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
josef
December 19th, 2011
9:03 pm
Jm
December 19th, 2011
8:32 pm
“Jay 7:17 fair response”
No! No! You can’t agree with Jay and acknowledge his fairness…that’s Verboten…the NSA will be calling on you!
josef
December 19th, 2011
9:05 pm
sooth
@ 8:43
Does Pastor Niemoller ring a bell?
Jm
December 19th, 2011
9:07 pm
A million people killed by communism in north Korea
Fight communism and socialism in America
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
9:07 pm
Headline: “Barney Frank Wears Revealing Shirt On House Floor”
Ah …………………… nevermind.
Political Mongrel
December 19th, 2011
9:08 pm
Gingrich has shown again, and again that he’s a Fascist at heart.
kayaker 71
December 19th, 2011
9:09 pm
4 Million dollar vacation on the American taxpayer dime. Bozo’s last Hawaiian junket only cost the taxpayer 1.2 million. Don’t you think that perhaps He and His Wife might consider Christmas at Camp David? He is milking the system all that he can during his last year in office while we stand by and watch. The day of atonement is near, Bozo. Only eleven more months.
Jm
December 19th, 2011
9:10 pm
Josef
. I’m going in hiding soon
Pelosi is such a political whore. She’ll say anything. She’s not the only one, just the most egregious about it.
Jay
December 19th, 2011
9:10 pm
“Must the majority be held hostage by a minority opinion?
On some issues, kayaker, yes it must. That was the deal from the beginning.
“In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature.”
– James Madison
Old Timer
December 19th, 2011
9:10 pm
Far be it for me to pretend to be any kind of marriage expert, but I was always under the impression that although ministers are allowed to perform marriage ceremonies, it’s the Certificate of Marriage that becomes the state-recognized contract. And only the state can grant a divorce; ministers cannot, although in certain instances the Pope can issue an annulment, a declaration that the contract never legitimately existed in the first place. The fact that only the state can grant a divorce suggests to me that it’s the marriage document, and not the ceremony itself, that the state recognizes. I’ve always assumed, then, that religious ministers were serving as quasi-agents of the state in performing marriage ceremonies and signing the Certificate of Marriage.
Mama Says
December 19th, 2011
9:10 pm
Jay,
You forgot to mention one thing. Today’s courts have upheld laws that in some cases stray far from the constitution. Like our executive and legislative branches our constitution has been continually weakened, weakened by well meaning men and women who in the interest of fairness have usurped the very document they swear to uphold. This usurpation is then upheld by the courts.
I can state several examples of governmental abuse. Imminent domain, the ban on religious exspression within our government, the obvious mandate for formal war declarations. Point being is that arguing that the courts are today what they were in Hamilton’s day avoids the obvious point.
Today we have ceded our constitutional rights at the feet of each branch. Rest assured the legislative or executive branches will only stand to limit the judiciary, they will not limit themselves, wherein lies the real problem. Arguing against Newts potential abuse of power is to ignore the idea that Obama can make me buy something because he feels I need it.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
December 19th, 2011
9:12 pm
JM, Communist fighter Lech Walesa would be called a “commie” by you ignorant hicks now simply because he organized Solidarity.
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
9:13 pm
josef: you lost me. Who is Pastor Niemoller?
Jm
December 19th, 2011
9:15 pm
FDA takes 10-15 YEARS to approve or deny new breast cancer drugs
That’s your taxpayer dollars hard at work.
Incompetent government
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
9:16 pm
“FDA takes 10-15 YEARS to approve or deny new breast cancer drugs”
and if they approved it in 6 months, and thousands of people died because of adverse effects…THEN what would you say?
Jm
December 19th, 2011
9:18 pm
Jay
Yes the court is there in large part to protect minority rights
But the court should be a last refuge
Why didn’t democrats just repeal DOMA?
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
9:19 pm
“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
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2011
9:19 pm
and if they approved it in 6 months, and thousands of people died because of adverse effects…THEN what would you say
The Unregulated Free Market at work?
What’s a few dead people over the course of history to the conned?
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
9:19 pm
Out to watch the game. I hope San Fran demolishes Pittsburgh (ESPN). Check back later.
barking frog
December 19th, 2011
9:19 pm
marriage should be a formal agreement between two or more
people to form a family.
Jm
December 19th, 2011
9:20 pm
Doggone
It doesn’t take 15 years because of a 15 year testif window
It’s because FDA is a disaster
5 years max. Obviously it can’t be done in six months
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2011
9:21 pm
That this Assembly doth explicity and peremptorily note the attempt for another rabbit hole.
Dolly Madison.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
9:21 pm
“marriage should be a formal agreement between two or more
people to form a family.”
So anyone too old to bear children, or who are sterile, should be banned from getting married?
josef
December 19th, 2011
9:22 pm
Sooth
Pastor Niemoller is credited with saying
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
josef
December 19th, 2011
9:22 pm
Sooth
Pastor Niemoller is credited with saying
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
9:22 pm
Marriage, BTW, stretches beyond JUST the family you know, it also encompasses the orderly passing along of property as well.
AmVet - Just say no to Republican fasicsts.
December 19th, 2011
9:23 pm
Mama, is imminent domain eminent domain that is going to happen at any moment?
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
9:24 pm
HEADLINE: “Panetta: U.S. will not allow Iran nukes”
“Iran has the ability to build a nuclear bomb within the year, Defense Sec. claims, adding the U.S. will stop it no matter what.”
Pretty bellicose Jay ……………………
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/#ixzz1h2OqLVtu
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
9:25 pm
Good Fight:
Do you mean Jay’s quote from Madison at 9:10 ?
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
9:26 pm
“5 years max. Obviously it can’t be done in six months”
And some adverse effects take years to manifest themselves. But I wouldn’t argue completely against what you’ve said. I would just amend it to having some kind of “experimentally approved” status, that requires people to be thoroughly educated in the possible risks and then is they STILL want to take the drug, they sign a waiver and are allowed to have it.
Kamchak
December 19th, 2011
9:26 pm
Then they came for me —
Twice, no less.
Jm
December 19th, 2011
9:26 pm
Doggone
You really are a jerk
What part of frog’s “TWO or more” didn’t you get?
Wonk or Wank?
December 19th, 2011
9:28 pm
Okay, consider the idea that slavery is still “legal” and “constitutional”, and that every word Gingrich has uttered is being said by Lincoln. During Lincoln’s era, slavery was the minority poll, but it was constitutional. Suppose Abraham Gingrich was uttering words that would make slavery illegal, and unconstitutional. He would be justified, my fellow voters, he would be a hero. After Dredd Scott, (a pro slavery supreme court decision) Lincoln was stupified and very aroused and could have easily pronounced Gingrich’s very attack. In fact, LIncoln would have been proud to utter those very words, but he wouldn’t have, because Lincoln was our greatest compromiser, when it came to words.
be very careful when you defend the total independence of any branch of our government, after all, didn’t the supreme court give us the Bush/Iraq war from hell?
barking frog
December 19th, 2011
9:29 pm
doggone, 9:21, 9:22, families do not have to be defined as
groups containing children or property ownership since both
can be excluded.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2011
9:29 pm
Do you mean Jay’s quote from Madison at 9:10 ?
Nope!
Another episode of one word answers to silly questions.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
9:30 pm
Actually, we BOTH missed the relevent portion “to form a family”
I misread it to mean having children. It doesn’t actually mean that at all. A family can be family without children. And personally, I have no problem with a consenting case of plural marriage, provided the proper legal protections for any children (and the property) are in place.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
9:31 pm
“families do not have to be defined as groups containing children or property ownership since both can be excluded”
Yep, I got it…it just took a while!
Jm
December 19th, 2011
9:32 pm
Doggone
I agree on the drug
But that’s not a big deal
If you’re otherwise terminal, what harm are the possible aide effects? All drugs have side effects. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be tested.
I’m just saying your government does an awful job at everything it tries to do.
Wonk or Wank?
December 19th, 2011
9:32 pm
Look, forget the founding fathers, in fact, fook them. We have to decide these modern issues for ourselves, and I think THAT is the gift we were given by our living constitution, which was affirmed by the administrations of our first presidents, who included the graciously ingenious Ben Franklin, and of course, the very determined and excellent shot Aaron Burr.
So, that said, I think that most of the commenters on this blog are total idiots. And so do all of our founding morons.
Old Timer
December 19th, 2011
9:32 pm
FDA takes 10-15 YEARS to approve or deny new breast cancer drugs
That’s your taxpayer dollars hard at work.
Incompetent government
Jm, please look up the thalidomide tragedy. It was discovered that thalidomide, initially marketed as a sedative in the late 1950s, had beneficial effects on morning sickness in pregnant women. As a result, hundreds of thousands of pregnant women were prescribed thalidomide, with the result that thousands of infants were born without legs, with only rudimentary legs, or with flippers instead of legs. Those children, now adults, are still among us today. At the time, FDA oversight of drug trials was not required. It was thanks to the thalidomide tragedy that the current, more rigid FDA drug approval system evolved.
Be honest with yourself and acknowledge that you have no idea of the long-term effects of any of these supposed breast cancer drugs. In any case, I’m not in favor of the return of the Wild West system of drug approval.
The Carnivore
December 19th, 2011
9:36 pm
You sure are worried about Newt. Why don’t you worry about who the Democratic nominee will be? Going with Obama again is a guaranteed loss.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
9:39 pm
“You sure are worried about Newt”
You have failed to recognize that pointing and laughing does NOT constitute worry!
josef
December 19th, 2011
9:40 pm
K’chak
Was trying to think of one, but couldn’t…good ‘un!
Amazed
December 19th, 2011
9:41 pm
I am not one to pock around the liberal section but I find myself completely on the other side today. After seeing Newt spout off about how the separation of powers has always been wrong and a majority rules, I was dumb founded. I could not believe that this man, on the cusp of winning the Republican Primary as a man that would actually fix problems and get something done for a change, took a self inflicted bullet to the temple to show himself as off the deep end. What the ……?
josef
December 19th, 2011
9:42 pm
Old Timer
An unappreciated lot in our society are those who take part in those FDA testings…
josef
December 19th, 2011
9:44 pm
Amazed
The man is bat sh*t crazy…
stands for decibels
December 19th, 2011
9:46 pm
Meh. Newt’s dead meat anyway.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/paul-moves-into-lead-in-iowa-forecast/
What kind of dumbasses ever fell for his schtick anyway? Never really got the appeal when he was just a fat jerk. Now he’s a fat old jerk.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2011
9:47 pm
“The man is bat sh*t crazy…”
Isn’t that more or less what the political pundits have been saying? That all his opposition has to do is wait, and he’ll shoot himself in the foot? Past experience generally being a VERY good guide when it comes to this guy.
Wonk or Wank?
December 19th, 2011
9:48 pm
Don’t forget the DES babies. Don’t forget so many poisons and time bomb chemicals that got into our children. Come on. Why does someone have to even make that point?
Everything is unconstitutional, when you think about it. I think you all stink, so that gives me the right to call you morons, and the supreme court is supposed to tell me that I’m wrong? Really? Well, then I’m with Andrew Jackson: “how many stooges does the supreme court have?” I’ve got five or six historical stooges that have set precedences that would support my opinion that the majority of the reader/commenters on this blog, especially judging by their reaction to this particular piece (and it was a home run) by Jay Bookman, are complete and total self-actualized morons. It’s just a fact, and if any of the readers who have half a brain also had half the balls to respond, then the truth would be born out by them. I think there’s a vast majority of a multitude of minds out there who are afraid to scream out against the tyrannical rule of Bookman’s trolls. I think it takes someone who I can’t think of now to shake them out of their complacency and their couch-potatoe cheeto-rationalization about why they want to stay far, far away from the scorn they might receive if they comment. I can’t think of who that person could be, you know, that very person who could lead these reticent folks to start shaping opinion in this country simply by either supporting or opposing any particular thought…..I don’t know….nobody comes to mind…..could it be…..ME????????
Question
December 19th, 2011
9:51 pm
So are all these GOP governors and attorney generals going to read this white paper and drop their judicial challenges to the Health Care overhaul?
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
9:53 pm
Well, it’s obvious that someone left the door open over there at the asylum. How do I know? Well, one of them has found a computer somewhere and is posting semi-coherent posts on this here blog.
Forget about making sense or logic. Just throw together a “word salad” that makes sense to himself. Of course, grandiose, delusions of grandeur never hurt.
After his abusive posts over the weekend, it’s defies logic that Jay has not banished this escapee forever. One can only hope.
Aquagirl
December 19th, 2011
9:56 pm
Jm, please look up the thalidomide tragedy.
Or google “Tuskegee syphilis.” Drug trials are slow in part because researchers have to get approval for all sorts of stuff. That’s not a bad thing.
Old Timer
December 19th, 2011
9:57 pm
After his abusive posts over the weekend, it’s defies logic that Jay has not banished this escapee forever. One can only hope.
I’m tolerant of p.f. Anyone who has watched his wife waste away from cancer has a right to be a little loony now and then.
AmVet - Just say no to Republican fasicsts.
December 19th, 2011
10:00 pm
This coming year promises to be as hysterical as was 2008.
The Party of No trots out all of these dufuses (or is it dufusi?) that are not fit to run a Boy Scout camp, much less hold the highest office in the land.
Then after each and every one of the biggest losers falls by the wayside, they end up with a “RINO” that they desperately don’t want to vote for, so some of them don’t. They stay home and cry in their cheap beer while watching Fox News.
And some of them howl and spit and hold their nose and vote for Flip-flopping Mittens.
And the laughfest rolls along…
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
December 19th, 2011
10:04 pm
Huck
Thune
Barbour
Christie
Daniels
Pence
Palin
Ryan
Goolie-ani
You coulda been contenders!
josef
December 19th, 2011
10:07 pm
Doggone
@ 9:47
We can hope..
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
10:09 pm
Goodfight:
Oh, so Jay can quote Madison but I can’t ?
DoubleEagle
December 19th, 2011
10:12 pm
Jay Bookman -
Another reason never to pay for the AJC. I cancelled over 10 years ago because of the libs involved with that rag.
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
10:13 pm
What a wonderful place ………………….
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/19/north-korea-what-its-like-inside-secretive-nation/?hpt=hp_c1
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
10:13 pm
San Fran, Kansas City, San Diego. What great teams. They fight with more spirit and emotion than any other teams in football. If only the sleepy Falcons play with that much spirit!
bman
December 19th, 2011
10:15 pm
Sooth .. .. you supporting the top 1% again?
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
10:15 pm
“Jay Bookman -
Another reason never to pay for the AJC. I cancelled over 10 years ago because of the libs involved with that rag.”
Here’s a tip: don’t post here any more.
Todd ... this is Todd
December 19th, 2011
10:15 pm
I already gave my AJC subscription to Sally.
Jm
December 19th, 2011
10:15 pm
Old timer
I was not advocating the “wild west” method
cb
December 19th, 2011
10:15 pm
Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. However we say it, Mr. Gingrich is all about the money. In a recent story, “Gingrich was ask to return the estimated $1.6 million he received for providing strategic advice to Freddie Mac, the quasi-government agency (an agency that has lost millions) that guarantees home mortgages. Gingrich has said he acted as a historian, not a lobbyist”. A “historian”, is that the history of greed? He may just sell you a book on it!
Sux Limbow
December 19th, 2011
10:15 pm
Gingrich is a fascist. Pure & simple, Gingrich is a fascist.
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
10:16 pm
Soothsayer:
It’s called “intelligence gathering”. Know your enemy.
josef
December 19th, 2011
10:16 pm
Old timer
True, but he’s just plumb mean…
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
10:17 pm
Sux Limbow:
If Gingrich is a facist then Obama is a marxist.
Bud Fox
December 19th, 2011
10:20 pm
Cantor is Boner’s Daddy.
Jm
December 19th, 2011
10:22 pm
Scout
I think you may have hit the nail on the head there
Romney
bman
December 19th, 2011
10:23 pm
how old is the new leader in N Korea? He looks 15
Jm
December 19th, 2011
10:23 pm
Sux
Say it twice thrice four times and it becomes more believable
Or u just look loony
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
10:24 pm
Well, there you go …………………….
Headline: “Shoplifters robbed while stealing from grocery store”
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/shoplifters-robbed-while-stealing-grocery-store-192530012.html
Jm
December 19th, 2011
10:25 pm
Bman
He has a red button
You on board with dome democrat isolationism?
1811/0311
December 19th, 2011
10:25 pm
Jm:
Not to our biased friends on here ………………..
Jm
December 19th, 2011
10:26 pm
Dome = some
Jm
December 19th, 2011
10:27 pm
Scout
True enough
josef
December 19th, 2011
10:28 pm
Gingrich a fascist? Too rational. He’s bat sh*t crazy. A pompous, egomaniac, a moral degenerate, but more importantly, a clear and present danger”..imo
bman
December 19th, 2011
10:31 pm
jm .. .. i was trying to figure out that dome thing haha
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2011
10:31 pm
There’s a reason its called the 9th circus of appeals. Its an extreme kook left court that has absolutely zero semblance of impartiality. This court clearly has an agenda and already has their mind made up before even hearing a case. This court is a damn joke.
Jm
December 19th, 2011
10:31 pm
I’m ready to vote out our dear leader
Fire up the poll booths!
Todd ... this is Todd
December 19th, 2011
10:32 pm
I already gave ……………. my period …………… to Sally ……………….
bman
December 19th, 2011
10:33 pm
jm .. .. I truly do not believe Obama can win. I don’t see him winning the swing states this time around. Of course, the state of the economy will be the deciding issue.
josef
December 19th, 2011
10:34 pm
Scout
@ 10:240
You can’t make this stuff up…isn’t it ironic, don’t ya think…:-)
Jm
December 19th, 2011
10:34 pm
Josef 10:28 u have a point there
Newt is a complete roll of the dice
He might be good or even great
But there’s an 80% chance he’d be a disaster
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2011
10:35 pm
And this is from one of the most liberal papers in the country the LA Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/18/local/la-me-ninth-circuit-scorecard-20110718
U.S. Supreme Court again rejects most decisions by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Judges in the circuit’s nine Western states are more liberal than the high court justices, who reversed or vacated 19 of the 26 decisions they examined for the last term.
July 18, 2011|By Carol J. Williams, Times Staff Writer
It was another bruising year for the liberal judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as the Supreme Court overturned the majority of their decisions, at times sharply criticizing their legal reasoning.
Appeals from the nine Western states of the circuit dominated the high court’s docket, as usual, supplying more than 30% of the 84 cases taken up by the justices during the term that ended last month.
Jm
December 19th, 2011
10:37 pm
Bman
We’ll see. I think it will be close popular vote wise
Bigger margin at the electoral college
I agree swing states are a big problem for O
Florida…..
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2011
10:39 pm
I saw on Faux news where Obama in his 60 minutes interview stated that he would rate his presidency as 4th best of all time in terms of legislative and foreign policy accomplishments. If we’re going to talk about Newt’s megalamania then we need to include Obama- its only fair. This man is delusional if he thinks his administration is the 4th most successful of all time. Has he lost his mind? Or was he always that megalamaniacal?
Jm
December 19th, 2011
10:40 pm
Doom
Couldn’t one argue that while the 9th may suck, that the system is working fine as the SC knocks them down?
Tho it is a pain for the supremes
lynnie gal
December 19th, 2011
10:41 pm
First, Newt publicly announces he wants to put poor children to work mopping and cleaning the bathrooms of their schools so that janitors who are in unions can be fired. In a separate speech, he says poor children have no concept of working for pay because no one around them works. All while he has a $500,000 line of credit at Tiffanies for his wife’s jewelry and brags about getting $65,000 and hour for giving a speech and made a million and half dollars for services as an “historian” for Freddy Mac. Now, Newt wants to have judges arrested by U.S. Marshals if they are liberal, “activist” judges and claims the constitution backs that up. What a twisted, immoral man.
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
10:42 pm
Newt
Jm
December 19th, 2011
10:42 pm
Doom
He’s the fourth most successful commie president
FDR was first of course
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2011
10:44 pm
1811,
That shoplifting link was hilarious. The woman arrested looked like a rat on acid.
WAW
December 19th, 2011
10:46 pm
Newt’s right about these dang judges… after all calling a Corporation a person so Newt can rake in bigger piles of money… he right… they’re ruining the country!
WAW
December 19th, 2011
10:46 pm
Newt’s right about these dang judges… after all calling a Corporation a person so Newt can rake in bigger piles of money… he right… they’re ruining the country!
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
December 19th, 2011
10:46 pm
Thulsa – he didn’t say “fourth best”.
He said only 3 admins passed more significant legislation.
Soothsayer
December 19th, 2011
10:46 pm
Suck on it, Righties!
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2011
10:47 pm
Jm,
I dunno. There have been Chinese commie presidents whose economic performance has been better than Obama’s. Not Mao of course but whoever has been the general secretary or president of the Chinese communist party the last decade or so has certainly had more economic success than the community organizer has.
Jm
December 19th, 2011
10:49 pm
Sooth
Ron paul’s ad is awesome
He must despise the newt
Jm
December 19th, 2011
10:52 pm
Doom
Ok ok, true enough. I revise my statement.
4th most successful US commie president
If you like commies