Newt: Arrest judges; force them to explain themselves

[Harte]

Mr Gingrich practicing his orally flatulent pandering to the lowest common denominator of the right wing conservatives.

That's right - the Republican voters of Iowa.

Harte

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

You are correct!

At least the Supreme Court enjoys much better public approval ratings than does Congress:

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
http://www.pollingreport.com/court.htm

 

[Crossbow]

I have to wonder if Newt would waterboard judges until they issue rulings that he approves of.

After all, doing something like that would clearly show the third branch of the government which branch of the government is actually in control of things.

 

[Travis]

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.

What if the Judge shows up and simply says that everything he/she needed to say on the issue was in the ruling and refuses to say anything more?

What if the judiciary retaliates by issuing blanket subpenas for anyone that votes in favor of a law that they view as unconstitutional?

 

[brodski]

if congress passes laws which result in rulings with which they disagree, then they should amend those laws to the best of their ability, if those rulings are as a result of the constitution, they should amend the constitution to the best of their ability (if they can get the states on board). Anything else is a massive power grab by congress.

To paraphrase Orwell, if an independent judiciary is to mean anything it must mean independence to come to decisions with which you disagree.

 

[cwalner]

if congress passes laws which result in rulings with which they disagree, then they should amend those laws to the best of their ability, if those rulings are as a result of the constitution, they should amend the constitution to the best of their ability (if they can get the states on board). Anything else is a massive power grab by congress.

To paraphrase Orwell, if an independent judiciary is to mean anything it must mean independence to come to decisions with which you disagree.

Exactly, and I hate to be so blatantly partisan here, but I don't recall anybody on the left expressing this level of extreme measures after the Citizen's United ruling. Sure they eagerly and vociferously expressed their outrage and disapproval of the ruling, but I don't recall any notable Democrat suggesting that the SCOTUS overstepped its authority, or that we should bring them before congress to explain themselves.

 

[Kestrel]

Don't judges usually explain their reasoning when they make their rulings?

Yes they do.

Newt is pandering to an audience that doesn't read judges rulings, or even newspaper articles explaining the rulings. They base their opinions on what Fox News or right wing talk radio says about the rulings.

 

[Crossbow]

There are two good articles in Slate Magazine which discuss how Newt wants to make the courts subservient to the politicians.

The first article is called Newt and His Surprising Liberal Allies at:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...port_his_critique_on_judicial_supremacy_.html

...

The brouhaha began at the last Republican presidential debate when Gingrich declared that “the courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful, and I think, frankly, arrogant in their misreading of the American people.” In a subsequent TV interview, as well as in the position paper, Gingrich argued that when the president and Congress believe that the judiciary has rendered decisions that violate the Constitution, they should be willing to impeach judges, strip them of jurisdiction, haul them before congressional committees, and abolish courts.

...

And the second is called Courting Disaster at:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...h_s_crazy_attacks_on_the_federal_courts_.html

For a self-confessed epic character, Newt Gingrich has stage-managed himself into an epic piece of political stupidity. With his escalating attacks on the federal judiciary, he has confirmed that, if elected, he would place himself atop a government that simultaneously manages to be both a dictatorship and a theocracy. In recent weeks—and just as his presidential star was improbably rising—he doubled down on his initial claims that the federal courts “have become grotesquely dictatorial and far too powerful,” to offer up new promises that, as president, he would abolish federal judgeships, occasionally ignore the Supreme Court, and—in the manner of a tiny tyrant in khaki shirts and mirrored sunglasses—have federal marshals arrest errant federal judges and force them to testify before Congress about their unpopular decisions.

...

This discussion reminds me of when George Wallace was running for President during the desegregation days when he wanted judges to be appointed for eight year terms (I think it was eight years, anyway) which would give the politicians a chance to review previous rulings made by the judge in question in order to determine if the judge deserved another eight year appointment or not.

 

[Kestrel]

This discussion reminds me of when George Wallace was running for President during the desegregation days when he wanted judges to be appointed for eight year terms (I think it was eight years, anyway) which would give the politicians a chance to review previous rulings made by the judge in question in order to determine if the judge deserved another eight year appointment or not.

The courts were ruling that black people had rights. That didn't sit well with white bigots that Wallace represented.

Today you will find similar proposals from people who want gays and non Christians to be considered second class citizens under the law.