Posted on 04/02/2012 8:21:21 PM PDT by chessplayer
"For nearly a decade, 2012 contender Newt Gingrich has been floating some controversial ideas aimed at reining in the federal judiciary. He's called that branch of government "grotesquely dictatorial" and elitist. Should he become president, Gingrich says he'll ignore Supreme Court decisions if they don't square with his interpretation of the Constitution or what he believes the country's founders intended."
"Gingrich says federal judges should be called before Congress to explain their decisions, suggesting Sunday that he'd even approve of arresting them if they refused to show up."
"There are plenty of critics taking aim at Gingrich, including those who say he's misread the Constitution and Federalist Papers. Roger Pilon, vice president of legal affairs for the CATO Institute, says Gingrich is challenging the very system established at our nation's origins."
"If you're going to attack it, you're really attacking the (Constitution's) framers," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Well, its quite clear that the Supreme Court has certain limits on its powers, while Congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate what the SC[and inferior courts] judge and rule on.
Just noting your log in name structure. I watch for that one
All of you here !!!!!
Judges are not allowed to legislate from the bench. That is a specific “NO”. When they do so anyway yanking them in front of congress for explanations is a good idea. If they will not rescind their unlawful attempt at legislation congress can then go straight into impeachment mode.
When a judge gives a decision that seems to contravene the constitution I would like a very good explanation and if his reasoning fails to sway me and large numbers of others then I start screaming. Justifiably so.
Under Article I, Congress has the power to impeach and remove any member of the judicial or executive branch. Where does it delegate power to Congress to force judges to appear for questioning? Has this ever been done?
What are you talking about? I’ve had the name here for 12 years -and it’s been perfectly logical.
Who cares about John Kasich? He’s from Ohio...I’m not.
I do think that the SC, over the years, have interpreted themselves broader powers than what the framers intended. They should stick to interpreting the laws as intended by Congress.
All of you here !!!!!
Judges are not allowed to legislate from the bench. That is a specific “NO”. When they do so anyway yanking them in front of congress for explanations is a good idea. If they will not rescind their unlawful attempt at legislation congress can then go straight into impeachment mode.
Newt was definitely the shotgun-idea guy with the buck-shot being all the ideas not knowing where they would hit. He could spit them out.
The amusing thing about watching Newt was how impressed with his brilliance he was. When most people recognized his ideas as crazy he responded with : “ They just don't understand a big idea conservative like me and Reagan” We just were not smart enough to understand him.
He was good at throwing zingers at Obama though, when he was focused.
You watch, if the SC strikes down the mandate, it will be called a controversial ruling. If they uphold it, the media will sing their praises.
I do think that the SC, over the years, have interpreted themselves broader powers than what the framers intended. They should stick to interpreting the laws as intended by Congress.
I agree. Thanks for saying it so well.
That's the problem I have with what Newt said.
Then they will be impeached if you do not want them in front of the others. No wonder we are in this mess-the justices are never held accountable for legislating from the bench. It is happening all over. So, impeach them. Obama is sending signals how he wants his court appointees to go-because this health care is a one track way to a socialist America (they are in a panic)
“That’s the problem I have with what Newt said.”
It is quite obvious that you don’t know what Newt said. You are just flailing away.
So if Obamacare goes down in defeat, it’s okay with you if -0- has the judges pulled in front of Congress for questioning and/or impeachment?
He’s doing more than sending signals, he’s threatening.
Should he become president, Gingrich says he’ll ignore Supreme Court decisions if they don’t square with his interpretation of the Constitution or what he believes the country’s founders intended.
Good post...needs to be said again.
Newt is not referring to that-he is talking about legislative misconduct occurring from the bench. Obama is sending signals to his side on the court. This is entirely different issue. Newt would not be asking Obama to bring in the justices if they do not rule in/against his favor. The liberals see the constitution as a living document; that’s the problem here that some are missing.
-OR- you could have a Civil War!....
I prefer the Civil War.. spanking judges is simply not good enough.. Some States need to band together and restrict the federal givernment..
How to restrict?.. I say escrow all money from the State(s) pending revue.. Cut up the federal credit card.. and force all federal employees within those State(s) to be identified and licensed.. and WATCHED..
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.