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 ...
Interesting choice of words.
Anyone who takes the fight back to them and shoves it down their throat has my support.
Go along and get along time has long time passed.
that outta shave a few points outta whatever mushy middle that mightve voted for noot crewe...
What was his answer?
If the voters believe in the constitution, they can elect a POTUS who will appoint judges who also believe in it, with a senate which also will confirm them. If the SCOTUS overruled the constitutionally legitimate outcome of elections, then would be the time for articles of impeachment.
I don't like a lot of things that judges do, but if the voters want to correct the problems, they have the means.
There is another option that has been used successfully but rarely talked about. Congress can with the POTUS signature pass a bill that removes the courts power to review certain laws. It is hard to do and impossible with the split congress. But it was congress that set up the courts.
I believe Bachmann mentioned this option once many months ago. Newt is just playing this 'arrest judges' stuff up for the primary.
I was hoping someone would ask.
His answer was ‘Well yes he could do that but then if the Congress and the court say the president is wrong, in the end the president would lose. ...” Here's the full video so you can hear his exact words, it's about 5 minutes into it: Gingrich: Gov't branches should rule 2 out of 3 (CBC FTN video)
Democrats are in a tizzy over the Citizen's United SCOTUS decision and Obama attacked the SCOTUS publicly for that decision. I guess Newt is saying that Obama could just ignore that decision too legally claiming the SCOTUS was wrong.
Subpoena Judges to explain unpopular rulings? Well I certainly appreciate the sentiment but I don’t know.
Much more dubious is his claim that 2 of 3 branchs of government (or just The President?) can “overrule” the third (The supreme court) on “some issues”. Again I appreciate the sentiment but it seems to me the constitutional solution is appointing better judges (or impeaching bad ones or passing constitutional amendments)
We sure as hell can’t have Barack Obama ignoring court rulings.`
Santorum proposed abolishing the liberal 9th circuit court of appeals (and I presume then reforming it, stocked with new Judges?), that’s interesting.
Perry proposed giving Congress the power (by constitutional amendment I presume since that’s what it would take) by a 2/3 vote to overule Supreme Court decisions.
Any legal opinions on all this?
congress writes and passes *anything*...one third...
president signs it...two thirds...
therefore the courts could *never* disagree, as the power of 2/3 has already spoken ???
activism from all three branches is the problem, and as such, it truly is up to the boss [citizenry] to fix the problem...
the mechanics for this are the physical removal of the offenders, plain and simple...anything less is rearranging deck chair...
ya know, i can *tell* my kids multiple times to do or not to do something...usually when they know their ass is gonna sting, the coompliances are much quicker...
Look, with Newt it's the sentiment that counts. It's not important that he hasn't thought out how these things he says he would do would really work (especially if Obama was to try them now.) The point is he is outraged. He is really smart and has lots more great ideas. Just wait till those ‘debates’
No more basically lifetime appointments for ANY judge on ANY level would be a good start for any judicial reform.
I agree.
Did you know in the Constitution the terms aren't said to be for "life" but rather
"The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour" (notice the old UK spelling)
That basically works out to life, unless you get impeached. Though when 5 of them decided it was okay for the government to steal people's property to build strip malls I though that was pretty bad behavior.
Yes, I knew that. One of many non-enforced, mis-interpreted or bastardized laws we have to deal with.
I remember Rush saying several years ago that Congress could pass a law stating that they (ostensibly us) do not have to abide with them being the final arbiter for legal decisions.
Lifetime/appointed positions usurp the very essence of freedom every day.
It’s up to the Supreme Court to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. It should not be up to circuit judges to determine the will of the people.
I suppose you’re right. How would that work? There is no direct case filing with the Supreme Court. Cases only come on appeal from the lower federal courts.
No one has said that they could. Not Newt not anyone.
Congress does have subpoena power. A chairman of the Judicial Committee of either branch of congress could subpoena a Federal Judge to appear before that committee. If that judge failed to appear that judge could be held in contempt and a warrant of that judge’s arrest could be issued. That warrant would most likely be executed by the Justice Department.
Under current US law, a person found in contempt of congress has committed a misdemeanor, may serve up to 12 months in prison and may be fined. It is up to the house conducting the investigation to determine whether such fines or a prison sentence are appropriate. The hope may be that simply declaring someone in contempt of congress may result in his or her appearance, though this is not always the case.
I do not believe that congress could compel USSC judges to appear before congress because they are constitutional office holders just as the President is. But inferior judges could be forced to appear just as Executive branch Secretaries can be subpoenaed.
I NEVER said congress could not Subpoena a person.
I said good luck Subpoena a judge because you did not like his decision. Moreover, good luck sending Capital Hill Police to physically arrest the Judge. LOL! Finally, where would the Judge be tried and sentenced? Hmmmmmm let me think about that one???
Listen this will never happen and Newt was idiot for saying it. Look at his polls now. He is tanking. I can promise this dumb statement did not help him at all.
I was responding specifically to the phrase “disagree with.” Newt did not say that Congress or the president could or should arrest anyone on that basis. That is just lib propaganda. I am well aware, and have posted quite a bit of backing information, that Congress has subpoena powers and the authority to make arrests on contempt powers. They have used them on presidents. There are no exemptions for judges or justices.
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.