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
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
927 comments Add your comment
AmVet - Just say no to Republican fasicsts.
December 19th, 2011
7:31 pm
F. Burns, don’t get your panties all in a wad.
It’ll ruin your Kwanzaa…
josef
December 19th, 2011
7:32 pm
Doggone
Those Union prisoners held in the South were held either as POWs or as political prisoners…there were two sets of prisons… in the Union regular POWs were often (as in the case cited above of Pvt Gallienne) held in camps “under special treatment” reserved for politicals…
Scout
Before the Imam jumps us, ask him who New Jersey voted for in 1864…
Brosephus
December 19th, 2011
7:33 pm
Reverse discrimation !
Women can’t be drafted !
Those rules can be easily changed and/or challenged. There have been reverse discrimination cases won before. You just have to have proof and not just accusations. If you want women to be eligible for the draft, then they need to be eligible for ALL positions, that includes combat positions. Just because you THINK there is a violation does not automatically mean that your thinking is correct.
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
7:35 pm
[Hermann] Göring immediately replaced hundreds of police officials loyal to the republic with Nazi officials loyal to Hitler. He also ordered the police not to interfere with the SA [Sturm Abteilung (Storm Section)] and SS [Schutzstaffel (Protection Squadron)] under any circumstances. This meant that anybody being harassed, beaten, or even murdered by Nazis, had nobody to turn to for help.
Göring then ordered the police to show no mercy to those deemed hostile to the State, meaning those hostile to Hitler, especially Communists.
“Police officers who use weapons in carrying out their duties will be covered by me. Whoever misguidedly fails in this duty can expect disciplinary action,” stated the order of Hermann Göring to the Prussian Police.
On February 22nd, Göring set up an auxiliary police force of 50,000 men, composed mostly of members of the SA and SS. The vulgar, brawling, murderous Nazi storm troopers now had the power of police
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
7:36 pm
“If you want women to be eligible for the draft, then they need to be eligible for ALL positions, that includes combat positions”
I agree, in principle…but I would amend this to include “if they meet the requirements” – because there ARE jobs requiring upper body strength beyond the limits of MOST women. I don’t see any need to lower those requirements JUST so women can “qualify” – always provded, of course, that they aren’t written to be artifically too tough solely to EXCLUDE women.
Brosephus
December 19th, 2011
7:36 pm
Nope. A marriage is a legally binding contract.
Not 100% of the time in the eyes of the government of the United States. The US government does not acknowledge marriages from religions that it does not recognize as official religions. That’s something I learned about when I began adjudicating immigration issues.
josef
December 19th, 2011
7:36 pm
JAY
The Executive does not have the perogative to deem an act unconstitutional, does it? That is the judicial. More effectively and more intelligently would be for the legislative to repeal it. And, no, I’m not bringing Ima Gonna to the chopping block on this one…yet.
Brosephus
December 19th, 2011
7:37 pm
Doggone @ 7:36
I’m with you on that.
JohnnyReb
December 19th, 2011
7:38 pm
Newt’s remarks on the courts are not solely responsible for his declining numbers in Iowa. He does not have the ground game or finances of several of his rivals and they are pelleting him with negative TV ads. So, it is not wise to assume the court remarks are the expected meltdown shown in the polls.
It should also be noted that many conservatives agree with Newt in principle as they see the courts having interpreted the Constitution away from the founders intent. No praying, abortion, etc. There is some truth in beauty being in the eye of the beholder, but there is little doubt if the majority of Conservatives had their way many decisions would be thrown out. For JohnnyReb, it would be the interstate commerce mess which has turned the intent of the Constitution into an abortion and stole liberties.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2011
7:38 pm
A Constitutional Amendment is passed stating marriage must be between a man and a woman only. The Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional.
On what basis? Rabbit-hole priniciples. IF it is made a part of the Constitution, then by definition it is Constitutional.
For a simple answer that seems directly addressed to the Rabbit Hole:
Can a Constitutional Amendment Overrule a Supreme Court Decision?
Michael Stokes Paulsen
University of St. Thomas School of Law
Constitutional Commentary, Forthcoming
U of St. Thomas Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-05
Abstract:
This very short article takes as its point of departure a charmingly, innocent first-year law student, first-week-of-class question, and examines its rather startling implications. If (as everyone knows) 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. The follow-up student question, “Can the Supreme Court strike down a constitutional amendment and just reaffirm its earlier decision?” is also charmingly innocent, and suggests important insights as well. If (as everyone knows) 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?
In the answers to these seemingly “dumb” questions may lie the keys to understanding everything that it wrong with “constitutional interpretation” today!
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
7:39 pm
“Not 100% of the time in the eyes of the government of the United States. The US government does not acknowledge marriages from religions that it does not recognize as official religions”
Another good reason to get religion out of the marriage BUSINESS
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
7:41 pm
“The Executive does not have the perogative to deem an act unconstitutional, does it?”
Not officially, or legally binding. But they can make that determination to their own satisfaction and, as in this case, stop defending it. That throws it to the courts to decide.
josef
December 19th, 2011
7:41 pm
Sooth
One of the most interesting things to come out of the resurrection of the German state following the defeat of the Nazis was the inclusion of article 19, paragraph 4 of the Constitution:
“Should any person’s right be violated by public authority, he may have recourse to the courts. If no other jurisdiction has been established, recourse shall be to the ordinary courts.”
The rationale being that had this been in effect in the Weimar Constitution….
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
7:43 pm
“You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in German history…This [Reichstag] fire is the beginning,” Hitler told a news reporter at the scene.
“The German people have been soft too long. Every Communist official must be shot. All Communist deputies must be hanged this very night. All friends of the Communists must be locked up. And that goes for the Social Democrats and the Reichsbanner as well!”
The Emergency Decree stated: “Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”
Immediately, there followed the first big Nazi roundup as truckloads of SA and SS roared through the streets bursting in on known Communist hangouts and barging into private homes. Thousands of Communists as well as Social Democrats and liberals were taken away into ‘protective custody’ to SA barracks where they were beaten and tortured.
josef
December 19th, 2011
7:44 pm
JohnnyReb
And DOMA? You ARE a closet liberal, y’know…
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
December 19th, 2011
7:45 pm
johnny reb – “no praying”.
You mean no forced prayer by a Big Government prayer representative.
Pray all you want. Tebow all you want. Just don’t force others to.
F. Sinkwich
December 19th, 2011
7:47 pm
“It’ll ruin your Kwanzaa…”
Sorry, AV, I don’t buy into lib- concocted BS holidays like you do.
Merry Christmas.
The Ghost of Ed Murrow
December 19th, 2011
7:50 pm
Oh, drop the pretended outrage, JayBama…we all know that you (and all liberals) are down on your knees praying that “Nuke” (as Jim Carville pronounces it) is the one to run against your Savior next year.
To heck with the judges being hauled before Congress…here’s a real idea…
…make all liberal columnists and TV personalities be hauled in for an IQ test after each pronoucement…now that’s a real idea.
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
7:51 pm
Political enemies were arrested by the thousands and put in hastily constructed holding pens. Old army barracks and abandoned factories were used as prisons. Once inside, prisoners were subjected to military style drills and harsh discipline. They were often beaten and sometimes even tortured to death. This was the very beginning of the Nazi concentration camp system.
At this time, these early concentration camps were loosely organized under the control of the SA and the rival SS. Many were little more than barbed-wire stockades know as ‘wild’ concentration camps, set up by local Gauleiters and SA leaders.
josef
December 19th, 2011
7:51 pm
JAY
Relative to habeas corpus…if I remember correctly during the Late Misunderstanding in Washington and Richmond alike its presidential suspension was a big issue with both congresses decreeing that it was a congressional perogative…the Union Congress then approved it at the President’s discretion for the duration and the Confederate Congress demanded and got that each case had to receive Congressional approval…
St Simons - we're on Island time
December 19th, 2011
7:51 pm
the bestest part is he justifies his position citing separation of powers.
This is like justifying infidelity by citing your wedding vows.
Newt also wants to give Clarence Thomas just 3/5 of a vote…for historical
purposes and all. What a “professor”.
F. Sinkwich
December 19th, 2011
7:52 pm
“You mean no forced prayer by a Big Government prayer representative.”
Perhaps you could provide a name of one of those to bolster your argument, Neal.
Just like AmVet, another hollow assertion.
Typical lib.
JohnnyReb
December 19th, 2011
7:52 pm
josef – I almost spewed my vodka tonic on the monitor!
Not Boortz – unfortunately, the prayer situation has gone further than what you site. Please don’t ask me for examples, as I don’t have any handy. I just know the Conservative base agrees with me.
AmVet - Just say no to Republican fasicsts.
December 19th, 2011
7:52 pm
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck, but you see its not the same.
How can you impress me with your piety if you don’t make big show of it?
In public schools. At public gatherings. All the time, everywhere.
And the bigger the show, the more pious you must be.
(As for the non-Christians, screw ‘em. A little Jesus rubbed in their faces won’t kill ‘em…)
Aquagirl
December 19th, 2011
7:52 pm
but there is little doubt if the majority of Conservatives had their way many decisions would be thrown out.
Gosh, it’s almost like someone thought of this, and wrote up a document keeping people like that from imposing their personal preferences on others.
josef
December 19th, 2011
7:54 pm
Sooth
Maybe you have the citation, but if I recall correctly we have in place the capacity to hold 2.5 million detainees if deemed necessary…
JohnnyReb
December 19th, 2011
7:55 pm
josef – re, DOMA. I’m still undecided. As you know, I strongly oppose any discrimination, bullying, etc. towards gays. Now, you likely think not being for gay marriage is discrimination, and I can respect that, but I’m not sure at this time.
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
7:55 pm
The second decree signed allowed for the arrest of anyone suspected of maliciously criticizing the government and the Nazi Party.
A third decree signed only by Hitler and Papen allowed for the establishment of special courts to try political offenders. These courts were conducted in the military style of a court-martial without a jury and usually with no counsel for the defense.
JohnnyReb
December 19th, 2011
7:58 pm
Well, you see Water Girl, the challenge is, there are a lot of people around who are old like me who remember and long for the day when such things as arguing and sueing over prayer was never heard. We are likel the same group concerned of the browning of America and the cultural differences it brings. We may be wrong, but we are not convinced you are correct.
St Simons - we're on Island time
December 19th, 2011
7:58 pm
Newt thinks Paula Abdul should be arrested, but Simon can stay.
’cause he says so.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
December 19th, 2011
7:58 pm
Yep. As a 13-yr old back in 1972 my home room teacher led us in prayer and Bible study. But that was the only class time I had with my girlfriend. So I disrupted the prayer a couple of times and got hauled in front of the principle. After I threatened to take the school to court the prayer stopped.
I knew what I was doing. You also cannot fail home room.
Recon 0311 2533
December 19th, 2011
8:00 pm
While I agree with Gingrich that unfortunately the court system in our country is rife with activist judges who’ve been legislating from the bench far too long, his solution is a slippery slope that would take us in a dangerous direction.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
December 19th, 2011
8:00 pm
Really, the disdain by the right for the Establishment Clause is sickening.
Time to order another ACLU tee shirt.
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
8:01 pm
The Nazi Gleichschaltung [bringing into line] now began, a massive coordination of all aspects of life under the swastika and the absolute leadership of Adolf Hitler.
Under Hitler, the State, not the individual, was supreme.
From the moment of birth one existed to serve the State and obey the dictates of the Führer. Those who disagreed were disposed of.
Truth-O-Meter
December 19th, 2011
8:03 pm
Thank you, Speaker Gingrich. I have been wondering how we could get rid of the SCOTUS decision that says corporations are people. President Obama can have federal marshalls round up each of the judges who voted for that ridiculous ruling nd that will be the end of them! And we didn’t have to pay $30-$60k per hour for that advice.
josef
December 19th, 2011
8:05 pm
JohnnyReb
The way around this whole mess of terminologies is to recognize that civil union is the province of the state and marriage of the religious insitution. For the partnership to be recognized by the state, a license of civil union from the civil union bureau required…a marriage from the religious institution without the civil union registration not recognized by the state…that way the religious institution maintains its freedom to determine what it considers a valid marriage..
That way such things as the question of whether or not Newt’s progeny can inherit his Tiffany’s account now that he and the Vatican have decreed them b*stids…
.
Truth-O-Meter
December 19th, 2011
8:07 pm
BTW, if the SCOTUS decides that Obamacare is unconstitutional, then President Obama can have the marshalls pick them up and haul them away. Again, thank you Newt!!!
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
8:09 pm
The first thing he [Hermann Göring] did was to prohibit regular uniformed police from interfering with Nazi Brownshirts [SA] out in the streets. This meant that innocent German citizens had no one to turn to as they were being beaten up by rowdy young storm troopers drunk with their newfound power and quite often drunk on beer. These young Nazi toughs took full advantage of police leniency to loot shops at will and terrorize Jews or anyone else unfortunate enough to be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Next, Göring purged the Berlin police department of politically unreliable cops and had 50,000 storm troopers sworn in as special police auxiliaries (Hilfspolizei). Now the storm troopers had actual power of arrest and they relished its use. Jails were soon overflowing with people taken into “protective custody” resulting in the need for large outside prison camps, the birth of the concentration camp system.
josef
December 19th, 2011
8:09 pm
Simons
Was doing some editing over the weekend and thought of you on this:
“Love Allen was no exception. How involved Indigenous and Mixed Blood women were as independent players in the paper economy is documented by James Taylor Carson, in his article, “Dollars Never fail to Melt Their Hearts: native women and the market revolution,” reprinted as the first chapter in Susanna Delfino’s and Michelle Gillespie’s “Neither Lady nor Slave: working women in the Old South.”
“Susannah McIntosh, one of Chief McIntosh’s wives, was reported by agent Adam Hodgson as “having more jewelry than any poultry vendor” he had ever seen”
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2011
8:12 pm
…make all liberal columnists and TV personalities be hauled in for an IQ test after each pronoucement…now that’s a real idea.
Because you want actual proof that they are indeed smarter than any of the talking heads and barbies on Fox when you know in your heart that getting on Fox means having to give up any semblence of real intelligence?
JohnnyReb
December 19th, 2011
8:13 pm
josef – I can support your 8:05 and not worry about being called a Liberal! I’m not so sure my wife will, however. We were married by a JOP. If I tell her we only have a civil union, I may not get supper for a week!
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
8:15 pm
the Gestapo was never actually a very big organization. At its peak it employed only about 40,000 individuals, including office personnel and the plain-clothes agents. But each Gestapo agent operated at the center of a large web of spies and informants. The problem for the average citizen was that no one ever knew for sure just who those informants were. It could be anyone, your milkman, the old lady across the street, a quiet co-worker, even a schoolboy. As a result, fear ruled the day. Most people realized the necessity of self-censorship and generally kept their mouths shut politically, unless they had something positive to say.
Anyone foolish enough to say something risky or tell an anti-Nazi joke in mixed company might get a knock on the door in the middle of the night or a tap on the shoulder while walking along the street.
SugarHillDawg
December 19th, 2011
8:19 pm
This is Bookman’s and his leftist’s ilk worst nightmare. How else can they get there cockamamy desires made into the law of the land without activist judges. I wholeheartedly agree with Newt, make a judge tell why he ignores the constitution when he makes a stupid ruling. If this were to take place the whole 9th circuit would be taken before congress.
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
8:19 pm
Sit back and relax, comrades. Apathy is your friend. Don’t take a stand. Don’t make waves. Lest you wind up in “rendition.”
Fear rules.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
December 19th, 2011
8:22 pm
When I hear the term “Constitutional Conservative” I know I am hearing a know-nothing doofus talk about the Constitution.
Just look at the doltish comments here.
Kamchak
December 19th, 2011
8:23 pm
Don’t forget to set out ilk and cookies for Santa Saturday night.
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
8:23 pm
Brosephus:
I hear you but the SCOTUS has already ruled on the draft thing regarding women ……….. they can’t be drafted ……….. period.
Also, the “state” cannot control their bodies for 9 months but the “state” can control a man’s body for 2 years.
Just sayin’.
This whole issue/discussion hinges on the SCOTUS trying to make policy by making the Constitution say things it doesn’t say. It’s been done by conservative and liberal courts ………….. and that cheapens the Constitution.
josef
December 19th, 2011
8:25 pm
JohnnyReb
Not to worry, I won’t call you a liberal…but you might want to call me a conservative, since what I posit is, imo, very much a conservative view. But, really, it’s both and something if we step back and think about it, we can agree on.
You got there on DADT and you’re still my hero..
.
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
8:25 pm
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck :
The Constitution is a contract between the American people and their government.
A contract means what it says on the day it was signed ………….. nothing more and nothing less. A contract doesn’t change ……………… it can be interpreted but its clear language doesn not change.
Therein lies the problem with liberals or conservatives who try to ursurp it.
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
8:26 pm
Excuse me:
“usurp”
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2011
8:27 pm
Off Topic: Oh great… the Republicans think Boehner is the new William Wallace. http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/john-boehner-braveheart-6619467?src=rss
We should never let these guys watch any movies. Last summer, they ginned themselves up for a deficit debate with a clip from a movie about murderous Charlestown bank robbers. For all their raving about the deleterious effect of “Hollywood,” I swear they’re the only ones who still think every movie they like is really a documentary about them.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
8:27 pm
“The way around this whole mess of terminologies is to recognize that civil union is the province of the state and marriage of the religious insitution”
No, it isn’t. Marriage is the LEGAL institution. It is what is referred to in all laws governing the MARRIAGE CONTRACT. We need to get religion out of the marriage BUSNESS altogether.
If they want to have a religious pledge of some kind, fine…let them get on with it. But the religious leader, of whatever stripe, should not be deputized a LEGAL representative empowerd to sign the marriage license. That should be solely the purview of a legal, secular officer.
AmVet - Just say no to Republican fasicsts.
December 19th, 2011
8:29 pm
I find it laughable that ANY of them still trots out that paragon of a Republican pyschobabble phrase – activist judges.
Oy to the veh…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2011
8:29 pm
A contract doesn’t change ……………… it can be interpreted but its clear language doesn not change
Someone would certainly fail first year contracts. Contracts change all the time. In construction, change orders. The parties can modify, amend. The parties may also mutually depart from the terms and conditions of the contract.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
December 19th, 2011
8:30 pm
vague, 1811.
Its like the 10th Amendment fad among the Tea Party states rights types. The 10th is clear in its intent.
But the Supremacy Clause trumps it every time. I have yet to talk to a 10ther who knew about this clause.
josef
December 19th, 2011
8:31 pm
K’chak
@ 8:23
Good one!
Sooth
Interesting posts you made…and as Scout said, “his solution is a slippery slope that would take us in a dangerous direction.”
Lubie
December 19th, 2011
8:32 pm
The real attack on liberty is the action of liberal judges who think it’s their job to legislate from the bench.
AND I think Gingrich is out of line and wrong in his suggestion that the president can ignore rulings he does not like.
While judges have abused their relatively absolute position in the constitutional universe, the solution is not a arbritrary head of the executive branch.
Jm
December 19th, 2011
8:32 pm
Jay 7:17 fair response
Re DOMA. I still find it extraordinary that the executive branch has elected not to enforce a law, even if I don’t agree with it
Doma should be repealed. But through the legislature, not the courts
Recon 0311 2533
December 19th, 2011
8:34 pm
“when you know in your heart that getting on Fox means having to give up any semblence of real intelligence?”
Tell it to Geraldo Riveria, Greta VanSustren, Wendall Goller, Shepard Smith, Bob Beckel and to a greater degree Chris Wallace. Indeed humorous the lefts fetish with Fox News. Clearly some pass judgment based purely on the party line without even watching.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
8:36 pm
“But through the legislature, not the courts”
That’s more or less Jay’s point: that the courts are there to protect us from unconstitutional laws passed by less-than-educated legislators.
St Simons - we're on Island time
December 19th, 2011
8:36 pm
arrest judges you don’t like? Yayeah,
Healthcare Reform is sooo in da bag.
Medicare for All next. Done & Done. Thanks for the idea, Newt.
bman
December 19th, 2011
8:36 pm
Am I the only one who has noticed that people in the media (all of them) seem to be choosing who will be the nominee?
I recently heard, on several channels, positive press on Bachman and yes….Perry
josef
December 19th, 2011
8:37 pm
Doggone
Marriage refers at present to both the state and the religious body sanction…civil union is a more appropriate legal term for what the contract actually is and what would you call the religious sanction?
josef
December 19th, 2011
8:40 pm
jm
“I still find it extraordinary that the executive branch has elected not to enforce a law,”
Extraordinary but not unprecedented.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
8:42 pm
“Marriage refers at present to both the state and the religious body sanction…civil union is a more appropriate legal term for what the contract actually is and what would you call the religious sanction”
But it is still marriage that is the legally binding contract. It is what the marriage license refers to. Changing that would mean EVERY law in every state, as well as Federal laws would have to be rewritten to remove the word “marriage”
Marriage has always been a legal contract, there’s no need to change that. We just need to apply equal protection TO those laws.
“and what would you call the religious sanction”
A religious union
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
8:43 pm
“Interesting posts you made…and as Scout said, “his solution is a slippery slope that would take us in a dangerous direction.”
People in the U.S. simply don’t realize (or don’t care) that our country is heading towards fascist totalitarianism.
The “War on Terror” is being used like the Reichstag Fire to deprive the country of constitutional protections. Yet, our elected officials — such as they are — are content to pass enabling law after enabling law.
Distracted Americans, believing these laws will never be used against them, acquiesce.
This is an extremely frightening time in the history of the United States. Your freedom and liberty are at stake, yet most people are only concerned with what Snooki will do this week on Jersey Shore.
When you consider the laws passed since 9/11 (The Reichstag Fire) is it really frightening. And, everyone — Right or Left — should be really frightened. Frightened enough to take action.
Jm
December 19th, 2011
8:43 pm
Josef true not unprecedented
Just exceptionally exceptionally rare. So almost unprecedented
moonbat betty
December 19th, 2011
8:46 pm
Grinsh’s anti-judicial tirade is an attack on liberty
or
Gingrich’s anti-judicial tirade is an attack on liberty
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2011
8:46 pm
Snooki?
What is Palin up to now that she could not get TLC (a network that has a show about extreme couponing) to pick up a show about Todd and his snowmobile?
What Goes Around Comes Around
December 19th, 2011
8:46 pm
@Jm December 19th, 2011 6:52 pm
Do not try to turn the conversation to Obama.
We are talking about Newtie……….
You republicans are so JEALOUS OF OBAMA. You need to FOCUS on your own candidates who are all IMPLODING ONE BY ONE.
Looks like its OBAMA IN 2012!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahaha
JohnnyReb
December 19th, 2011
8:46 pm
Doggone – on not giving a clergyman the right to marry people, you are bucking history almost from the beginning. I don’t think you will ever win that one.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
December 19th, 2011
8:47 pm
Didn’t Snow Snooki join the Fox News War on Christmas Resistance Army?
josef
December 19th, 2011
8:48 pm
Doggone
Got it! The church gets the union!
But, then, that is yours and Scouts Roman Catholics at work, eh?
kayaker 71
December 19th, 2011
8:48 pm
A school superintendent is threatened with jail time if he does not eliminate the word ‘benediction” from any high school graduation ceremony proceedings. Along with that any reference to God, prayer, a moment of silence, anything that might portray some religious bent to the ceremony is strictly prohibited. Why? The majority of the American people by a total of 80% believe in some form of an Almighty. Are we not a nation that believes in something much more important than self.\? Bozo says no. He and activist judges are stripping this country of it’s heritage. Short of eliminating the threat, what is the answer? Are we to become a totally secular nation where any reference to a higher power is not only scorned but threatened with imprisonment if certain judicial “standards” are not met? Do we eliminate the Chaplin Corps from the military? Next do we hack down the Ten Commandments that are present in the Supreme Court? What is next? There are no more countries that those who flee from religions persecution can flee. I am not a Christian nor a religions person for the most part. But this is absolutely insane.
BlahBlahBlah
December 19th, 2011
8:48 pm
The 9th circuit consistently gets smacked by the Supreme Court, more than any district. There’s obviously a problem there, whether lefties want to admit it or not.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
8:49 pm
“Doggone – on not giving a clergyman the right to marry people, you are bucking history almost from the beginning. I don’t think you will ever win that one”
and I think we will – eventually. After all, it is not the religious ceremony that “marries” you…it’s the LEGAL MARRIAGE LICENSE that “marries” you.
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
8:50 pm
josef @ 8:31
The real point is that the SCOTUS (and other federal courts) have failed in self-restraint.
They have at times ursurped, overreached, politicized and even violated the Constitution in their rulings.
That is the true danger to the Constitution.
josef
December 19th, 2011
8:50 pm
Sooth
You know I think you’re way out there on 9/11, but the comparison to the Reichstag Fire is valid, if, that is, Doggone will let me say that without accusing me of agreeing with your conspiracy theory…
JohnnyReb
December 19th, 2011
8:50 pm
One more comment, then I must sign-off. I agree with Newt’s intent, however, his fix goes too far. American’s would never stand for a judge to be called before Congress to explain his ruling(s). I believe there is impeachment procedures, and certainly abolishing a district such as the 9th would send a strong message. Congress could pass a law negating a ruling. Everything needed to bring about a correction is in-place. Congress has failed to use it. Newt would have been better off to call for use of what is in place.
Jm
December 19th, 2011
8:51 pm
Gingrich is anti capitalist. It’s insane. The only thing the guy is in favor of is Newt.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
December 19th, 2011
8:51 pm
The Establishment Clause is still in the Constitution, kayak.
At least until Newt has it forcibly removed by Divine Order.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
8:52 pm
“But, then, that is yours and Scouts Roman Catholics at work, eh?”
Well, our history is rife with religion muscling in where it has no business (”one nation under God”) – marriage is no different!
What Goes Around Comes Around
December 19th, 2011
8:52 pm
Middle Class Mitt Romney who lives in a 12 million dollar mansion is the NEXT TO GO!
God is exposing all of the HYPOCRITES!
josef
December 19th, 2011
8:54 pm
Kayaker
A really interesting read on that is the original creation of a chaplaincy for the military…met with some serious resistance.
And back to the Late Misunderstanding…a fascinating read has to do with the Chaplaincy Controversy when the Union would not allow rabbis, the Confederacy included any ordained clergyman of any faith…
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
8:55 pm
Blah, Blah, Blah:
If a conservative appellate court was getting “slapped down” all of the time you would hear of it constantly. Just another example of the old double standard.
Another example? Jay’s quote from earlier:
“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.”
If Bush was still in office with something similar “outrage” would be mild regarding was Jay would be saying.
Bias is a salve to sooth the prejudiced soul.
St Simons - we're on Island time
December 19th, 2011
8:55 pm
whew, josef, anybody seen Casey Cagle’s wife? heheheh
that had as many period dogwhistles as, “demographics of S. Atlanta”
does today
josef
December 19th, 2011
8:55 pm
Doggone
Well, if you agree with him on that, it does leave you open for criticism. Like it or not.
moonbat betty
December 19th, 2011
8:55 pm
word
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM1RChZk1EU
n
December 19th, 2011
8:55 pm
Soothsayer’s narrative is compelling. My parents who lived during this era of the rise of Nazi Germany maintained that nobody thought Hitler would ever succeed. Everyone dismissed him as a blowhard and misfit. Millions of people died because they underestimated the reach of his overwhelming evil. Our generation has mostly forgotten the long, tortured human history of demagogues and sociopaths rising to power.. Newt Gingrich is a demagogue, capable of anything. Right now, presumably, he is just trying to get face time and by his outrageous statements, to sell more books to the ignorant masses. But if by some crazy rotten twist of fate he was to becomes president, we might witness yet another frightening march towards fascism, as Soothsayer chronicles above.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it
Lee
December 19th, 2011
8:56 pm
When I glanced at the title and saw “…Attack on Liberty”, I thought Jay would be talking about the cowardly attack on the USS Liberty by our so-called ally and chief welfare recipient Israel.
But, no such luck. Just more Newt bashing by the Bookboy.
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
8:57 pm
Doggone:
I’m Baptist ……………………….
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
December 19th, 2011
8:58 pm
I think many Georgians resent the SCOTUS because there are no Christians on it – just Catholics and Jews.
(using the fundie definition)
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
8:58 pm
Lee:
A very good friend of mine was an officer on board the USS Liberty at that time.
He was wounded.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
8:59 pm
“Well, if you agree with him on that, it does leave you open for criticism. Like it or not
I’ll have to take your word for it. I haven’t read his posts. The “worst” you could say is that we expressed the same sentiment. I haven’t quoted him in any way.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2011
8:59 pm
Yak71, so was Obama working with the activist judges when the 5th Cir overturned the District Court or when the District Court made the initial rulling….. If he were Republican, this would be an acceptable flip flop right?
Jm
December 19th, 2011
8:59 pm
What goes
Mitt is more middle class than newt
The guy has money. But he doesn’t spend it much.
Newt has less money but spends it like the fed is making our currency worthless.
Wait a sec….
Recon 0311 2533
December 19th, 2011
9:00 pm
“Right or Left — should be really frightened. Frightened enough to take action.”
I don’t believe as Sooth does that we should be frightened because I think it’s an anger not fright that’s being reflected in America today. I further think that Americans by and large are not anywhere near ready to accept this nations decline. The majority want a return to American values that made this country great. I do think that revolution is in the air and hopefully, it will be peaceful but I’m not so sure.
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
9:00 pm
“You know I think you’re way out there on 9/11.”
If you believe that an airplane can turn a 110-story, 80,000-ton, concrete and steel office building into powder (not to mention one that wasn’t even struck by airplane), then I guess that I am “way out there.”
But, you know what, I believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, too.
kayaker 71
December 19th, 2011
9:02 pm
The tripartite system of government has served this country for a very long time. However, lately, much of it has fallen into disapproval by the American electorate. Congressional approval in the single digits. Very unpopular decisions made by our judiciary, contrary to what majority opinion dictates. Must the majority be held hostage by a minority opinion? I think that Newt has an ear to what most Americans feel, although the media, including blogs like this feel the need to demonize and vilify, especially a Republican candidate. Who’s next Bookman?
Jm
December 19th, 2011
9:02 pm
Obama is a 1%er carrying water for the 1%ers
He has you 99% people completely snookered