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 ...
And ahat would you say if Obama did that?
Reminds me how few people—like you—actually understand their Constitution. It also reminds me how nasty people who oppose Newt are willing to get . . . comparing his suggestions to Kristallnacht and him to Adolf Hitler is beneath contempt.
Marshall's main point in Marbury was that the courts must follow the Constitution, no matter what any other branch does, just like the other branches must do.
Definitely not what the law schools or the lawyers or the politicians generally promulgate today.
If Marshall had tried to push anything at all resembling the sort of nonsense they say Marbury represents today, the founding generation would have impeached and removed him and anyone else who agreed with him, right before they ran them out of town on a rail.
many understand the activist judge problem that we have.
Newt is addressing it. I like that.
Do you know where to find the historical instances that Newt gave reference to?
Ole Newtie is closing in on the nomination IMO.
Why, because you don’t understand the Constitution? That makes Newt stupid??? LOL! Yeah, right.
Uninformed Newt haters are not new either. There have always been ignorant people like you who don’t know their Constitution but like to throw opinions around.
Headlines and summaries be damned.
What Newt says in the video of the interview is absolutely correct.
Judges can be impeached.
Prior to their impeachment, the house could subpoena a judge to appear before a congressional hearing.
If a judge refused or ignored the subpoena, the capitol police or a U.S. Marshall could be sent to force the judge to appear.
No problem from me with any of this.
Wow let's arrest Judges we disagree with? Why stop at the Judicial Branch? How about arrest congressmen that disagree with the Executive Branch.
You do that and we will no longer have a President, but a King. If Obama did this, then you would go crazy. Be careful what you wish for.
Something tells me that the Framers of the Constitution did not envision this.
Didn't that happen in californication? The people voted against gay marriage (prop 9 I believe it was), but the courts over ruled the peoples votes?
You need to read. Only the Congress can impeach a judge.
Gingrich: Congress can send Capitol Police to arrest rogue judges
What part of the word 'Congress' do they think means 'president?' How has the term 'Capitol Police' escaped their attention? The president isn't Congress and has no authority to direct the Capitol Police.
If you can't understand that headline you'll never understand the Constitution.
Man, do you sound ignorant. You better read the article and read the video ‘cause it’s obvious you haven’t.
Please see posts 39 and then ... 27.
Well sometimes Newt is a little over the top on the rhetoric but we currently have every little pissant federal judge issuing decisions striking down the legislation of sovereign states. This is blatantly unconstitutional as the Constitution is very clear that only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a soveriegn state. The governors seem too timid to step up and tell these judges to stuff it. So maybe we need a short term adjustment to get things back to where they should be. I agree with Newt that the 9th circuit court needs to be disbanded. Its a rogue court trying to make its own law.
Maybe sending the capital police to arrest judges is a little extreme. I think Newt probably got caught up in the moment on that one.
Find out that the judge was gay - he overturned the vote.
Funny how progressives say that the Constitution is a “living document” to be deciphered by the present or the communists and not the past or original intent when in every literature review or class a text must be interpreted in historical context and according to what the AUTHOR intended. I bought a Harvard literature anthology and sure enough, the standards for literature are more strict than how they interpret (misinterpret) law.
Even if they ignore a Congressional subpoena?
I knew enough to know the headline was misleading.
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.