Posted on 12/18/2011 12:34:01 PM PST by EveningStar
GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich said Congress has the power to dispatch the Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to apprehend a federal judge who renders a decision lawmakers broadly oppose...
Gingrich made his remarks during a Sunday appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” where he defended his position that the president has the power to eliminate federal courts to disempower judges who hand down decisions out of step with the rest of the nation...
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The facts are, I didn’t personally get that kind of money,” Gingrich told Schieffer. “It went to a consulting firm which had offices in three cities. The share I got of it was relatively small.”
Gingrich has staunchly - and repeatedly - denied that he ever served as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, despite being paid nearly $2 million by the mortgage giant between 1999 and 2008. Gingrich has been criticized for using a narrow definition of the term “lobbyist” when he denies having been one.
“We did consulting advice,” Gingrich said Sunday. “The only thing I ever wrote for Freddie Mac that was ever published basically said, as part of it, they need more regulations. The only time I’ve talked to the Congress or to the Republicans in Congress was in July of 2008. And it’s actually in the New York Times at the time, and I said, ‘Vote against the bailout.’ I said, ‘Do not help Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This is not something you should do.’”
Please read the whole article here....
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57344816/gingrich-we-earned-criticism-over-freddie-mac/
Please note...
despite being paid nearly $2 million by the mortgage giant between 1999 and 2008.
now that means 9 YEARS divide that 9 years into the 1.6 million the companies received and it is a reasonable amount of money for that service.
As I said in another post. If I as a Republican were to run for office, the dems checked our pay for the same company for 30 years would come up with 2 million dollars. Wow! But that is about 70,000 a year!
They would go on to ask just what sweet deal did we have going on behind closed doors???
That is exactly my point.
LOL!
I have never said Congress can’t impeach. Please show me the post where I wrote congress can’t impeach? I’ll save you time. I never said that.
All I said was Congress cannot arrest a member of the Legislative Branch. No one so far can show me the law that says congress has the authority to arrest a Judge in the Judicial Branch if they fail to respond to the Legislative demands.
WADR, I think Newt is talking about beginning to NOTICE and TAKE ACTION AGAINST rogue judges who do atrocious, unconstitutional legislating from the bench. Precedence? Thomas Jefferson, 3rd POTUS. Pretty solid footing.
IMHO, the reason we have seen INCREASING rogue legislating from the bench is because the pu$$ies who SHOULD do something about it only sit and whimper while twisting their lace-trimmed hankies around their fingers! Go Newt!!
Newt is saying PRECISELY what it will take to drag this Nation BACK from the precipice, and the only thing that WILL do it! No more pattycake! No more Mother-may-I?! Newt it TELLING America what he will do. It remains to be seen whether the voters REALLY WANT their Country back, and if they’ll elect in individual with the stones to make it happen!
I would question the intelligence of anyone who came to that conclusion based on this headline...
Gingrich: Congress can send Capitol Police to arrest rogue judges
Biased as it is how could anyone interpret that as "Gingrich would arrest judges he disagrees with?"
“In 1832, when Houston was visiting Washington DC, he was verbally attacked by Congressman William Stanbery of Ohio. Houston confronted the man on Pennsylvania Avenue and began to beat him with a hickory cane. Stanbery pulled a pistol, put it to Houston’s chest and squeezed the trigger. The pistol misfired! On April 17, 1832, Congress ordered the arrest of Sam Houston. Houston was arrested and tried. He pleaded self defense, but was found guilty. Houston was given only a light sentence, a reprimand, and was freed. Houston’s attorney was Francis Scott Key, composer of the National Anthem.”
Heck, congress can even arrest you for not dying when one of them tries to kill you...
YOU have that right!
roe vs wade...
comes to mind.
Here this should help you out.
“The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
Thus, they are not the law of the land.
Exactly. Go to the average WalMart, and ask how many people would understand the context of this, and how the media and Obama would distort the meaning to make Newt look like an extremist. Most people are stupid and/or ignorant.
My question exactly. Seems to me there was a bit of conflict of interest on his part. I still don’t know where the vote stands now. I’ve read since several cases of judges overturning voters and also state legislators.
Read Post #2. Regarding Freddie Mac and Newt’s attempts to advise. He earned his fees - too bad they didn’t listen.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2822097/posts
I'm not quite sure which candidate you are referring to. If it's Mitt Romney, I do not support him in the least bit.
I simply pointed out some very serious issues I have with Newt. We're in the primary process, so people will get vetted. I'd rather this stuff come out now rather than October 31st of next year. His ethics investigation details will magically leak if he becomes the nominee, so we might as well get everything else out in the open.
I would simply ask any tea party supporter if they would support a candidate who supported TARP, Medicare D, Cap/Trade, individual mandate, called FDR the greatest president of the 20th century, and so forth.
If he wins the nomination, I will vote for him. But the primary process is set up just for this reason. I just prefer to have a candidate who can raise money, has organization, and who can handle the "Newt supported it, too" rebuttal that Obama will claim.
Okay
1) Article I Section I and 8 says NOTHING about the Legislative Power has the power to arrest the Judicial Branch?
2) You still have not showed me the law.
It’s called checks and balances. You can too rest assured that the Judicial Branch will not give up it’s power.
The only way something like that could happen is if approved through a Constitutional convention. Otherwise forget about it.
Without a doubt you have removed all doubt.
Do you know what office, if any, Houston held when this occured?
Watch the interview on Face the Nation and listed to what is said, not what you have read, watch it a couple of times and take notes if necessary.
Compairing Newt to Hitler make you sound like a Bozo.
The SCOTUS should Not be a Lifetime Appointment .
>>Gingrich: Congress can send Capitol Police to arrest rogue judges
Biased as it is how could anyone interpret that as “Gingrich would arrest judges he disagrees with?”<<
How? Easy. Gingrich is the one raising the issue, not a member of Congress. The headline is misleading, for sure, but given the way it’s written, it’s easy to infer that Gingrich, if elected, would urge Congress to take such action. Otherwise, why bring it up at all?
This latest foray into the professorial world is yet another example of the many ways Gingrich can manage to shoot himself in the foot. Even if he intends to disband, or otherwise mess with, the 9th Circuit, it’s stupid to publicly imply messing with the judiciary before the election, because it can be so easily twisted, exactly as it was. Just wait, and if you’re elected and want to do it, do it.
Same thing with his initial comment on the Paul Ryan plan, which just about buried his candidacy with one quick flick of his undisciplined tongue. Without the debates and the implosion of all of the other ABR candidates, he’d be out of it by now.
You have got to be kidding?
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.