Supreme Court is not subject to any measure of control with respect to their decisions, then we have a single branch supremacy. The problem is with the actions of the Congress over the past 50 years allowing the courts to “get away with legislating.” Go Newt! It’s time to clean house everywhere, the White House, the Congress and most importantly the Federal Judiciary. The SCOTUS is not supposed to rule with impunity.
The courts are the scape goats for the Progressive movement. They know the people don’t approve, so they let the courts take the rap, when in fact they could undo most of it, if they wanted to. They don’t.
<<< I have to say that Newt taking on this and the dangers of sharia have me looking at him again. <<<
As a Newt supporter, he strikes me as creative, brilliant and severly ADD. Thus, without a crisis, his mind does some disturbing meandering. When in a crisis, like we are now, the high IQ ADD mind focuses like a lazer on the problems. Like Sharia and an out of control court system, Obama in specific and the liberal media in general.
And I am being serious about all of this....he is a man for these times, but perhaps not for just any time.
You’re interrupting the echo chamber.
The hypocrites will scream bloody murder the first time a democrat uses the precedent set by a “republican”.
The Supreme Court is only Supreme among courts. It is NOT supreme over the other two branches.
But given the choice of Newt or Romney, there "is" no real choice. Newt.....hands down. Newt has his flaws, but he is at least a genuine person. Romney is an empty suit who tilts whichever way the wind blows.
The unfortunate fact is that the constitutional delegates wanted out of town, so they just slapped together Article III and called it good. It wasn't long after passage of the Constitution that people began to realize that no one really knew what the powers or limitations on the Supreme Court were.
One key point many people miss is that Article III doesn't even say that the Court has any authority to declare a law unconstitutional. The Constitution says the Court can rule on cases involving federal law, but what if a law is in conflict with the Constitution? Whether the Court can rule a law unconstitutional or whether it can simply ignore the law and let the Congress decide the constitutionality isn't clear.
How justices are removed and for what reasons also was never decided. The Constitution only says "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." What is good behavior?
You’re right vette.
It is intended that the judiciary be vulnerable to the legislature so that the judiciary could not make decisions that would reduce the powers of the other branches - most notably legislative. They wanted to be sure the judiciary did not usurp without bound - hence this impeachment provision.
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.