Newt: Arrest judges; force them to explain themselves

[jcp]

As a matter of basic principle, why shouldn't Congress have the option of requesting testimony from judges, if only to ask them, from time to time, "what exactly were you thinking when you interpreted the law we wrote in the way that you did?"

Because they already have access to this testimony?

 

[Cleon]

As a matter of basic principle, why shouldn't Congress have the option of requesting testimony from judges, if only to ask them, from time to time, "what exactly were you thinking when you interpreted the law we wrote in the way that you did?"

Because I think it's best to shield the judiciary as much as humanly possible from the political posturing of Congress. I don't think we want them thinking, even in the far reaches of their subconscious, "Christ, what if Congress rakes me over the coals on national TV for this?" Judges should be making their decisions purely based on their interpretations of the law, and nothing else.

If you don't like the way a judge ruled, that's what the appeals process is for. If the law, as interpreted, isn't working, then pass a new law or start the amendment process. The only people who will benefit from dragging them in front of Congressional theatrics are spin doctors and campaign managers.

 

[Freddy]

Great, another lawyer, now I have someone new to tell me to stop playing atty and that I don't know what I'm talking about. As thick as thieves I tell ya. I really should stick to just playing Dctr.

Hey just a few comments ago you were doing a fine job playing psychologist, so at least you have that to fall back on.

 

[theprestige]

Because they already have access to this testimony?

You're referring to the judge's written opinion in the ruling itself? Not necessarily. Just because the judge writes something down, that doesn't mean it's a satisfactory explanation.

Because I think it's best to shield the judiciary as much as humanly possible from the political posturing of Congress. I don't think we want them thinking, even in the far reaches of their subconscious, "Christ, what if Congress rakes me over the coals on national TV for this?" Judges should be making their decisions purely based on their interpretations of the law, and nothing else.

This sounds like a good idea. However, everybody else must operate with this Congressional Sword of Damocles hanging over their head. The Joint Chiefs of Staff should be making their decisions purely based on their understanding of the art of warfare and the policy objectives they are tasked with accomplishing through military means. And yet every one of them is compelled to consider, not in the far reaches of their subconscious, but at the very forefront of their thoughts, "Christ, what if Congress rakes me over the coals on national TV for this?"

If the law, as interpreted, isn't working, then pass a new law...

Why didn't the old law work? It seemed cromulent enough when it was passed. The current interpretation doesn't seem to make sense. Shouldn't we get to the bottom of this before we pass a new law?

 

[Nova Land]

... As for arresting judges, that's the same authority Congress has over anybody else it summons to testify.

Why should judges be exempt from Congressional authority to require testimony, if Congress believes their legal theories are of interest to the legislature?

For the same reason congress is unable to subpoena the president, vice president, or high executive officials to compel them to testify and is unable to arrest them if they decline to testify before congress.

We have three branches of government: executive, judicial, and legislative. The theory underlying the US is that the three branches share power, with none of them being supreme over the other two.

Do you believe that congress should have the power to compel the president to testify in front of it?

Should a Democratic congress, for instance, have had the power to compel Ronald Reagan and George Bush to testify in person regarding the Iran-Contra affair -- and to have them jailed for contempt of congress if they refused?

Should congress have the power to haul the presidents in to explain their budget plans? Their nominations? Their planned vacations and dinner expenses?

Why should presidents be exempt from congressional authority to require testimony, if Congress believes their theories are of interest to the legislature? Because the president is part of the Executive branch, a co-equal branch of government. The president doesn't get to boss congress around and congress doesn't get to boss the president around.

The same applies to federal judges. The judiciary is supposed to be independent of the executive and legislative branches; giving the legislative branch authority over the judiciary the way Newt proposes would be a major threat to the balance of power.

 

[leftysergeant]

Newt wants an American Stattsgericht.

(Godwin be damned. It's appropriate.)

 

[Freddy]

Because I think it's best to shield the judiciary as much as humanly possible from the political posturing of Congress. I don't think we want them thinking, even in the far reaches of their subconscious, "Christ, what if Congress rakes me over the coals on national TV for this?" Judges should be making their decisions purely based on their interpretations of the law, and nothing else.

If you don't like the way a judge ruled, that's what the appeals process is for. If the law, as interpreted, isn't working, then pass a new law or start the amendment process. The only people who will benefit from dragging them in front of Congressional theatrics are spin doctors and campaign managers.

Exactly. Chilling effect. That would be the entire point, I suspect.

 

[Ray Brady]

If a congressman can be in in contempt of court, why can't a judge be in contempt of Congress?

If a judge was in contempt of Congress, wouldn't that put him squarely in touch with American culture?

 

[Tricky]

The more I think about this, I wonder if this isn't a deliberate attempt to sabotage his own campaign.

Seriously, he's not in this to be president, it's a self promotion thing for him, just like it was for Herman Cain.

That is a legitimate consideration. Newt probably never figured on all the other candidates falling on their faces. He wants attention and to sell books, but it is quite possible that, like Sarah Palin, he really has no desire to be President. Too much work. He could be doing this intentionally.

 

[citizenzen]

As a matter of basic principle, why shouldn't Congress have the option of requesting testimony from judges, if only to ask them, from time to time, "what exactly were you thinking when you interpreted the law we wrote in the way that you did?"

Because there's a certain chilling effect knowing that your judgements could be called into question by a political body for political reasons.

I could agree with this however, if judges were able to subpoena congressmen at will to question them as to what they were thinking when they drafted a law.

[winkie implied, but not included]

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Exactly. Chilling effect. That would be the entire point, I suspect.

how many judges would be "chilled?"

most would be PO's

They are a touchy bunch.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The more I think about this, I wonder if this isn't a deliberate attempt to sabotage his own campaign.

Seriously, he's not in this to be president, it's a self promotion thing for him, just like it was for Herman Cain.

I'm starting to think you are on to something. I wonder if Newter has a book in the works?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Concerning the OP, I think the first comment on the article is the most appropriate:

Somewhere a cave is missing ALL of its bat ****.

Edited, breach of rule 10; please do not curse in your posts or mask such words as to avoid the auto-censor.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Nova Land]

If a congressman can be in in contempt of court, why can't a judge be in contempt of Congress?

The key word, which I see no one else has addressed yet, is if.

A member of congress may be found in contempt of court if they wind up in court for something unrelated to their congressional job. But a member of congress may not be arrested or interrogated for what they say or do in performance of their duties.

It's commonly known as Congressional Immunity, and it was included in the US constitution to prevent the Executive Branch from having the kind of power over the Legislative Branch which Gingrich is advocating the Legislative Branch assert over the Judicial Branch.

So no, members of congress cannot in general be found in contempt of court for things they did in the course of their jobs; and judges, likewise, cannot be hauled before congress (or held in contempt for not coming before congress) over things they did in the course of their jobs.

Just in case it's not clear: rulings judges make are part of their job. A judge can no more be hauled before congress and made to explain a ruling that members of congress think is incorrect than a legislator can be hauled off by the FBI and interrogated for voting for a law the president thinks is unconstitutional.

 

[RandFan]

Hey just a few comments ago you were doing a fine job playing psychologist, so at least you have that to fall back on.

I'll be found out sooner or latter. That's at least something I know something about.

 

[RandFan]

Because there's a certain chilling effect knowing that your judgements could be called into question by a political body for political reasons.

I could agree with this however, if judges were able to subpoena congressmen at will to question them as to what they were thinking when they drafted a law.

[winkie implied, but not included]

LOVE IT! Get them on record as to who they discussed the legislation with.

 

[RandFan]

On the other hand...

... we ought to require congressmen to take a course and pass a test on the separation of powers. If you can't pass it you can't hold public office.

 

[Quinn]

Amended for accuracy (additions in red):

Newt's new oath ...

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States stay in touch with my own perception of the specific portion of American culture that I personally support against all enemies, foreign and domestic”​

... Etc...

 

[Robrob]

Newt does know we have three separate but equal branches of government, right? Judicial,legislative and executive. Why do wingnuts always seem to want to change that?

 

[Babbylonian]

Newt does know we have three separate but equal branches of government, right? Judicial,legislative and executive. Why do wingnuts always seem to want to change that?

Wingnuts looking to be elected to office do it because they know that their constituencies are probably dissatisfied with every branch of government to one degree or another: Activist/regressive judges, liberal/conservative congresscritters, dove/hawk executives. Gingrich is just trying to play to his Republican primary audience and his audience knows that he isn't talking about good, God-fearin' judges; he's talking about evil, Roe'v'Wade-supportin' judges, and they deserve whatever they get!