Re: The Nut...err I mean Newt is at it again. Former Bush Attorneys General Call Gingrich Position on Courts 'Dangerous'
posted at 12/19/2011 10:43 AM EST
In Response to Re: The Nut...err I mean Newt is at it again. Former Bush Attorneys General Call Gingrich Position on Courts 'Dangerous'
[QUOTE]Newt Gingrich says as President he would abide by "small government" values. Just kidding, he says he would send US Marshals to arrest any judge whose decision he disagrees with under charges of treason against America. This guy just gets crazier by the day. The sad thing is that he appealing to his base, and they're howling in agreement. Just shows how out of touch with actual Constitutional values the wingnuts are. The wingnuts have this idea that they can trample the Constitution when it fits their ignorant ideology. They want to be able to cherry pick what parts of the Constitution thay uphold and which ones they can just ignore. Gingrich and the wingnuts are just plain fascist, willing to ignore the Constitution in order to persue their ideology. Gingrich: Capitol Police Could Arrest ‘Radical’ Judges Newt Gingrich on Sunday hammered at the nation’s judiciary system, saying that if a court’s decision was out of step with American popular opinion, it should be ignored. Host Bob Schieffer asked Gingrich how he planned to enforce that. Would you call in the Capitol Police to apprehend a federal judge, he asked. “If you had to,” Gingrich said. “Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshall in.” http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/gingrich-capitol-police-could-arrest-radical-judges.php?ref=fpa
Hmmm, I wonder if we the people could arrest Congress if they pass legislation that one party doesn't agree with? I thought Gingrich was a history scholar? Either he's being willfully ignorant of such 'unpopular' legislation as civil rights or he believes that those laws are wrong and should be repealed.
Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]
Newt's out there, but want to include the items form that Q&A exchange that talking points dropped to make a more damning sound bite to better serve their purpose - ie. arrest a judge for ignoring a congressional subpoena to appear before a congressional committee to address the rationale behind their decisions.
Not sure I'm crazy about the idea, but I do think that there is some merit in having a judge further explain their decisions, since some of these decisions are the basis for further laws and subsequent rulings. It seems the judicary is the one leg of gov't that is never checked and judges from either end of the spectrum have found ways to creatively legislate with their rulings. I see nothing wrong is them being qasked to explain questionable rulings, especially since federal judges have lifetime appointments. Chief executives and legislators can be voted out and/or face term limits, yet a judgeship is for life.
Knowing human nature, I can see how some can get a god complex and decide how they see fit and not necessarily within the scope of the law. Being quesitoned and perhaps facing impeachment if improprieties are found is heathly we truly want to keep a system of checks and balances in place