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
stands for decibels
December 20th, 2011
1:17 pm
So now a bust of Churchill is “an obsession”? Really? Serious?
no, not now. it has been for several years.
see also:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/05/politics/main6057570.shtml
Some Britons took offense when Winston Churchill’s bust was replaced with King’s. But the decision to return the Churchill bust to the British – it had been presented by former Prime Minister Tony Blair to Bush on loan – had been made before Obama even arrived.
“It was already scheduled to go back,” Allman said.
The White House seemed to be trying to make amends when it made a point of reporting that Obama would keep on his desk a wooden penholder that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave him during a March visit. The penholder is crafted from wood taken from the HMS Gannet, the sister ship to the Resolute, a British naval vessel whose wood was used to make the presidential desk.
Brosephus
December 20th, 2011
1:17 pm
Obama promised no earmarks in bills. And then presented them in bills. How is that not “stating that he or the Dems would bring up bills and not attempt to attach completely unrelated sh*t to it”
#1 Obama does not write bills, he signs them.
#2 When I was speaking earlier, it was in reference to the GOP backsliding on their own promise. You’re trying to deflect from their shortcoming by using the patented elementary school deflection technique. Regardless to what you say, the GOP did not keep their promise. You can’t call yourself the party of responsibility if you don’t hold yourself responsible to your own words.
http://www.gop.gov/indepth/pledge/readthebill
Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time
We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.
How does one twist to link the Keystone pipeline agreement with a payroll tax cut?????
stands for decibels
December 20th, 2011
1:19 pm
Here’s Glenn Beck’s very well thought-out theory on the SCANDALOUS return of that Churchill bust:
BECK: Do you remember when we gave the big statue back, the bust of Churchill? Right after Obama got. In it didn’t make sense to me, hasn’t made sense to me. Any clues, any clues why this gift from the English after 9/11 was boxed up and sent back? I haven’t figured out a reason. Why does Obama harbor animosity towards the British? I don’t know. Why would he return the bust? A listener called me this morning. Said he had found information about Barack Obama’s grandfather in an old Irish newspaper but couldn’t verify it. I said okay, what is it? We looked into it. The information, took us about 20 minutes to find. It was out there, but until today I never heard about this information, and I’m kind of in the Barack Obama business, you know what I mean? I don’t think you have. Maybe you have. What puts you in a position to act unexplainably in weird ways toward the ally? Something must have happened in your life and maybe this is a part of it.
md
December 20th, 2011
1:19 pm
As for Newt’s point once again I’ll reiterate my question from last night……why should the judges be the dictators? The Congress and the WH are powerless against their interpretations……….unless they legislate to abolish their power, which isn’t very likely.
Jay
December 20th, 2011
1:20 pm
No, Thulsa, what is troubling and very curious is the right wing’s effort to turn exceedingly minor, meaningless acts into major controversies just to feed its followers something else they can obsess about.
The Churchill bust was LOANED to us by the Brits, which means it had to be returned at some point. And it’s not as if Obama replaced the Churchill bust with a bust of Che Guevara. He installed a bust of Lincoln, a great American and a Republican to boot.
Absolutely no damage was done to our relationship with Britain. The only people who even remember that occurred are people who dutifully recite the list of supposed Obama “outrages” that they’ve been told to be horrified by.
Welcome to the Occupation
December 20th, 2011
1:20 pm
Bet poor Newt isn’t loving the new post-Citizens United era about now, eh?
DebbieDoRight
December 20th, 2011
1:21 pm
Debbie,Your definition of facism?….
Actually it was Wiki, Merriam Websters, and Dictionary.com’s.
You seem to have left out the part about a fascist country run by a totalitarian dictator where opposing opinion is not tolerated.
And? That goes without saying….. What’s your point?
Old Timer
December 20th, 2011
1:23 pm
The Court has made two very bad decisions in the past few years that affect every American. One having to do with imminent domain and the other concerning campaign finance. Neither should have been decided.
I don’t regard the eminent domain decisions as necessarily a bad one. We can’t allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to hold up community renovaton and improvement. Private property, to me, is not that sacred. I keep thinking of that nut case in Sandy Springs, near Perimeter Mall, who refused to sell his house and two acres for half a million per acre, while all his neighbors in the subdivision agreed to sell. The developer worked out a way to build around him. So there he sits in his little house, surrounded by office towers that block his sunlight. Nobody wants to buy his house, and the developer doesn’t need it or his acres. Serves him right, I say.
DebbieDoRight
December 20th, 2011
1:23 pm
Stevie Ray: I’m wondering where the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Gore, and let’s say Kerry shop….They’ve all increased their net worths dramatically since in office…
a) 85% of Congressman / Senators have. Why do you think they keep wanting to be re-elected? For the health benefits?
b) Gore and Kerry came in as wealthy men. Gore was born into it and Kerry married into it.
Paul Brounshirt
December 20th, 2011
1:24 pm
And it’s not as if Obama replaced the Churchill bust with a bust of Che Guevara
These librul pundits bendin over backwards to defend this socialist and try to pull some wool over our eyes. Well it won’t work. We’re not gonna be fooled by the Kenyan socialist Marxist for one minute.
Stevie Ray
December 20th, 2011
1:24 pm
Welcome to the Occupation
December 20th, 2011
1:12 pm
Wow, thanks for sharing…Reminds me of my favorite Frank Zappa song called Dynamo Hum…please keep those intellectual comments coming!!
Matti's Observant Eye
December 20th, 2011
1:26 pm
GOP PLEDGE TO AMERICA, 2010:
Page 33: We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.
http://www.gop.gov/resources/library/documents/solutions/a-pledge-to-america.pdf
Raise your hand if you believed they intended to stop stroking themselves and their corporate sponsors long enough to actually do this!
stands for decibels
December 20th, 2011
1:26 pm
Absolutely no damage was done to our relationship with Britain.
But but Jay! CBS–which as you know is VERY SUPER LIBERAL cuz they useta hire that commie Dan Rather–actually said:
“Some Britons took offense when Winston Churchill’s bust was replaced with King’s.”
Some Britons! it says it right there on the CBS site! So there!
Stevie Ray
December 20th, 2011
1:26 pm
DEBBIE,
Agreed on weath building motives of Congress and sure, Gore and Kerry arrived with material wealth (for different reasons of course…see Ben Franklins quote about men marrying for money) but I think both increased same geometrically by cronyism et al just like the rest….Heck, it’s this only true bi-partisan activity in DC…
kayaker 71
December 20th, 2011
1:27 pm
md,
If you are building a trans continental highway or a pipeline over my land, you might have a point. However the case was decided, as you point out, based on a woman’s right to keep a family estate to prevent a private developer from taking the land and using if for the “common good” which was nothing more than making a profit at the expense of the landowner. A bad decision indeed. I once owned about 60 acres in Enterprise AL, next to the only airport in the community. When a decision was made to expand the airport runway system, I was approached and an offer was made to purchase. The price was much too low, about half of appraised value. I refused. The courts took it anyway, paid me what they pleased and then used only about 40 acres of it, leaving the other 20 acres unusable and unsalable to anyone. I am sure that this sort of dictatorship happens all over the country in one way or another on a regular basis.
DebbieDoRight
December 20th, 2011
1:28 pm
DEBBIE,
Has Congress (who were instructed by BO in the mist of his SCOTUS tantrum) taken any meaningful steps to create legislation that would reverse the influence of lobbyist? The truth is that not a single member of executive or legislative branch want lobbying reform no matter how they play up to the press on the issue. If they really wanted same, they would actually put money where mouth is…I disagree on the dynamics of this interpretation and don’t agree with it but to blame judges is obsurd
The judges have the option of which cases they take and which they ignore. The majority (again 5/4) agreed to take this case. Since they agreed to take the case then THEY SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their decisions regarding it.
Aquagirl
December 20th, 2011
1:29 pm
The Churchill bust was LOANED to us by the Brits, which means it had to be returned at some point.
Since they kicked Churchill out of office faster than we gave that bust back, any Brits who are offended can get stuffed.
TaxPayer
December 20th, 2011
1:29 pm
What was that other rule that the house Republicans put in place regarding tax cuts and how to pay for them…
stands for decibels
December 20th, 2011
1:30 pm
more fun with wingnut obsessions:
“HUCKABEE: The bust of Winston Churchill, a great insult to the British. But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.”
the British were a bunch of imperialists. They called themselves an “empire.” Their queen called herself an “empress.” HOW DARE OBAMA SAY THE BRITISH HAD COLONIES? HOW DARE HE LIVE IN THAT PLACE HE DIDN’T LIVE?
The sun never sets on stupid.
Stevie Ray
December 20th, 2011
1:30 pm
MATTI,
I’ve actually done a 180 on earmarks…except of course to the extent folks like Hastert, Pelosi and Reid use same to enhance values of real estate holdings…earmarks are 1% of spending and are the only parts of any legislation that are transparent..for example, if a bill passes and grants DOD a billion, the bill will in no way, shape or form break down exactly where the money will go…thus my theory that government, with the help of calculators can count to a trillion, they certainly can’t account for same..
Strawman
December 20th, 2011
1:32 pm
“Some rather smart people have already “manned up” and answered this question a number of years ago.”
From said opinion: “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps…” So..precedent trumps reason. Wasn’t there a precedent for segregation in the 1954 ruling that overturned the 1896 ruling? Why didn’t that matter then? This is the problem with case law: by degrees, you gradually drift away from the original position. It happens in religion and probably everywhere else. It is like one person making a statement that is repeated from one person to the next and in the end it little resembles the original meaning.
Stop referencing documents that think for you and think for yourself. The Supreme Court created the right to privacy. Even the authors of this opinion acknowledge that. Why won’t you?
Talking Head
December 20th, 2011
1:32 pm
“The judges have the option of which cases they take and which they ignore. The majority (again 5/4) agreed to take this case.”
Actually only 4 justices are needed to take on a case.
md
December 20th, 2011
1:33 pm
“The price was much too low, about half of appraised value.”
Which is where I have a problem with it……..all land should be taken at fair market value…….determined by an independent body.
And if property is taken where a profit is made, said property owners should be included as an investor with whatever share their property represents.
stands for decibels
December 20th, 2011
1:34 pm
Since they kicked Churchill out of office faster than we gave that bust back, any Brits who are offended can get stuffed.
reminds me of an oldie but goodie from those three Woking lads…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1AQaXUCboQ
Oh we make the standards and we make the rules
And if you don’t abide by them you must be a fool
We have the power to control the whole land
You never must question our motives or plans -
‘Cause we’ll outlaw your voices, do anything we want
We’ve nothing to fear from the nation
We’ll kick you out of your houses if you get too much
If we have to we’ll destroy your generation
‘Cause we’ve built up a frontage and we’ve gained respect
There’s no one to endanger our position -
Standards rule OK
Standards rule OK
Standards rule OK
Standards rule OK
And we don’t like people who stand in our way
Awareness is gonna be redundant
And ignorance is strength, we have God on our side
Look, you know what happend to Winston
Stevie Ray
December 20th, 2011
1:34 pm
DEBBIE,
If we don’t like an interpretation of the constitution per SCOTUS, it’s time to amend that dusty old document accordingly to make it clear that for political purposes, corporations are not citizens.. It will be difficult for many issues but I can’t imagine a consensus would not quickly agree that corporations should not be citizens…again, no way it will happen since both parties benefit by such a degree that is nauseating…
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 20th, 2011
1:35 pm
RB – If I demand all of your possessions, money, home, cars, furnishings, everything, what would you be willing to give me in the spirit of “compromise”?
————————————————————————————
Just like a repub. DEMANDING something for nothing from a hard working wage earner.
Stevie Ray
December 20th, 2011
1:35 pm
TALKING HEAD/DEBBIE,
What would have been the ramifications to campaign law if the Citizens decision had gone the other way?
Paul Brounshirt
December 20th, 2011
1:35 pm
Stevie : “Wow, thanks for sharing…Reminds me of my favorite Frank Zappa song called Dynamo Hum…please keep those intellectual comments coming!!”
I was trying to blow a circuit on the server bandwidth settings for intellectual weight — thanks!
stands for decibels
December 20th, 2011
1:36 pm
Strawman, if you want to re-criminalize elective first trimester abortion, have at it.
I really don’t like your chances, though, since the vast majority of Americans hate the idea, and oh yeah, they support Roe.
http://pollingreport.com/abortion2.htm
Bobo is Not the Problem
December 20th, 2011
1:37 pm
Doggone works for the censorship police. Jay can institute a censoring or preapproval process to the blog. He has chosen not to do that. Thus, anyone can post about anything.
It is beyond annoying when one poster gripes about the topic another poster chooses to post about.
Maybe Doggone is Jay incognito, amping up the # of comments in this thread.
Carol
December 20th, 2011
1:40 pm
Bud Wiser
And also, who now will lead the mindless morons of the left …..Pelosi ….. Sharpton …. Hillary???
What a sick joke you dimwits are becoming, and just how soon your party of clowns will vanish into history.
Gingrich 2012
+++++++++
And also, who now will lead the mindless morons of the right…..Cantor ….. Rush …. McConnell???
What a sick joke you dimwits (still) are, and just how soon your party of clowns will vanish into history.
Obama 2012
jm
December 20th, 2011
1:40 pm
“The Churchill bust was LOANED to us by the Brits, which means it had to be returned at some point.”
hilarious. did the brits ask for it back? no
Paul Brounshirt
December 20th, 2011
1:41 pm
Barring a huge upset, Republicans will take control of at least one house
of Congress next week. How worried should we be by that prospect?
Not very, say some pundits. After all, the last time Republicans
controlled Congress while a Democrat lived in the White House was the
period from the beginning of 1995 to the end of 2000. And people remember
that era as a good time, a time of rapid job creation and responsible
budgets. Can we hope for a similar experience now?
No, we can’t. This is going to be terrible. In fact, future historians
will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastroph for
America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and
economic weakness.
Paul Krugman, Oct 28, 2010
Jay
December 20th, 2011
1:41 pm
No, Strawman, the Court did NOT create the right to privacy. That right is fundamental to civil liberty and always has been. There is nothing more basic than the right to be left alone.
Is that right spelled out in the Constitution? Not explicitly. But when the founding fathers were drafting the Bill of Rights, they were deeply troubled by the implication that by listing certain rights, they might be accused of abandoning other rights that were also basic to freedom.
That’s why they included the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The right to privacy is among those “retained by the people” and always should be. Again, it is fundamental to any concept of liberty.
Talking Head
December 20th, 2011
1:41 pm
“What would have been the ramifications to campaign law if the Citizens decision had gone the other way?”
Continued infringement on the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech
Welcome to the Occupation
December 20th, 2011
1:41 pm
Who’s this Brounshirt fella, keeps jacking me name. Blimey!
Midori
December 20th, 2011
1:42 pm
can’t speak for “all” Brits, but GW Bush sure p*ssed the Queen off:
THE Queen is furious with President George W. Bush after his state visit caused thousands of pounds of damage to her gardens at Buckingham Palace.
Royal officials are now in touch with the Queen’s insurers and Prime Minister Tony Blair to find out who will pick up the massive repair bill. Palace staff said they had never seen the Queen so angry as when she saw how her perfectly-mantained lawns had been churned up after being turned into helipads with three giant H landing markings for the Bush visit.
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk…=13652625_method=full_siteid=106694_headline=-GROUND-FARCE-1-name_page.html
jm
December 20th, 2011
1:44 pm
Jay makes stuff up people.
“Barack Obama has sent Sir Winston Churchill packing and pulse rates soaring among anxious British diplomats. ”
“A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government’s art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush’s tenure.
But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: “Thanks, but no thanks.” ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html
DebbieDoRight
December 20th, 2011
1:45 pm
Strawman: So..precedent trumps reason. Wasn’t there a precedent for segregation in the 1954 ruling that overturned the 1896 ruling? Why didn’t that matter then? This is the problem with case law: by degrees, you gradually drift away from the original position. It happens in religion and probably everywhere else. It is like one person making a statement that is repeated from one person to the next and in the end it little resembles the original meaning.
The law, any law, is a living breathing entity. It does shift and change because values and mores change. The law should never be absolute and set in stone. If it were, then we the people would still be stuck with some laws on the books that are outdated and asinine that which, at the time of their inception, were considered “revolutionary”.
Stop referencing documents that think for you and think for yourself. The Supreme Court created the right to privacy. Even the authors of this opinion acknowledge that. Why won’t you?
Even LAWYERS reference past law and past precedent to make a claim. It’s not a question of anyone thinking for themselves, its a question of “what’s been said and done about this before”.
Thulsa Doom
December 20th, 2011
1:46 pm
Stands and Jay,
The bust was on loan and then the Brits had told us we could keep it. Hence the reason for the Republicans wanting to have a new bust of Churchill. I don’t think our relationship was permanently damaged by this.
“The penholder is crafted from wood taken from the HMS Gannet, the sister ship to the Resolute, a British naval vessel whose wood was used to make the presidential desk.”
Hey stands thanks for a reminder of the wonderful gift that they gave us. It reminds me of the gift the Obama administration gave them. Some DVDs and a DVD player that doesn’t work in Europe. I expect them to screw up big things like the economy. But the fact that they do the smallest things right speaks volumes about this administration. Stupid is as stupid does.
Jm
December 20th, 2011
1:47 pm
Yes. Americans need the right to privately kill their children. Now, if only that right extended to adults then Dahmer could get out.
Perfectly logical.
DebbieDoRight
December 20th, 2011
1:47 pm
Taxpayer: What was that other rule that the house Republicans put in place regarding tax cuts and how to pay for them…
They’ll NEVER answer that question T.P. NEVER in a million posts……
DebbieDoRight
December 20th, 2011
1:49 pm
k71: I was approached and an offer was made to purchase. The price was much too low, about half of appraised value. I refused. The courts took it anyway, paid me what they pleased and then used only about 40 acres of it, leaving the other 20 acres unusable and unsalable to anyone. I am sure that this sort of dictatorship happens all over the country in one way or another on a regular basis.
It does. And if you look at the history of the US; that was one of the things the Colonists were trying to free themselves from. Amazing how we’ve come full circle isn’t it?
Thulsa Doom
December 20th, 2011
1:51 pm
Jm,
Jay and stands for decibels just don’t want to let the facts get in the way.
Jm
December 20th, 2011
1:51 pm
Starve the government back to it’s proper size and we’ll all be more prosperous
Gavel Grab » USA Today Condemns ‘Destructive’ Gingrich Court Attacks
December 20th, 2011
1:53 pm
[...] thinking by way of examining the writings of the Founding Fathers comes from Jay Bookman in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Bookman deplores what he called historian Gingrich’s “dishonest history.” Where [...]
Jm
December 20th, 2011
1:54 pm
Doom
They just make up stuff. Laughingstock they are.
DebbieDoRight
December 20th, 2011
1:55 pm
Strawman: DEBBIE,
If we don’t like an interpretation of the constitution per SCOTUS, it’s time to amend that dusty old document accordingly to make it clear that for political purposes, corporations are not citizens.. It will be difficult for many issues but I can’t imagine a consensus would not quickly agree that corporations should not be citizens…again, no way it will happen since both parties benefit by such a degree that is nauseating…
True. No disagreement with you on that. My disagreement is on the fact that the Supremes even took up the case. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, C.U. LOST in the lower courts because they were wrong in their interpretation of the law. The majority of the lower courts saw this — this should have been the END of it. For the Surpremes to take this up — after reading the entirety of the case and the various decisions by the lower courts; was tantamount to RIDICULOUS to me.
AmVet
December 20th, 2011
2:00 pm
How desperate are these cons?
Almost three years into this administration and returning the loaned Churchill’s bust is the recycled outrage?
I’ve got bad news for you Boehner boners.
Though the American economy continues to struggle to get back on it’s feet, there have been some modest gains, improved job numbers and finally, some renewed hope.
Barry embarrassed (or should I say trumped?) the hell out of you lunatic birthers.
And he’s even punked you chickenhawks at your own “national security” game.
But given this absurd slate of never-beens that are trying to best him in 2012, if I was a con (yuck) I’d be pretty damn desperate too.
DebbieDoRight
December 20th, 2011
2:01 pm
Strawman: TALKING HEAD/DEBBIE – What would have been the ramifications to campaign law if the Citizens decision had gone the other way?
Basically there wouldn’t be any more “Friends Of Sue Bee” advertisements that can throw rocks and not have to show their hands. People (corporations) would have to SAY that they are the ones financing or contributing to a politician.
EXAMPLE: So if we have a politician who advocates “Free Cigarettes For Every Kid Under 19 But Over 14″ – and we can now see that the “National Cigarettes Council” is funding him/her and possibly understand why that certain politician has such a zeal for Kids to Smoke.
Thulsa Doom
December 20th, 2011
2:01 pm
Midori,
There is a difference between an accident and an intentional slight.
Strawman
December 20th, 2011
2:03 pm
“The law, any law, is a living breathing entity. It does shift and change because values and mores change. The law should never be absolute and set in stone. If it were, then we the people would still be stuck with some laws on the books that are outdated and asinine that which, at the time of their inception, were considered “revolutionary”
We I agree that values and mores change. That is obvious. And I think laws should likewise be changed to accommodate this. But by Congress and NOT the Supreme Court. Laws as written should be absolute UNTIL they are changed legislatively. Otherwise the people interpreting the laws wind up making them. Talk to an NBA referee to see what I mean.
Thulsa Doom
December 20th, 2011
2:03 pm
AmVet,
Your benny hinn comment earlier. Yeah. I’ll admit it. Even a con like me lmfao.
USMC
December 20th, 2011
2:05 pm
“No, Thulsa, what is troubling and very curious is the right wing’s effort to turn exceedingly minor, meaningless acts into major controversies just to feed its followers something else they can obsess about.”–Jay Bookman
LOL! screen cleaner please!
What a hypocrite you are Jay.
David Granger
December 20th, 2011
2:07 pm
@ Keep Up the Good Fight!
re: Your 5:49 of Dec. 19
“…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.”
I’m certainly not a supporter of Newt Gingrich, but one big problem we do have with many judges is that they sometimes just completely IGNORE what the law very clearly states.
The 5th Amendment states quite clearly that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law…yet the Supreme Court has allowed private property to be seized with no due process because there is suspicion that the property might belong to a drug dealer.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states very clearly forbids discrimination based on race or gender, yet the Supreme Court has decided that…well…some get to be a little “more equal” than others.
Regardless of whether one is a conservative or liberal, it is frustrating to see a judge completely ignore a law just to allow whatever he or she personally wants the law to be. Our Constitution was written with the hope that our judges (among others) would be people who are honest and honorable…who will uphold the law whether they agree with it or not. But sadly that is not always the case.
DebbieDoRight
December 20th, 2011
2:08 pm
Now, if only that right extended to adults then Dahmer could get out.
Dahlmer is dead.
Jm
December 20th, 2011
2:11 pm
DDR glad you keep up to date on your mass murderer executions
I don’t. Sick
Granny Godzilla
December 20th, 2011
2:11 pm
The real outrage?
Why doesn’t Lilibet have a bust of Abe?
How could she insult her former colony and greatest ally?
DebbieDoRight
December 20th, 2011
2:11 pm
Strawman: And I think laws should likewise be changed to accommodate this. But by Congress and NOT the Supreme Court. Laws as written should be absolute UNTIL they are changed legislatively.
Like I said, I agree with that. I however, DID NOT AGREE with the Supremes taking up the case. They did not HAVE to, they CHOSE to. Citizens United’s stand had already been denied in lower courts.
getalife
December 20th, 2011
2:12 pm
Our President just destroyed the gop house.
Talk about a bully pulpit.
Tore them a new one before their press conference.
The speaker is crying again.
Granny Godzilla
December 20th, 2011
2:13 pm
Or better yet
Lilibet should have a bust of FDR and one of HST…..
She’d not have a place to sit without them.
AmVet
December 20th, 2011
2:14 pm
Debbie, the nerve of you!
Being informed and able to write intelligently about topics that are brought up here!
Sheesh…
Welcome to the Occupation
December 20th, 2011
2:15 pm
There’s no overestimating the poisonous, noxious nature of the slime flowing through the American body politic that is the Republican party. Like in Alien, if it drips on anything it immediately starts burning through it.
DebbieDoRight
December 20th, 2011
2:17 pm
Doom — GO LSU!!! There wasn’t any intentional slight. Just because you don’t want something that someone has given you and wish to return it, (like say a Christmas present); does not make the return a slight.
Geaux TIGERS!!!! Beat “Bama”. AGAIN……….
Granger: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states very clearly forbids discrimination based on race or gender, yet the Supreme Court has decided that…well…some get to be a little “more equal” than others.
Which case did this happen in where the Supremes decided this? Plese cite.
Jm — And?
Talking Head
December 20th, 2011
2:18 pm
“Our President just destroyed the gop house.
Talk about a bully pulpit.
Tore them a new one before their press conference.
The speaker is crying again.”
Yes, We have to pass this bill so we can do this all over again in 2 months..oh yeah, which will be an election year. Plus, where is the payment mechanism for the SS cut?
DebbieDoRight
December 20th, 2011
2:20 pm
Hi AmVet!!! Happy Tuesday!!
getalife
December 20th, 2011
2:22 pm
LSU 2.
Bama 0.
LSU National Champions.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 20th, 2011
2:23 pm
“During this time of divided government, both parties need to be reasonable and come to the negotiating table in good faith,” said Brown, who is facing a stiff re-election challenge in heavily Democratic Massachusetts next year. “We cannot allow rigid partisan ideology and unwillingness to compromise stand in the way of working together for the good of the American people.”
—————————————————–
Even some republicans can tell when their leadership is being obtuse.
AmVet
December 20th, 2011
2:25 pm
Back at ya, sweetie.
Sweet Tuesday morning came and you smiled
All of my fears, they have left me
Sweet Tuesday morning came and you smiled
Love is the answer you gave me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXE-u8ILjOU
Strawman
December 20th, 2011
2:25 pm
“That’s why they included the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The right to privacy is among those “retained by the people” and always should be. Again, it is fundamental to any concept of liberty.”
If the founding fathers were so concerned about a right which is, as you say, “fundamental to any concept of liberty” (your words, not theirs), they would surely have included it in the Bill of Rights. And the Ninth Amendment says nothing of affirming rights but only not denying or disparaging them. It further does not stipulate how these rights would be identified. The question is: what is the source of rights retained by the people? Since the Constitution codifies rights, it stands to reason that the proper way to add to the list of protected rights is to expand the Bill of Rights. No where does the Ninth Amendment imply that the courts have the role of defining rights. If I ask you to publish an article for me in the AJC, you would have to refer that decision to the editor. The Supreme Court arrogates to itself powers it simple doesn’t have.
stands for decibels
December 20th, 2011
2:28 pm
But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: “Thanks, but no thanks.”
Some of that great TelegraphUK reporting, with quotes you can take to the bank!
getalife
December 20th, 2011
2:28 pm
Time to disband the whig party again.
Our founding fathers would call the gop red coats .
Jm
December 20th, 2011
2:29 pm
Getalife
Senate has quit trying to keep taxes low for working Americans
Blame democrats for the tax increase
Senate has left and Reid says he won’t call it to do the people’s business
They BOTh suck
December 20th, 2011
2:29 pm
Strawman
“No where does the Ninth Amendment imply that the courts have the role of defining rights.”
The courts affirmed that you as a citizen can own a gun even though the Constitution speaks of a armed militia….
Was that interpretation ok with you?
Thought it was
Granny Godzilla
December 20th, 2011
2:30 pm
Is Jackie Mason, like Herman Cain vying for a cabinet level job in a future GOP administration?
Imagine Cain as SECDEF and Mason as SECSTATE…..
That should keep you awake nights….
Talking Head
December 20th, 2011
2:33 pm
“Imagine Cain as SECDEF and Mason as SECSTATE…..
That should keep you awake nights….”
Imagine Obama claiming he was the 4th best President in history…
That should keep you awake at night…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70684.html
AmVet
December 20th, 2011
2:34 pm
Doh!
By a 50% to 31% margin, people questioned say they have more confidence in the president than in congressional Republicans to handle the major issues facing the country.
“The Democrats do particularly well among middle income Americans, while the Republicans win support only from the top end of the income scale,” adds Holland.
Excluding the self-abusive, flat broke neo-cons here…
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/20/cnn-poll-presidents-approval-nearing-50/?hpt=hp_bn3
A little jangly, power pop for a Tuesday…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPPscelHVhA
Granny Godzilla
December 20th, 2011
2:38 pm
Talking Head
and of course that’s not at all what he said.
Folks like you deserve insomnia.
getalife
December 20th, 2011
2:41 pm
Looks like the President will get a dem majority for his second term.
Doggone/GA
December 20th, 2011
2:42 pm
“Looks like the President will get a dem majority for his second term”
Better start praying for Super Majority + in the Senate, otherwise they might as well be the minority
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 20th, 2011
2:43 pm
Seemed like the Repub. congress critters weren’t at all sure that some of the other repubs. wouldn’t defect from the party of NO and vote for American workers.
They wouldn’t allow for yes or no votes on the bill. Great job BONER
Talking Head
December 20th, 2011
2:45 pm
Amvet,
The resluts from that survey were from 1,015 American adults of which 928 were from registered voters. However it does not say if the phone calls were random nor does it give the party affilitation of those interviewed. So, I will take into account this survey is as relevant as asking everyone at my office if they prefer McDonalds burgers or Burger King burgers.
Granny Godzilla
December 20th, 2011
2:45 pm
is this were we all demand an up or down vote?
AmVet
December 20th, 2011
2:51 pm
Your choice, Head. Shoot the messenger…
Even though it will drive them even more apoplectic, there is ZERO chance that the Georgia candidate that crawled out from under the bridge can beat Mitt for the nomination.
At least the sight of Romney doesn’t leave most people nauseous.
Now if only Willard would stop trying to pretend being what he isn’t, and never was, he could actually win the White House…
Strawman
December 20th, 2011
2:52 pm
“The courts affirmed that you as a citizen can own a gun even though the Constitution speaks of a armed militia. Was that interpretation ok with you?”
The right to bear arms IS stipulated, to whomever it applies. Since a few states tried to get the amendment to read as a collective right to bear arms (in the form of state militias) but that was not the language used, one is very hard pressed to tie this right to a subsequent clause concerning militias. Is that analysis okay with you? The Supreme Court got that right.
TaxPayer
December 20th, 2011
2:53 pm
Did someone say “Up or Down Vote”?
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
December 20th, 2011
2:54 pm
I asked for a Tax Cut, you morans, not a Tax Increase. Is everybody up there hard of hearing? All I got to say is my first pay check next month better be as much as my last pay check this year. I ain’t getting a raise and I can’t spend a oil pipeline. Don’t make me drive up there with my two machine guns and the anti-tank weapon. That I use for hunting and self-defense, but I can always use them for 2nd Amenment purposes.
AmVet
December 20th, 2011
2:54 pm
I-85/nb blocked north of I-285 in DeKalb
Just another day in that hellhole called Gwinnett…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3nVqLfPBtw
Matti's Observant Eye
December 20th, 2011
2:54 pm
Granny,
I just called my Congressman again and demanded an up or down vote on the single issue of extending my payroll tax cut, without bundling it with favors to corporate donors. I reminded the nice fellow on the phone of the GOP’s Pledge to America (barely a year old) and that if they don’t honor their pledges, people will start to think we can’t trust them.
Every darn one of you who relies on a paycheck to get through the months should do the same.
(Except for jm, who blames the democrats for taxes because that’s what the voices in his head keep telling him. Bless his deluded little heart!)
They BOTh suck
December 20th, 2011
2:57 pm
Strawman
I was ok with their INTERPRETATION on the right to bear arms…
Just letting YOU know that the court does make interpretations of the Constitution…… Just because an interpretation doesn’t meet your or my ideology doesn’t in itself make the ruling incorrect………
Granny Godzilla
December 20th, 2011
2:58 pm
Mattie you darling girl!
Jm
December 20th, 2011
3:00 pm
Democrats undermining social security
TaxPayer
December 20th, 2011
3:03 pm
Will Boehner’s Boys sit quietly in their House seats as they wait for the Senate Republicans to return from their Christmas vacations with family.
Butch Cassidy
December 20th, 2011
3:05 pm
Jm likes the “toe tapping” in the mens room
Jm
December 20th, 2011
3:06 pm
Taxpayer
The democrats run the senate silly
And they’ve gone home
Republicans work. Democrats quit
Jm
December 20th, 2011
3:08 pm
Butch has three boyfriends from the Bronx
Butch Cassidy
December 20th, 2011
3:08 pm
Four
Jm
December 20th, 2011
3:09 pm
Butch
Seriously. Your lame attacks get worse by the day. You liberals should give up because you have nothing of substance to say
DebbieDoRight
December 20th, 2011
3:10 pm
Strawman: If the founding fathers were so concerned about a right which is, as you say, “fundamental to any concept of liberty” (your words, not theirs), they would surely have included it in the Bill of Rights. And the Ninth Amendment says nothing of affirming rights but only not denying or disparaging them. It further does not stipulate how these rights would be identified. The question is: what is the source of rights retained by the people?
Remember the times of which you speak. The Founding Fathers were basically developing a new system of government which they didn’t know if it would fail or succeede. But they did know that in order to succeede and in order for them to be different from the system of government that they just rebelled against, they knew that they couldn’t regulate or “govern” everything. Some things had to be fluid and not absolute. Some things, or “rights” had to grow and prosper on their own. Slavery for one, is an example of this.
Our system of government, so unlike any system of government that has ever been in existence before, was / is a semi-Utopian experiment that the Founding Fathers could not have forseen, though they probably hoped, would last. In that regard, as I said before, there was no way they could have regulated or stipulated every foreseeable event in the Bill Of Rights.
TaxPayer
December 20th, 2011
3:10 pm
Jm,
I don’t see Mitch standing with Boehner and calling for conferees. The Republican Party is cracking up. They no longer stand together in unison. The polls tell them that their United Party of No strategy is a losing proposition.