Gingrich’s anti-judicial tirade is an attack on liberty

As historian Newt Gingrich sees it, the American people are suffering “a fundamental assault on our liberties by the courts.” Unless we fight back against this “grotesquely dictatorial” judiciary, our nation is destined to slide toward “a secular, European sort of bureaucratic socialist society.”

More specifically, Gingrich argues that the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has proved itself to be “anti-American” and thus has forfeited its right to exist. Congress, he says, should simply pass a law to abolish the court altogether, false concerns about “separation of power” be damned.

Gingrich also proposes to haul a series of federal judges before Congress where they can be forced to defend unpopular decisions. As he explained in an appearance on “Face the Nation” Sunday, he would even empower federal marshals to arrest any judges who refused to heed congressional demands for testimony.

According to Gingrich, such steps would have been applauded by our founding fathers, who feared from the beginning that unelected judges would become a tyrannical ruling class. He and his aides lay out that theory, complete with its alleged historical underpinnings, in “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution,” a 28-page white paper available at the Gingrich campaign website.

Those who take the time to read the paper will find that it is less the work of Newt’s inner historian than of Newt’s inner fascist. It represents a profound distortion of our nation’s history, the writings of our Founding Fathers and the basic core of the American philosophy of government. It is dishonest history.

Consider, for example, Gingrich’s underhanded, deceptive attempt to draft Alexander Hamilton as an supporter of his anti-judicial crusade. Using selected quotes from the Federalist Papers, Hamilton is depicted by Gingrich as a supporter of efforts to use the legislative and executive branches to rein in a tyrannical, overbearing judiciary.

That is a 180-degree reversal of Hamilton’s actual position. He saw the courts as vulnerable guarantors of freedom whose independence must be preserved at all costs against the likes of Gingrich.

In Federalist Papers #78, for example, Hamilton writes that the judiciary “is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks.”

In other words, while Gingrich proposes to undermine judicial independence, Hamilton warns us to take “all possible care” to ensure that the judiciary is protected against such attacks.

The debate between Gingrich and Hamilton goes on and on.

Here’s Gingrich:

“A judicial branch that is largely unaccountable and not subject to meaningful checks and balances can — and does — routinely issue constitutional rulings that threaten individual liberties, compromise national security, undermine American culture, and ignore the consent of the governed.”

Here’s Hamilton:

“The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution…. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

Gingrich denies that “the Constitution empowered the Supreme Court with final decision-making authority about the meaning of the Constitution.” Hamilton, in the excerpt cited above, explicitly says otherwise.

Gingrich proposes that judges must be kept in fear of their jobs through such steps as impeachment and the abolition of courts that offend public opinion. Hamilton warns that “from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.”

But here’s the crux of the issue. It is a commonplace within the conservative movement to point out that “we are not a democracy, we are a republic.” In plain terms, the saying makes no sense; a republic is a type of democracy, just as an orange is a type of fruit.

That said, the phrase does attempt to express a larger and fundamental truth. We are not a democracy in its purest form, in which the majority can outvote the minority on every issue without regard to individual freedom. We exist under a limited government, a government of laws not of men, where the power of the majority is constrained. “A republic, not a democracy” is intended as an endorsement of that principle.

As we’ve seen, however, the majority does not like to feel itself constrained. It gets frustrated when it is told that on matters of fundamental importance, such as religion and free speech, the viewpoint of the majority does not matter because, well, we’re a republic not a democracy and certain things are off limits to the majority. And it is usually the courts that have to deliver that unwelcome message to the majority.

As Hamilton wrote:

“Considerate men of every description ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer today. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.”

That final sentence — ” … the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress” — seems directed across the centuries right at Gingrich.

– Jay Bookman

927 comments Add your comment

Keep Up the Good Fight!

December 19th, 2011
5:47 pm

Gringrich is proving once again that he is not even a good historian and the stupidity of the party base that supports this kind of blowhard is just insulting to American principles.

USMC

December 19th, 2011
5:48 pm

I think I predicted this didn’t I, boys and girls!

I actually gave you a Christmas present downstairs JAY.

Tirade??? Nice word selection for slander…

Keep Up the Good Fight!

December 19th, 2011
5:49 pm

A judicial branch that is largely unaccountable and not subject to meaningful checks and balances

Newt, you are wrong again. Try taking Con Law 101. If you dont like the decision of the judicial branch, then you can change the law or change the constitution. That is the check and balance built into our system.

USMC

December 19th, 2011
5:50 pm

USMC

December 19th, 2011
5:53 pm

“You are oh so wrong, USMC. Why wait for tomorrow?”

LOL! Touche JAY! That was funny. Thanks for the good laugh! :-)

USMC

December 19th, 2011
5:54 pm

Bumper Sticker

December 19th, 2011
5:56 pm

The way to a Newt’s heart is through his beltway

Keep Up the Good Fight!

December 19th, 2011
6:03 pm

Someone find a proctologist….we need to find Newt’s brain!

josef

December 19th, 2011
6:05 pm

So, Newt wants to be the new Andy Jackson?

I haven’t read this yet…should be interesting to see his rewrite of history…course he IS a Carpetbagger from Pennsylvania…long tradition there… :-)

jconservative

December 19th, 2011
6:06 pm

Nice piece of writing Jay.

Keep Up is correct, the Check is built into the system.

Hamilton in the Federalist Papers said one thing, the Constitutional Convention said another. The Convention debated who would say when a law of Congress would be Unconstitutional. Idea floated were a committee of the President, Speaker and President of the Senate among others. In the end they decided to let the first Congress make the decision. And like today’s congress the first one could not make a decision.

Then John Marshall stepped into the vacuum and made a decision. And his decision has worked for over 200 years.

People get upset with “activist” judges. But only when activists judges make decisions they do not like. If the activist decision is OK with them, then miraculously it is not an “activist” decision.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

Common Sense isn't very Common

December 19th, 2011
6:06 pm

I saw ‘Meet the Press’ yesterday. Let me just say this about old Newt.

That man is BAT SHYTE CRAZY.

Common Sense isn't very Common

December 19th, 2011
6:09 pm

It seems as if even Kyle isn’t too happy with the current crop today

He touts Jeb Bush as the next coming :-)

Keep Up the Good Fight!

December 19th, 2011
6:10 pm

Well jconservative, I am now part of that evil elite Lawyer Class as Newt claims. Lawyer Envy!

USNC

December 19th, 2011
6:13 pm

attacking the messenger and saying nothing about the message is past annoying. move on tool.

josef

December 19th, 2011
6:15 pm

Yeah, what Bruni said…

“Self-Adoration Reaches Newt Heights”

By FRANK BRUNI

“You have to take another politician’s ego, double it, and add cheese and a side of fries to get to Gingrich. An especially heaping, unhealthy diet of self-regard slogs through his veins.”

” If Obama is The One, Gingrich is The Plus-Size One. ”

“If you watched the debate Thursday, you could sense, from the clench of his jaw, that he wasn’t merely biting his tongue but making an unhappy meal of it.”

josef

December 19th, 2011
6:18 pm

USMC

And just what would that message be?

That dog t*rd has such an inflated self-image he thinks the first commandment refers to him…

josef

December 19th, 2011
6:20 pm

Ooops…I left out Bruni’s best line…

“He thinks a lot about himself and thinks of himself a lot.”

:-)

carlosgvv

December 19th, 2011
6:21 pm

Those who have bothered to notice and have the education to see it have seen the Republicans becoming more and more fascist. It goes without saying that most of the simple Republican electorate would not know a facist from a faucet. Let’s just hope that enough independent voters see what a disaster Newt and the other fascist’s would be to our country.

1811/0311

December 19th, 2011
6:22 pm

I think Gingrich overstepped here and made a bad tactical statement. Instead, he should have advocated for the “type” of judges conservatives want …………… those who interpret the Constitution rather than usurp it.

That said:

It’s very easy to know when Congress violates the Constitution and very easy to reign them in.
It’s very easy to know when the President violates the Constitution and very easy to reign him/her in.
It’s very easy to know when SCOTUS violates the Constitution but very hard to reign them in.

Just sayin’ …………………….

RG Readmore

December 19th, 2011
6:24 pm

The joke that is the GOP primary is getting less and less funny, and more crazed by the day. Now Gingrich wants to competely side step the Constitution and balance of power because he doesn’t like the decision of the justices. Talk about anti-American. He doesn’t just want small government, he wants to completely dismantle it. Go back into your hole Newt.

josef

December 19th, 2011
6:25 pm

scout

Well, he does put himself in the company of Jackson, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.. soooo…

Jm

December 19th, 2011
6:25 pm

Where’s jay’s outrage about Obama signing a bill that actually takes away liberty? Hmmm

Guess he’s ignoring Obama signing it.

St Simons - we're on Island time

December 19th, 2011
6:26 pm

Ok, I thought this was a big deal when he said it.
I’m glad others noticed it too. Newt is a sad, sad, tempest in a teapot.
The real ticket – Mittens/Tebow 2012

josef

December 19th, 2011
6:27 pm

carlos

Not to argue too much with that, but the Dems seem to find habeas corpus and impediment…fascist? Yep.

josef

December 19th, 2011
6:28 pm

Jm

Sssshhhh…that’ll get you held incommunicado with no charges these days…

Brosephus

December 19th, 2011
6:28 pm

jcon

Couldn’t have said it better. Newt is the perfect example of what’s wrong with our political system. Anybody with common sense know’s that he is the complete opposite of what we need, yet he’s a top tier candidate for the highest office in the land. What will the history books say about us when it’s time to explain what in the hell was going on in this day and age?

Doggone/GA

December 19th, 2011
6:29 pm

“Where’s jay’s outrage ”

blogspot.com is ready when you are

Jm

December 19th, 2011
6:30 pm

Oh. And newt’s a moron in so many ways. But we already knew that.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

December 19th, 2011
6:31 pm

Its very easy to say, but difficult to be responsible in saying:

It’s very easy to know when Congress violates the Constitution and very easy to reign them in.
It’s very easy to know when the President violates the Constitution and very easy to reign him/her in.
It’s very easy to know when SCOTUS violates the Constitution but very hard to reign them in.

So is the ACA constitutional? Congress said yes, the President said yes, some courts have said yes….and others have said yes. The people have said they want it. I wonder who the activists are?

Remember this claimed “easy” poster also has claimed that the President was not born in this country and later claimed that there was something in the imaginery Box 26 which became box 23…… :lol:

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

December 19th, 2011
6:32 pm

Well, when I heard old Newt say that the other night I yelled out “Hot Dang!” He sure knows how to go after Judicial Activism. See, Judicial Activism is when the SC makes a ruling that favors the libruls. Upholding The Constitution is when the SC makes a ruling that favors the Conservatives. Most of us Rednecks and a whole bunch of other people besides want the SC to Uphold The Constitution.

That’s the reason why I’d like to see judges hauled onto the carpet when they make a ruling that’s Judicial Activism. They ought to be fired on the spot. That way, sooner or later all the judges will be Upholding The Constitution. The reason is because the Constitution is what we say it is.

Anyhow, I’d like to apologize for being so scarce on Bookman’s blog today. I was trying to learn all I could about the death of this Won Hung Lo, or whatever the name of the N. Korea leader was. They say they don’t know what killed him. Well, I can guess. He probly got a look in the mirror on that train and seen what the barber done to him and just decided to end it all. It looks like somebody just put a bowl over the top of his head and hacked off all the hair that didn’t fit inside. Down here we shoot barbers that give us a haircut like that.

Have a good night everybody.

USMC

December 19th, 2011
6:33 pm

“attacking the messenger and saying nothing about the message is past annoying. move on tool.”–usNc

–says the big bad blog bully! LOL!

Let me guess, you were picked on often in grade school and have not recovered and have been unsuccessful in life relishing the idea of successful people paying your sorry way through your miserable life….

JAY, are we now allowed alter blog names as this LOSER did? just curious.
If so, I’ve got a few ideas of my own. :-)

Jm

December 19th, 2011
6:33 pm

Josef
I’ve already been consigned to the “penalty box” permanently, so to speak

Not a big deal really

At least I don’t cuss all the time like a lot of the liberals

josef

December 19th, 2011
6:33 pm

Doggone

I don’t agree with Jm much, but he’s made a valid point there…more than one of us here about want to know about that…outrage? I, too, wonder where it is…

1811/0311

December 19th, 2011
6:34 pm

josef:

Yep …………… and how about these jewels I found ?

“If a constitutional amendment “trumps” a prior Supreme Court decision (as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments trumped Dred Scott), it is because the text of the Constitution (where sufficiently clear) always prevails over a contrary holding of the Supreme Court.”

“Can the Supreme Court strike down a constitutional amendment and just reaffirm its earlier decision?”

“If the Supreme Court must treat the text of the amendment as prevailing over its contrary prior opinion, why does not the same principle apply to every text of the Constitution?”

Doggone/GA

December 19th, 2011
6:36 pm

“I, too, wonder where it is…”

When you pay Jay’s salary, maybe you can dictate what he writes about. In the meantime, blogspot.com is ready for you too.

josef

December 19th, 2011
6:38 pm

Doggone

Have you no idea whatsoever of what the suspension of habeas corpus means?

1811/0311

December 19th, 2011
6:39 pm

1) “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers … a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

President Thomas Jefferson

2) “That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

James Madison

josef

December 19th, 2011
6:39 pm

Doggone

And just to clarify things, it wasn’t JUST Jay I was referring to on where’s the outrage…the whole country should be up in metaphoric arms over this…

AmVet - Just say no to Republican fasicsts.

December 19th, 2011
6:40 pm

What is it with these spineless Republicans?

I can recall no other group of men in our history who have advocated that the legislative branch simply and cravenly cede so many of its Constitutional duties.

Mario Cuomo, for one, excoriated the US Congress for their naivety and willingness in simply giving up their responsibilities. And to arguably the worst administration in modern history, no less.

There are, in fact, entire books that have written on this horrible, modern day perversion of the separation of powers.

And at the time, I thought that one of the more cowardly proposals of the past 50 years, was the now infamous Line Item Veto that these screw ups dreamed .

But no. The jellyfish in Congress were just getting started.

Fast forward to Boy Emperor and his Reign of Error (2000 – 2008). Never mind his jaw dropping use of signing statements to circumvent said separation of powers. Which, along with other egregious abuses of power and the United States Constitution, got him in repeated hot water with the American Bar Association. (Like that mattered to these torturing, spying, habeus corpus hating quasi-fascists.)

To really up the Boy Emperor’s control, he desperately wanted to implement a “unilateral presidency”. Because a unitary presidency just wasn’t good enough.

And damn, if most of these panty-waist GOP representatives don’t pretty much agree..

Jm

December 19th, 2011
6:41 pm

Josef
Misread your 6:28 earlier

Funny. Yeah. Blog posting is probably dangerous now. But I’ll risk it. :)

Paul

December 19th, 2011
6:41 pm

I was wondering when someone would expand upon the context of what Hamilton wrote. Leave it to you. Nicely done, Jay.

As long as Newt keeps doubling down and making voters aware, I think we’ll be just fine.

Doggone/GA

December 19th, 2011
6:42 pm

“Have you no idea whatsoever of what the suspension of habeas corpus means?”

I have an idea that if you want to comment on that and not on what Jay wrote, you need to start your own blog and DO IT. Or find a blogger that better fits what YOU want to talk about.

Jay is pretty flexible, but it’s past annoying when ANYONE comes here and immediately wants to talk about what Jay DIDN’T WRITE.

1811/0311

December 19th, 2011
6:43 pm

Jm

December 19th, 2011
6:44 pm

Josef

I think doggone works for the NSA

Bugger

Jm

December 19th, 2011
6:47 pm

Obama should be setting America free instead of binding her in shackles.

One cuff on personal liberty, the other on the right to work.

Sad. Romney 2012.

josef

December 19th, 2011
6:47 pm

Doggone

Silly girl, I’m generally a one-man Jay PR Department…you’re just in a worse case of Mad Cow Disease than me today…and what I was talking about if you’d get over your snippy self for a minute was NOT to Jay personally nor an attempt to “ell him what to say and what not to. I leave that to you. It was instead a support of his posting this thread and bringing it to discussion the direction we’re headed…and the suspension of habeas corpus is the very foundation which would make it possible for the Newties of the country to pull it off…

And yet WE as a society are strangely silent on that one…

Common Sense isn't very Common

December 19th, 2011
6:48 pm

After Obama is elected again maybe he can fire the judges he doesn’t like.

Be careful what you wish for.

:-)

Doggone/GA

December 19th, 2011
6:48 pm

“I think doggone works for the NSA”

If that’s the best you can do…hon, you’re SLIPPING

Paul

December 19th, 2011
6:49 pm

“Speaking of the President:”

Santorum and Bachmann and Huntsman and Romney and Gingrich and…….

Doggone/GA

December 19th, 2011
6:51 pm

“I don’t agree with Jm much, but he’s made a valid point there”

You supported what Jm said. That leaves you open to the same criticism. Like it or not.

Jm

December 19th, 2011
6:52 pm

Another lame Obama attempt to raise money by selling lottery access to the president

So lame and pathetic. I thought this guy was above this level of pandering. He’s like a used car salesman.

“What’s more, they’ve never done one of these dinners together — not even in 2007 or 2008.

And I personally can’t think of a First Couple I’d rather have dinner with than this one, because they’re not just the President and the First Lady — they’re Barack and Michelle.

Three grassroots supporters of this campaign will get that chance, and the opportunity to bring a guest.

How’s that for a holiday present for someone you love?”

josef

December 19th, 2011
6:55 pm

I said he made a valid point. And now, Missy, have you reached the point that you can no longer see that someone you may disagree with vehemently has made a valid point. That’s precisely the type of narrow mindedness that’s gotten us into the fix we’re in, imo.

Doggone/GA

December 19th, 2011
6:59 pm

“And now, Missy, have you reached the point that you can no longer see that someone you may disagree with vehemently has made a valid point”

If I read it yes, I can. But the point he made was to try to dictate what Jay should write. If he, and YOU, don’t like what Jay writes…why are you even here?

ragnar danneskjold

December 19th, 2011
7:02 pm

Newt is a bright fellow who spews 100 ideas per day, approx 10 of which are half-baked and a little loopy. This particular solution is within the latter class, although he is correct to magnify the problem of the imperious judiciary.

The Ragnar solution requires a Constitutional Amendment, to fix the term of all Article III appointees at 10 years. An alternative solution would be to simply abolish positions, and a third solution would be to simply urge Congress to pass a law directing all courts to do contrary to whatever the judge held (i.e., openly conspire with Congress to ignore the improper ruling.)

Jm

December 19th, 2011
7:03 pm

Josef
Doggone went blind long ago. I’m not sure she could ever see to begin with, frankly.

She’s just a bundle of reflexive actions.

Doggone.
Jay will write but he wants. That goes without saying. But while he’s roasting Newt, I only think it fair to point out that our ACTUAL AND CURRENT AND DEMOCRATIC president actually just did something that undermines liberty.

ragnar danneskjold

December 19th, 2011
7:04 pm

I think we can all agree that the crazy 9th circuit court of appeals compels some thoughtful solution, and Newt’s solution is both more thoughtful and generous than most of the decisions of that circuit.

Todd

December 19th, 2011
7:06 pm

Newt never was a top tier contender, only in the MSM’s eyes. Ron Paul has won more of the straw polls than any other candidate:

Ron Paul has garnered 19 GOP Presidential Straw Poll wins — more than ANY other GOP candidate — and ALMOST FIVE TIMES AS MANY as establishment favorite, Mitt Romney. Flavor of the Month, Newt Gingrich, has won ONE straw poll. Ron Paul’s straw poll victories constitute 48.7% of the 39 GOP Straw Polls thus far.

2011 GOP Straw Poll Wins for Ron Paul:

1st – February 12, 2011, Washington, D.C. – CPAC Straw Poll.
1st – February 27, 2011 Phoenix, AZ – Tea Party Patriots Virtual Summit Straw Poll.
1st – March 20, 2011, Sacramento, California – Republican Liberty Caucus of California Presidential Straw Poll.
1st – June 16–18, 2011, New Orleans, Louisiana – Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll.
1st – June 19, 2011, Clay County, Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll.
1st – August 20, 2011 New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll.
1st – September 12, 2011 Cincinnati Tea Party Straw Poll.
1st – September 17, 2011 California GOP Straw Poll.
1st – October 7–9, 2011, Washington, D.C. – Values Voter Straw Poll.
1st – October 13, 2011, Los Angeles County, California – RPLAC Straw Poll.
1st – October 18, 2011, Charleston, South Carolina – Charleston County Republican Party.
1st – October 22, 2011, Columbus, Ohio – Ohio GOP Swing State Straw Poll.
1st – October 29, 2011, Des Moines, Iowa – National Federation of Republican Assemblies Presidential Straw Poll Tally 1.
1st – October 29, 2011, Des Moines, Iowa – National Federation of Republican Assemblies Presidential Straw Poll Tally 2.
1st – November 5, 2011, Illinois – Illinois Straw Poll.
1st – November 14, 2011, North Charleston, South Carolina – Charleston County Republican Party Straw Poll.
1st – November 14, 2011, San Diego, California – San Diego GOP Straw poll.
1st – November 15, 2011, Springfield, Missouri – Missouri Tea Party Straw poll.
1st – November 19, 2011, North Carolina- NC Registered Republicans Straw Poll.

So, who is really winning!?
Ron Paul 2012, join the R3volution!

Doggone/GA

December 19th, 2011
7:06 pm

“I only think it fair to point out that our ACTUAL AND CURRENT AND DEMOCRATIC president actually just did something that undermines liberty”

And blogspot.com is ready whenever you are

ragnar danneskjold

December 19th, 2011
7:06 pm

I think that Constitutional Amendment at 7:02 ought to also abolish all non-military government pensions. And maybe the military ones too, have not thought that through completely.

Soothsayer

December 19th, 2011
7:06 pm

Jm

December 19th, 2011
7:06 pm

Ragnar
Is say 90 out 100 ideas are half baked or worse

Term limits for judges. Perhaps not an awful idea. I’ll have to think about that one.

What we definitely need are congressional term limits

FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real)

December 19th, 2011
7:07 pm

Eye-of-Newt is just a big ol’ panderer bear. He got his shorts all in a bunch when the 9th Circuit of Appeals ruled that the pledge’s use of ‘One nation under God’ made it unconstitutional.

Even tho the court has since reveresed that ruling (no federal law requires students to recite the pledge or that reference to God), that gas-bag still loves to shove that oh-so-tasty bit of red meat down the throats of his evangelical sheep and other such followers of that I-refuse-to-think-for-myself ilk.

That said, I hope he takes it all the way to the GOP nomination so that we can watch him flame out going up against this President.

josef

December 19th, 2011
7:08 pm

Doggone

I am not at all dictating what Jay should and should not write…even if his protection to do so under habeas corpus IS MIA…indeed, it’s the opposite…the point JM made was that the current President has added his imprimature to that suspension and it’s very, very, disturbing…

Jm

Good L-rd…how did I EVER wind up with you! :-)

ZamVet

Uh, wasn’t that “a pox on both their houses?” :-)

AmVet - Just say no to Republican fasicsts.

December 19th, 2011
7:11 pm

Yep, but at least I’d let the pox suffering Dems have medical marijuana!

Soothsayer

December 19th, 2011
7:11 pm

Jm

December 19th, 2011
7:13 pm

Josef 7:08 amen sir

Doggone/GA

December 19th, 2011
7:13 pm

“He got his shorts all in a bunch when the 9th Circuit of Appeals ruled that the pledge’s use of ‘One nation under God’ made it unconstitutional. ”

Heck, he needs to catch up. *I* quit saying that pledge in school right after they were dumb enough to teach me that chldren under legal age are not liable for contractual obligations. What’s the point of a pledge you aren’t even liable for upholding?

And I don’t say it now because of the “under God” reference

What Goes Around Comes Around

December 19th, 2011
7:13 pm

Gingrich’s Poll Numbers Drop

Two new polls from Iowa, one from Public Policy Polling and the other from Insider Advantage show Gingrich dropping back in the GOP race in the Hawkeye State over just the last week.

Insider Advantage polled in Iowa on December 12 and had this:

Gingrich – 27%
Paul – 17%
Perry – 13%
Romney – 12%
Bachmann – 10%

The latest poll from Insider Advantage from December 18 now has Ron Paul in the lead and a giant drop in support for Gingrich:

Paul – 24%
Romney – 18%
Perry – 16%
Gingrich – 13%
Bachmann – 10%

What’s interesting about the Insider Advantage poll is that the company is run by someone who has close ties to Gingrich -

Kamchak

December 19th, 2011
7:13 pm

Congressional term limits?

They are reelected at a rate of 80-90%.

It’s a safe bet that you are not thinking of your own rep/sen when you start spouting off about “term limits.”

F. Sinkwich

December 19th, 2011
7:14 pm

Term limits for judges is a good thing. The 9th circuit is liberal cesspool of O’bozo-like socialists. Hauling their destructive behinds into congress periodically to explain themselves to Americans sounds like a good idea.

Bill Orvis White

December 19th, 2011
7:14 pm

Much has changed since the days of Hamilton. These days we have naive socialistic secular September 10th McFly activist judges who are dedicated to destroying this once-free nation. Speaker Gingrich is right when he correctly states that it’s a slippery slope when we move away from strict constructionists from those on the bench who adhere to the law instead of engaging in re-interpretation based on Euro Marxist socialistic-secular ideals. WE THE PEOPLE need to see that the we restore power to the presidency, instead of activist liberal judges who will jail those who invoke the Lord Almighty in a public setting. We are slouching ever more towards a 1984-type society whereby secular-progressives police the free speech of patriotic Christians. Listen to the words of Speaker Gingrich on this “Face The Nation” appearance where he is simply stating a volley of facts. OH MY GOD, WOULD THIS REAL MAN DESTROY OBAMA IN A DEBATE! LISTEN TO HIM TAKING DOWN THIS SCHIEFFER FELLOW.
Merry Christmas/Amen,
Bill

josef

December 19th, 2011
7:15 pm

ZamVet

heh, heh…

FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real)

December 19th, 2011
7:17 pm

Interesting perspective Doggone…

Jay

December 19th, 2011
7:17 pm

I agree — it’s a valid issue to discuss. While I don’t think “outrage” at Obama is justified over the bill signing, disappointment surely is.

The bill as adopted is certainly better than it was, thanks to senators of both parties who challenged the Levin/Graham approach. Rather than legislate the question of whether a citizen picked up in this country can be treated as a combatant and stripped of his or her rights, it leaves that matter to the Supreme Court.

Again, I’m not happy with that. I think they should have adopted the original Feinstein amendment making clear that citizens could not be handled in such a fashion, which would reinforce what the Bill of Rights already tells us. I think Obama should have pushed for that, which he clearly did not. He has been, at best, a lukewarm defender of civil liberties and due process, better than his predecessor but well short of what candidate Obama had argued.

For a good discussion of the legal impact of the NDAA, try this:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

Soothsayer

December 19th, 2011
7:18 pm

josef

December 19th, 2011
7:19 pm

Bill Orvis

So, Gingrich is a good Christian? It’s not my religion, but turning your own children into momserim doesn’t strike me as a particularly admirable example of the teachings of the Christ…

K’chak
@ 7:13

There is that…

AmVet - Just say no to Republican fasicsts.

December 19th, 2011
7:19 pm

Hell, who are you Republifascists kidding with you term limits for judges?

You’d just as soon get rid of them altogether.

As soon as you can figure out a way to do under the guise of “national security”.

When in reality all you Newt nuts have is a great deal of national insecurity…

Brosephus

December 19th, 2011
7:20 pm

Oh my, now we’re discussing term limits for judges?? I guess some people are not satisfied with the current amount of corruption we have now, so we’ll make that corruption widespread to all three branches. Thinking like that makes all the origin of our country’s problems so crystal clear now. :roll:

1811/0311

December 19th, 2011
7:21 pm

Jay:

How were Confederate prisoners handled ?

Courts or POW camps ?

josef

December 19th, 2011
7:21 pm

JAY

Thank you. You’re of a cooler head than I (as you are paid to be! :-) ) but I am with you on the Feinstein amendment…nothing lukewarm there….

1811/0311

December 19th, 2011
7:22 pm

josef:

Just for argument’s sake:

A Constitutional Amendment is passed stating marriage must be between a man and a woman only.

The Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional.

What then ?

Common Sense isn't very Common

December 19th, 2011
7:22 pm

Newt

Enough said

:-)

1811/0311

December 19th, 2011
7:22 pm

josef:

My 7:21 is for you also.

Soothsayer

December 19th, 2011
7:22 pm

josef

December 19th, 2011
7:23 pm

Scout

Ask Pvt. John Michel Galienne…but that was okay, he was one of them Jew boys who had the misfortune to be taken in December of 1862… :-)

Doggone/GA

December 19th, 2011
7:25 pm

“How were Confederate prisoners handled ? Courts or POW camps ?”

How were Union prisoners handled? Courts or POW camps?

1811/0311

December 19th, 2011
7:26 pm

jjosef:

…………………. and so was my great, great grandfather (Camp Chase, Ohio). He died on the way home (age 64) to the illegally created state of West Virginia ……………. :o )

Brosephus

December 19th, 2011
7:26 pm

What then ?

Sounds like it fails the equal protection clause. Easiest fix is to get the government out of marriages and get the church out of civil unions. A marriage is nothing more than a religious ceremony that carries no weight outside of that religion. The certificate or contract is what gives it legal binding. Let the church marry whomever they want to, and leave the government to deal with the civil union aspect, which has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

F. Sinkwich

December 19th, 2011
7:26 pm

“Hell, who are you Republifascists kidding with you term limits for judges?

You’d just as soon get rid of them altogether.”

Hey, AmVet, surely you can provide a link to some credible source substantiating this BS about conservatives proposing the elimination of the judiciary.

You can’t so stfu

josef

December 19th, 2011
7:26 pm

Scout

There’s no such Constitutional Amendment and most likely never will be…as for DOMA, well THAT can be ruled as unconsitutional and should be…but, and I think I may be channeling the Bruin here, but I’m willing to wait until after the election…

1811/0311

December 19th, 2011
7:27 pm

Doggone/GA:

POW camps ………….. and that’s the point.

1811/0311

December 19th, 2011
7:28 pm

josef:

I said “JUST FOR ARGUMENT’S SAKE”.

The point is ………… make it ANY Constitutional Amendment that is then overruled by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

What then ?

What Goes Around Comes Around

December 19th, 2011
7:28 pm

@ragnar danneskjold December 19th, 2011 7:02 pm – Newt is a bright fellow who spews 100 ideas per day, approx 10 of which are half-baked and a little loopy.
___________________________________________

Newt is what stupid people think smart people sound like. :)

Newt's Fifteen Minutes of Fame is Up

December 19th, 2011
7:29 pm

Please place Newt on the bottom shelf with Herman Cain. He will NEVER be President of the U.S.

Common Sense isn't very Common

December 19th, 2011
7:29 pm

West Virginia is an illegal state. Oh chit don’t tell Jay.

:-)

1811/0311

December 19th, 2011
7:29 pm

But Brosephus ………….. the equal protection clause is violated all of the time.

Reverse discrimation !
Women can’t be drafted !

St Simons - we're on Island time

December 19th, 2011
7:31 pm

or..think target marketing, cons…target your base..Frank Luntz focus

group sayyys – Tebow/Kardashian – pings the meter!

1811/0311

December 19th, 2011
7:31 pm

Common Sense:

Some scholars think so.

Google it.

Jay

December 19th, 2011
7:31 pm

The administration has already concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional, which is why it isn’t defending it any longer. The courts will render their own verdict in their own sweet time.

Doggone/GA

December 19th, 2011
7:31 pm

“A marriage is nothing more than a religious ceremony that carries no weight outside of that religion. The certificate or contract is what gives it legal binding.”

Nope. A marriage is a legally binding contract. The first written reference to marriage is on a tablet of LAWS. Laws refer to marriage. We need to get religion out of marriage of ANY legally binding kind.