Gingrich Is Right #EERS

dpmapper

I’m agnostic on Gingrich’s proposal, but I think RedState would do better if we all tried to give more respect to people who disagree with us. Particularly when they’re good conservatives like Mukasey, who has presented a fairly strong case why one should oppose Gingrich on this.

Also, we should be fair in our characterization of their arguments. They are not trying to “defend an imperial judiciary”, just explaining why one method proposed to combat it would be counter-productive. Saying that they are for an imperial judiciary is akin to saying that because conservatives oppose many EPA regulations, they must be for pollution.

Paul_Zummo

We all agree that the judiciary has been a problem (to put it mildly) since the FDR administration, but this populist appeal does nothing to address the fundamental problems of constitutional abuse. It’s also politically short-sighted. I mean, what would happen if an “imperial” Supreme Court struck down the individual mandate? Are we going to be cheering Congress when/if they haul members of the Supreme Court for over-turning legislation passed by the democratically elected branches?

The Courts are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

In The Hook

If Gingrich wants to argue that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided, I guess he has the right to do so. And while there is very limited precedent for the executive and judiciary going at it in public (see Jackson, Andrew), Gingrich spouting lines like he’d get the US Marshals to compel judges to testify at hearings is just ridiculous. That’s a clear violation of the independent judiciary.

No doubt that there’s a huge problem with activist judges in this country, but that issue is solved by installing better people.

Marcus_Traianus

The courts have usurped power well beyond their constitutional mandate. They have largely become a shadow government and unconstitutionally change our society through judicial fiats which steal power from other branches and the people.

It is about time we restored some semblance of balance and retained the ability to call to account those who have indeed become part of an unaccountable imperial judiciary.

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

His campaign is collapsing so now he’s making these ridiculous statements to try and create hysteria in his direction. Ha Newt ever done anything this radical? Is he willing to change the structure of government? The problem is that people are desperate for a candidate and candidates are desperate for votes. But this is the problem with the “Anybody but Romney” hysteria. It could drive voters so crazy it pushes them right into the arms of Crazy Uncle Ron. This would be a disaster on so many levels.

Paul_Zummo

These guys didn’t appear on the bench magically. They were installed there by democratically elected politicians who share their view. The problem isn’t the Court as much as it is an entire political party guided by a belief that the Constitution is a permeable plaything. I think Newt is getting at the symptom and not the disease itself.

clowngirl

Frank Bruni of the New York Times argues that Newt is dangerously arrogant for saying that “just like Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and F.D.R. I would be prepared to take on the judiciary” Calling him “grandiloquent” and exclaiming “The company he keeps!”

What should be obvious – is that he is citing these other Presidents as precedents, demonstrating that this is not a new concept — Presidents have been reining in the Judicial Branch practically since the start.

Not only was Jefferson one of our Founding Fathers and one of the authors of the Constitution, he served as President while most of the rest of them were still around — if removing misbehaving judges was absolutely contrary to the intent of our founders he wouldn’t have gotten away with it.

Found another couple articles that say things like Gingrich is unhinged, nuts, desperate, pandering, etc. etc. without ever really dealing with the topic.

To me, it seems implicit that if you have 3 co-equal branches of Government, then it follows that each branch can check the power of the others. Various people are shocked that Newt said Judges should be arrested and brought to testify before Congress if they won’t go willingly.

Well, this isn’t really without precedent. If you are due in court to defend a traffic ticket and you don’t show up — don’t they issue a warrant for your arrest?

Are these writers suggesting that Congress and the President don’t have- or shouldn’t have the power to summon judges to explain their decisions? that there should be no accountability? That judges should be able to blow off and ignore the Legislative and Executive branches?

I don’t know, no article I saw actually addressed any of that.

Whether or not he’s right (and I agree with Erick that he is) what the Speaker is proposing is not absurd and deserves serious discussion — not the insult to everyone’s intelligence that characterizes most of what I’ve read so far.

If anyone has found a substantive article that makes good arguments opposed to Gingrich’s position, I’d be happy to see a link to it.

clowngirl

realized that was badly phrased.

Paul_Zummo

Moreover this:

Not only was Jefferson one of our Founding Fathers and one of the authors of the Constitution,

is completely inaccurate. Jefferson was not even in the country when the Constitution was written.

When you look at Jefferson, it’s his philosophy that actually permeates the judiciary today. He wanted the Constitution completely revamped every 20 years, and his writing is chock full of explanations why we should not be guided by the dead hand of tradition. Oddly, even though he was one of the loudest advocates against judicial review, it’s his (very Rousseau-like) attitude that we see reflected in the modern judiciary.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

I’m not a fan.

johnt

We actually depend on their good will to Not rule us, rather than the restraints of law, and forgive the word, Tradition. Gingrich is absolutely right, is a judge beyond answering to the other body of government in what used to be a free society? Some manner of recourse is necessary, otherwise we depend on judicial will and of course those occasional normal people, judges, who do not regard themselves as the architects of life and law. Who are in a word, not power grubbers.
The Lincoln/Taney/Merryman case is instructive. But still, no hope here on this sad thread.

NeoKong

The Judiciary is out of control.
In Massachusetts we have gay marriage because of judicial edict and not because the taxpayers ever wanted it.
I get so sick of these federal judges who simply negate lawfully enacted laws of some states as if all laws have to be approved by federal judges first.
What is even more outrageous is how some of them have more regulatory power than the federal govt.

Elected legislators make law and not unelected and unaccountable judges.
At least with out of control politicians we have have an avenue of remedy every election cycle but it is almost impossible to dislodge some activist judges who grants themselves powers they do not have.

Whether or not Obamacare is Constitutional does anyone have any doubt on how Obama’s newest appointees will vote on it….?
They couldn’t care less if it is Constitutional as they will simply disregard any opinion or facts they disagree with.
If there was ever any one purpose to Obama nominating Kagan and Sotomayor it was to rubber stamp Obamacare and they are more than happy to do it.
They cast their vote before they were even nominated.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

Right, “Balance” includes empowering the POTUS to ignore the rulings of the SCOTUS.

colonelflagg

… precedent.

On the proviso that the mildly conservative Noot Gingrich would use such a nullification procedure for the right reasons (though given his support for individual mandates even this is doubtful) I shudder to think what a Marxist like 0bama would do with such an arrow in his quiver.

The key is appointing better candidates to the judiciary in the first place, and also for the President to perform his constitutional responsibility and veto legislation he feels is unconstitutional — as George Bush should have done with campaign finance reform, to cite just one example.

znjs

Whether or not taxpayers want something isn’t what should determine how a judge rules. That was a feature, not a bug, of how the founders set it up. Remember how much the Dems complained about all the filibusters back when they controlled both houses of congress? What did everyone here say then? It was purposely set up that way to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

clowngirl

“Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first Secretary of State, Vice President, leader of the first political opposition party, and third President of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation’s capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging Republic”

(from a website on Thomas Jefferson under the heading “Establishing a Federal Republic”)

Thank you for calling me out on my sloppy phrasing. But I still stand by my overall point.

Thomas Jefferson — though he didn’t physically write the Constitution was involved with developing it and had long worked alongside the many of the other “founding fathers” and thus — had every reason to know first hand the intent behind the various provisions,OR

since he was elected President less than a dozen years after the Constitution was ratified — and most of those involved creating it were still alive –they could personally correct him if he misunderstood.

Congress, under Jefferson, “repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 abolishing the numerous district courts created at the end of the Adams Presidency.”

If that was an action that was unquestionably Constitutional, I don’t think ti would’ve taken place.

I’m not arguing that Thomas Jefferson was a conservative or a President who should be emulated in every respect— only that him carrying out something very similar to what Newt suggested at the time when he did strongly argues that Newt’s position cannot be automatically dismissed as Unconstitutional.

Paul_Zummo

Of course a Thomas Jefferson website is going to say something like that, but really he had next to no influence on the writing of the Constitution. He corresponded with Madison, but there’s no evidence to suggest that Madison’s opinion was much swayed by Jefferson – in fact, the opposite is closer to the truth.

I’ve written plenty elsewhere about TJ – in fact I’m in the process of converting my dissertation into a book warning conservatives away from Jefferson – so hopefully I can pimp that shamelessly when/if that gets published.

blackmarketops

so Obama could ignore the SC when they declare Obamacare unconstitutional? Yikes.

I think the problem is, we like it when courts rule in ways we favor, and we don’t like it when they don’t.

i hear all this noise attempting to disguise itself as “reforming the judiciary,” but lettuce be cereal – it’s really “let’s stack the deck in our favor.”

the problem with deck-stacking is he-who-holds-the-cards stacks the deck.
unless you think one party will always be in control (hint: if this happens, America will have ended), it’s best not to give this bloody shirt any more attention.

mkozikowski

never intended that the Judicial branch would have unchecked supreme power. They are supposed to be an equal with the other two.

Today, for some reason, Americans believe that if the Courts declare a case outcome, that is final. That activity makes them tyrannical. They state and it shall be.

THAT is NOT what is intended in our Constitution. In fact, Congress creates or allows to be created All Courts other than the Supreme Court. If the power is given to Congress to create such entities, then it MUST be within their role to regulate the same.

To a degree, Mr. Gingrich is correct in suggesting that The People, through their representatives have the critical right to question a courts outcome. This includes the Supreme Court.

origami

…

clowngirl

I am inclined to disbelieve the notion that Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and was pretty much immediately appointed to high office by his peers and would soon become Vice President and then President would lack influence with those peers when it came to developing the Constitution.

You say he corresponded with Madison who pretty much ignored his viewpoint. Was Madison really his only correspondent? Wasn’t Jefferson, among other things, rather social? Didn’t he and Madison not particularly like each other at this point in history and only later become close friends?

I find the idea that Thomas Jefferson- a man who clearly wrote eloquently, sought to lead and to influence American life in many ways would have limited himself to corresponding exclusively with a man who didn’t much like him and was generally not open to his ideas.

I think it was much more likely that Jefferson widely corresponded with many of those directly involved.

texashistorian

Is your dissertation on UMI? I’d be interested in reading it . . .

Paul_Zummo

If you google my name plus dissertation it’s there.

Paul_Zummo

At least among those who were at actually at the constitutional convention. I’d have to sift through his letters more closely, but I can’t recall much correspondence with any of the other delegates save perhaps Randolph. I think he may have written Washington, but only after the convention had come to a close.

Jefferson’s name comes up from time to time in the debates, and he’s specifically mentioned a couple of times by Madison in the Federalist Papers (although mainly to refute Jefferson’s suggestions), but he really did not have much influence over the proceedings. The same goes for John Adams, another important Founder who unfortunately was out of the country at the time.

As for this:
Didn?t he and Madison not particularly like each other at this point in history and only later become close friends?

Certainly not. They were good friends by this point, though they would become closer political allies over the course of the next decade.

quad4x4

If we every let a “just try it logic” to prevail in many things, the one’s giving us their blessing may be judges willing to use that as a precedent in later rulings and support of stupid laws, yet to be written.

Of course Newt is just saying what we all have been saying for years, and that is why so few have messed up so many. Using the courts when they could not win in the congress or ballot box. It is time to as they say to “judiciously” challenge the courts and the people who have been GAMING THE SYSTEM.

theone3434

and look at it from the other side. If the president has the power to subpoena an “activist” judge and ultimately dismiss them, then whomever the president is, has a TON of power. To Newt, this would be a great thing while the GOP was in power. However, imagine when (not if) a democrat is elected to the presidency. He then could do the same and kick out all conservative “activist” judges. There is a reason for the checks and balances system and separation of powers. It’s absolutely appalling that he would even entertain this idea let alone double down and campaign on it.

This issue will be played long and hard by the DNC if Gingrich gets the nomination…and it won’t play out well for Gingrich or the GOP.

Remember when everyone said that Gingrich’s mouth would get him into trouble and ultimately implode his candidacy. Well, that day/issue/idea has come.

clowngirl

Was literally ALL of his correspondence saved?

Was Jefferson way out of sync with the bulk of what was decided? Or were many of the delegates of a similar mind to him on most Constitutional matters?

Whether or not he was physically present, I’m still inclined to doubt that Thomas Jefferson ( or, for that matter, John Adams) would’ve been out of the loop on such an important matter. Madison was something of a chief architect wasn’t he? So it would seem natural that Jefferson would spend a lot of energy on him and that he would focus largely on areas where they disagree.

However, it would seem likely that they had previous discussions on larger areas of agreements – that both of their views on many subjects were probably well known and that they had influenced thought and opinion with regard to governing philosophy for years/decades before such ideas were put into writing at the Constitutional Convention.

Interesting about Madison and Jefferson. Were good friends from the start but political rivals?

theone3434

…judges don’t and SHOULDN’T rule on the popularity of a particular subject. I’d say more but znjs pretty much nailed it.

theone3434

meant “rule BASED on the popularity”

clowngirl

Which is that Thomas Jefferson and other founders still alive during his Presidency were in a position to know first hand what was intended with regard to the Separation of the Powers and the Judiciary Branch – and that him implementing – with Congressional approval – some of the more “extreme” elements of Newt’s position – should make it obvious that such a position cannot be dismissed as indisputably Unconstitutional.

theone3434

Congress and the President have the power to CHANGE a verdict based on litigation. You want to make sure gay marriage never comes to pass. Then Congress needs to vote to add an amendment to the constitution stating as such. The SC would then be compelled to rule against gay marriage. In addition, each appointed judge must be confirmed by both parties. Which is why a president can only nominate a judge…not appoint. This is the checks and balances of the system (ultimately, any case can be appealed and brought before the SC if they decide it warrants it).

barron44

Why is Newt Gingrinch un-electable? Why is Ron Paul, or Michelle Bachmann, or Rick Perry un-electable? Why are conservative ideas on governance considered zany or extreme, far from the mainstream?
Why are extreme liberal, left-wing ideas of governance not considered extreme liberal and left-wing, or even liberal, at all?
Is universal health care considered extreme left-wing, or even a liberal idea? Is ObamaCare not considered extreme left-wing? Is a single-payer mandate in health care not considered far-left, or zany? What about taxing our economy into prosperity? Is that an extreme, left-wing idea? Why is re-distribution of wealth not considered a socialist or even a zany, liberal idea?
What if there was a candidate who proposed or articulated the ideas in the above paragraph? Would that candidate be electable? Would not the media condemn his ideas as zany, extremely left-wing, in fact, dangerous for our country? Oh, but in 2008, we elected such a candidate to the Office of President in this country.
I was just wondering why.

Paul_Zummo

Yes.

Was Jefferson way out of sync with the bulk of what was decided?

He was sympathetic to most of the Constitution in the end, but had many problems. He called the presidency “a bad edition of a Polish king.”

I?m still inclined to doubt that Thomas Jefferson ( or, for that matter, John Adams) would?ve been out of the loop on such an important matter.

Incline all you want, but I’ve read quite a bit written by and about Jefferson. He may have been keyed into what was going on, but he had little sway over the delegates.

r. Madison was something of a chief architect wasn?t he? So it would seem natural that Jefferson would spend a lot of energy on him and that he would focus largely on areas where they disagree.

Well, that’s not the only reason they corresponded with one another. In the end, it was Madison who got the better of these exchanges. Where the two had differing opinions it was Madison’s vision of the Constitution that won out.

Interesting about Madison and Jefferson. Were good friends from the start but political rivals?

They weren’t political rivals at all. The two of them were basically the founders of the Republican party (which would later in history become the Democratic party). They had very different philosophies, ultimately, but at no point were they rivals or enemies.

clowngirl

I’m still not really persuaded of your interpretation, but haven’t really done the research to intelligently defend my view or even really to form an informed impression of my own.

But thank you for the informative responses — and for correcting me on my sloppy assumption.

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Gingrich Is Right #EERS

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL