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 ...
Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!
Newt and Fannie, Freddie
It isn’t and wasn’t Newt’s best answer, and it bothered me a bit, but it’s hard to see what he can add under the circumstances.
Newt’s said he never lobbied anyone, he was never a registered lobbyist. No one—including the despicably deceitful and demagogic Bachmann—has names of who he tried to influence in Congress and they should be pretty obvious looking at the committees.
He can’t get into details of what he did for Freddie because of confidentiality agreements so he can only talk in generalities that he provided a historical viewpoint, that he discussed how to frame the concept of GSEs when talking to conservatives, that Freddie’s pursuit of loans for people who can’t pay won’t work, that he offered strategic advice on communicating on housing and what he’s seen work and fail as policy.
He goes back to his time as Speaker to show he did not block Fannie/Freddie reform attempts and the key former chairman, Rick Lazio, backs him up.
Bachmann is shoveling something and, as she once put it, “there’s no pony in what (she’s) trying to shovel.” Over a ten year period, what the Gingrich Group—not Newt as a individual—got, about $160K per year, was modest by consulting standards.
Ron Paul trying to claim Newt lived off tax dollars is bogus. Fannie and Freddie were solvent, independent and did not draw on tax dollars for a bailout until the very end when put under receivership where they remain even now.
Both Paul and Bachmann refuse to accept those GSEs “failed” because of what they were required to do by the Congress in which they serve.
Bachmann in particular acted in the debate as if they never worked despite the decades they clearly functioned as intended.
She is a shameless, bomb-throwing demagogue whether it’s “Gardasil causes brain damage” or hiding behind a staffer’s empty claim Newt must be paying off Tea Party groups. She’s a hypocrite who lies about her own income sources and her benefit from farm subsidies she decries even when her own disclosure documents shows she was lying. She lied about her opposition to raising the debt limit because she did sign the Cut, Cap & Balance pledge which set out conditions for raising the debt limit. She says she “will not rest until ObamaCare is repealed” yet when its funding was up for a vote she’s no where to be found.
Campaigns should focus on their ideas. Can anyone articulate Bachmann’s “everyone pays something” tax plan? Is her plan to deal with illegals already entrenched markedly different than Newt’s? No, it isn’t. I think she gets a pass from those mesmerized by her 23 foster children and husband’s clinic that “treats” homosexuality. Her candidacy is another con game and hats off to those who saw the signal of hiring Ed Rollins as a bad omen.
Posted by newzjunkey
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2821928/posts?page=341
Mark Levin has praised Newt on his ideas regarding rogue judges and eliminating circuits, but even he rejected Newt's ideas regarding the subpoenaing of judges. I think Levin is a helluva lot smarter than Newt in these matters.
Out of step with the rest of the nation? Bull. ONLY if out of step with the LAW.
Lower courts exist at the pleasure of Congress.
Congress also can also affect their jurisdiction. Article III. Scotus is not the supreme branch.
Ah, so you wish to continue with the imperial, unelected, and so far unaccountable federal judiciary?
Really? If congress can make them, congress can unmake them.
You’re right. Each branch was intended as a check or balance. Go all the way back to Marbury. SCOTUS was concerned about it’s ruling being flat out ignored.
the constitution gives the house the power to dissolve courts, create new courts and/or impeach judges and order their arrest, if need be. This is part of the separtion of powers... if this bothers you, perhaps another country is where you should be living
Only because the nation is circling around the toilet bowl.
you tell ‘em granny........ the house is the overseer of the courts and judges... my question is, why have the rogue judges not been impeached??? (the answer to this one tells you the difference between a democrat and republican) there really is no difference, they are all lawyers....
Well, I like them both and think they’re both pretty smart.
But here again, if the congress wants to impeach a judge they may have to subpoena him and if he refuses to appear they may have to compel him to do so. You can’t call his mother.
If he said that my support is going to evaporate. What would you think if Obama had federal judges who ruled against his wishes arrested? That is an incredible statement! The Constitution has a mechanism for dealing with bad or corrupt judges, other than appeals courts...
He's right, and the MSM and establishment GOP are going to hate him for it. I'm appreciating Gingrich more all the time.
The Democrat Party is outraged...
No, Newt actually correctly stated the law and Constitution, as explained in many comments up thread.
Article IIISection 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. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Newt is more forgiving than I am. I would repeat the horse's head in bed scene from The Godfather until the original intent of the founders was clear.
Newt is stepping in dangerous waters. Yeah it's all great and good as long as you agree with the person in charge.
Something tells me the Found Fathers, as Newt likes to quote, would be completely against this.
WHAT arrest judges stretching the Law to the breaking point?...
OR legislating from the bench?..
I say SLAP them in IRONS..
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.