Posted on 12/18/2011 12:34:01 PM PST by EveningStar
You got a good point they are almost all lawyers. Thats why they love to make laws. The Supreme Court is just lawyers in robes...
Not saying there is a legal obligation. Just saying that if wants my vote he better.
>>So you prefer canned propaganda and not candor, give & take, flying by the seat of Constitutional scholarship?<<
I’d prefer to think there’s more than your two options, which is obvious, and yes, I’d prefer a candidate who had a bit (hell, a lot more) discipline than Gingrich. He is so full of himself, it’s ridiculous. Make him President for four years, put him and Obama in a room together, and they’d soon be arguing who was the fourth best President of all time. (I’m assuming they’d defer to Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, though I’m not sure Gingrich wouldn’t shoot for slot number three.)
>>You believe that judges have unlimited power under the Constitution - to make law instead of interpreting the laws established by Congress and signed by the President?<<
I don’t think I said anything about judicial power, other than inferring that the 9th circuit is rogue, which is true. I just pointed out that this foray into unnecessary territory was foolish, and it’s likely to be misinterpreted.
>>Newt is addressing the conundrum of activist judges by listing remedies - which the elite don’t want you to know.<<
Maybe, but Newt is also sticking his neck out for no good reason, and he’s likely to suffer the consequences yet again.
One of our presidents (don't remember which one) told the supreme court to try to enforce their laws cause he wasn't going to...back in the 1800's when men ran the government not what we have now...
“We all think it is fine and good until the Dems control congress and use this power.”
While most on here agree the judiciary is out of control, there ARE some conservative/constitutional decisions by the court(s), eg. 2nd Amendment decision. What if Obama decided his justice dept. wasn’t gonna follow that ruling?
So your comments are succinct, accurate, and well thought out unlike some of the other comments that agree with the Gingrich loose cannon remarks. Impeachment or modifying the Constitution are unfortunately the only Constitutional ways of dealing with the imperial judiciary, along with appointing responsible judges in the future and filibustering to prevent idealogues from reaching the courts (is that possible?).
You wouldn’t happen to be a lawyer from Texas that’s into blackpowder cannon and class III firearms would ya? You sure argue like this other dude from Texas that used to frequent another forum I visit.
It is important for Newt to hammer home one point here - Judges are the only branch of government that is not elected by the people and have no term limits. There has to be a check and balance on them.
To allow judges the only lasting word on what is legal we will end up with fiat by diktat through a process of elimination. The judges can’t rule the people. Congress needs to be the strongest branch, but unfortunately is the weakest.
I didn’t have a candidate until this last debate. I enjoyed the debates because I didn’t know any of them but only Newt and it wasn’t favorable and Mitt was never a consideration.
There is no doubt, Mitt’s the man and I could a flip what they say about him now or in October - there is NO one like Newt - of all the candidates he is the best of the best. The others have no accomplishments worthy of the presidency. Perry does and I like him but compared to Newt - it’s still Newt. Nothing against Perry but Newt is way more knowledgeable and his bit about the judges really surprised me.
He knows what can be done and he already has a plan to do it. This man comes to the table prepared! This is one president I can see burning the midnight oil
‘Interesting .... I still do not see it happening today?’
I assure you that IF (and as others have pointed out this is the context Gingrich was speaking in) a judge refused to appear for his impeachment the warrant for his arrest would issue and be effected forthwith.
Of course such foolishly contemptuous behavior is almost unimaginable. But it ‘could’ happen.
Your treading on a slippery slope again.
A Judge exercising his Constitutional Authority in the Judicial branch is not breaking the law. Witness to what Crime?
To subpoena a Judge every time a decision the Legislative branch does not like it does not mean the Judge has to respond to it. Sorry it does not work that way and that is why you don’t ever see it. LOL!
You can live in fantasy land all you want, but what you are talking about is absurd. It’s also a waste of time and energy.
It will never happen and it’s why people are laughing at Newt. Statements like this makes Independent voters not want to vote for him. It just makes him look stupid.
But go on and keep wasting your time and energy on something that will never happen.
We have an impeached judge in congress...Rep. Hastings. don't remember which state he is from..
LOL!
No I’m just having fun.
If the pay averaged $70,000 per year but the company only worked a few hours per year for them, there is a problem.
I don't really know all that much about Gingrich & Freddie other than he didn't address the issue very well in the last debate.
Even if Freddie only published one thing from them, his company should still have a record of the services that he provided and it should explain its billing system.
Gingrich has been very good in this campaign and I think he can still explain this.
Newt ought to release every memo, report & phone log regarding his contacts with Freddie Mac. If they are mundane as I hope they are he will end up looking good.
Contempt of CongressThe Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[4] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, Courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, the Courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy.
You can continue to argue that SCOTUS justices don't have to comply with Federal laws that they themselves have upheld if you want to.
I don’t believe he held any office at the time.
From what I’ve seen Sam spent most of 1832 drinking, shacked up with some Cherokee babe or babes, before going off to found Texas.
Very much a ‘larger than life’ figure.
***Newt is also sticking his neck out for no good reason***
Newt is testing the electorate’s response to multiple issues - in the primaries. This is good strategy - taking a stand based on Constitutional isses and American values.
When he takes office as President - no one can say “that’s not what we expected”. The Congress is on notice.
Making a ruling that violates the Constitution. Is the Constitution the slippery slope you're referring to?
Figures.....
I agree. He appears to have offered advice, which they didn’t take - and the beast went belly up.
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.