• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gingrich: **** the Supreme Court

Karl

Karl

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
5,561
Reaction score
1,589
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
EXCLUSIVE: Former Bush Attorneys General Call Gingrich Position on Courts 'Dangerous'

Published December 15, 2011 -- FoxNews.com

In a 28-page position paper entitled, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution," Gingrich argues that when the Supreme Court gets it wrong constitutionally, the president and Congress have the power to check the court, including, in some cases, the power to simply ignore a Supreme Court decision. [Futhermore,] "As president I would say, I would instruct the national security apparatus to ignore the three most Supreme Court decisions on terrorism and I would say those are null and void and have no binding effect on the United States and in fact as commander in chief I would not tolerate a federal judge risking the safety of the United States with some misguided interpretation," Gingrich said.

"I would tread very, very carefully down the road with this notion that 'okay, this judge has rendered a decision that we think is very unpopular and we're not happy with it so we're going to try to impeach this judge. I think that's not healthy. [...]" [Former G.W. Bush Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales said.

Read more: Fox News
Click to expand...
Well, well, well... the fascist coming-out party for Newt, it seems (color me un-surprised). If Alberto torture-em-till-they-drop Gonzales thinks Newt's position is extreme, anybody to the left of Darth Vader had better head to the bunker for the duration. Dismantling the courts will be the first step to unrestrained power; will Congress be next on the chopping block? Or will the Tea Party caucus simply rubber stamp President Newt's policies as he continues to dismantle the constitution and a system that has kept the baser aspects of human behavior (cruelty) in check?

However, keep in mind that the right wing base has been primed for such a constitutional upheaval, via decades of right wing claims of "judicial activism" and "legislation from the bench", and of course the non-stop emotional heart-string tugging bleats about baby-killing abortion (but, after the baby is birthed out of the womb, Newt has no problem subjecting the baby to the death penalty for smuggling drugs).

OWS protesters, better don your bullet proof vests -- since will disagreement obviously be no longer be allowed, dissent will surely be terminated with extreme prejudice :shock:
 
You really believe the Supreme Court outranks the President and Congress. You better go back to school boy, and get some learning.
 
American said:
You really believe the Supreme Court outranks the President and Congress. You better go back to school boy, and get some learning.
Click to expand...

The three branches are co-equal. Newt's assertion that the Executive branch out ranks the Judicial is simply not backed up by the Constitution.
 
American said:
You really believe the Supreme Court outranks the President and Congress. You better go back to school boy, and get some learning.
Click to expand...

I didn't know any branch outranked the other. That is why we have checks and balances don't we? If anything the executive and legislative have very little power over the judicial other than appointments, approving of judges and the creation of lower courts.
 
American said:
You really believe the Supreme Court outranks the President and Congress. You better go back to school boy, and get some learning.
Click to expand...

Yowza -- looks like someone skipped civics class.
 
American said:
You really believe the Supreme Court outranks the President and Congress. You better go back to school boy, and get some learning.
Click to expand...

there is only one LEGAL way to defy the Supreme Court: pass an Amendment to the Constitution that over-rides their ruling on a certain issue.

anything else, is illegal and brings us towards Fascism and Authoritarianism.
 
American is truly the most American person here because he has no idea how our government works and clearly doesn't give a ****! That's as American as it gets.
 
rocket88 said:
The three branches are co-equal. Newt's assertion that the Executive branch out ranks the Judicial is simply not backed up by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

He points to The Federalist Papers:

Hamilton made two principal points in the essay. First, he argued for the independence of the judiciary from the other two branches of government, the executive and the legislative. In presenting a case for the judiciary, he reached his second major conclusion: that the judiciary must be empowered to strike down laws passed by Congress that it deems "contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution."

In presenting his argument for the independence of the judiciary, Hamilton claimed that it was by far the weakest of the three branches. It did not, he said, have the "sword" of the executive, who is commander in chief of the nation's armed forces, nor the "purse" of the legislature, which approves all the tax and spending measures of the national government. It had, according to Hamilton, "neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment."
Click to expand...

Federalist Papers - Federalist, No. 78, And The Power Of The Judiciary - Constitution, Hamilton, People, and Government - JRank Articles
 
I don't know what everyone is getting so heated about. It's not like this is anything new, is it? When the President can decide which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore, so what if he decides to ignore a Supreme Court ruling?
 
Three words for you Newt: Marbury V.S. Madison. The president and Congress do not have the authority to decide what is Constitutional. To quote Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is"
 
whysoserious said:
American is truly the most American person here because he has no idea how our government works and clearly doesn't give a ****! That's as American as it gets.
Click to expand...
Lots of talk on your part, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court does not hold supremacy over the other two branches. I know liberals want that, because no one will vote for their ideas, so they've relied on the Supreme Court to get them what they want.
 
American said:
Lots of talk on your part, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court does not hold supremacy over the other two branches. I know liberals want that, because no one will vote for their ideas, so they've relied on the Supreme Court to get them what they want.
Click to expand...

OH COME ON!

Could you look anymore foolish with this!

When it comes to the Judicial, everyones fine with the decision, as long as they're fine with the decision.

That goes for conservatives, liberals and the ****ing mole people.
 
Thunder said:
there is only one LEGAL way to defy the Supreme Court: pass an Amendment to the Constitution that over-rides their ruling on a certain issue.

anything else, is illegal and brings us towards Fascism and Authoritarianism.
Click to expand...
No amendment is needed, unless you think our founders were stupid. Congress need only to pass a law or change it, and that nullifies the court. The court can rule on a law all day long, but if congress changes the law their ruling is worthless.
 
American said:
Lots of talk on your part, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court does not hold supremacy over the other two branches. I know liberals want that, because no one will vote for their ideas, so they've relied on the Supreme Court to get them what they want.
Click to expand...

Why would it. Check and balances - right? The three branches are supposed to be equal in power with no one power able to completely overrule the others.
 
American said:
No amendment is needed, unless you think our founders were stupid. Congress need only to pass a law or change it, and that nullifies the court. The court can rule on a law all day long, but if congress changes the law their ruling is worthless.
Click to expand...

wrong. very very wrong.
 
whysoserious said:
American is truly the most American person here because he has no idea how our government works and clearly doesn't give a ****! That's as American as it gets.
Click to expand...
::: :lamo Dinosaur seen mopping coffee off monitor :lamo :::

I hope and pray that the right is beginning to understand what an awful choice Gingrich would be as their presidential or vice-presidential nominee.
 
Jetboogieman said:
OH COME ON!

Could you look anymore foolish with this!

When it comes to the Judicial, everyones fine with the decision, as long as they're fine with the decision.

That goes for conservatives, liberals and the ****ing mole people.
Click to expand...
What does Barney Frank have to do with this?
 
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!".
Click to expand...

You think there isn't precedence for what Gingrich is saying?

-
 
Mycroft said:
I don't know what everyone is getting so heated about. It's not like this is anything new, is it? When the President can decide which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore, so what if he decides to ignore a Supreme Court ruling?
Click to expand...
Your hypothetical sounds reasonable on paper, but what Newt is proposing is breaking the law (acting contrary a judicial decree, which has the force of law).

For example: a radar cop is sitting behind the proverbial billboard, only giving tickets to drivers of speeding SUV's, while ignoring drivers of speeding compact cars. This is selective enforcement of the law. When the cop gets into his own car and speeds, he is breaking the law. While both acts are less than upstanding, the latter -- committing a crime -- is more serious than the former (failing to properly or ethically fulfill his sworn duties).
 
Hatuey said:
So it's the weakest because it doesn't have money or the military? [...]
Click to expand...
According to authoritarian right-wing-think, which concludes that ruling is the province of those with the most money or the ability to impart the most violence, yes. Josef Stalin had little use for the courts as well, IIRC.

For the rest of us, who think that ruling is a collaborative effort, such brutish third-world concepts are somewhat foreign (not to mention distasteful).
 
American said:
No amendment is needed, unless you think our founders were stupid. Congress need only to pass a law or change it, and that nullifies the court. The court can rule on a law all day long, but if congress changes the law their ruling is worthless.
Click to expand...

So basically you really don't understand how the separation of powers works. If the SC declares a law unconstitutional, Congress can try to change the law to make it constitutional per the Court's ruling, but they can't change what is or is not constitutional. That is the power of the Court.
 
whysoserious said:
American said:
Lots of talk on your part, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court does not hold supremacy over the other two branches. [...]
Click to expand...
Why would it. Check and balances - right? The three branches are supposed to be equal in power with no one power able to completely overrule the others.
Click to expand...
I daresay he knows that, but is merely constructing a strawman in order to make a point he can actually win ;)
 
Kudos to Faux News for posting this article. Its not every day they shed light on a fellow Republican embracing Fascism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom