Gingrich: **** the Supreme Court

[CJ 2.0]

Simply put, in rightwingspeak, when the justice branch backs a law they agree with, it's the "law of the land." When the justice branch backs a law they disagree with, it's "legislation from the bench."

Nothing new here people. Move along.

Sorry, doesn't everybody say this?

Now I generally agree with you sayng that the right wing does this, but, for example, if the Supreme Court reversed Roe v Wade based on judicial interpretation of the constitution, would you say that is the law of the land or legislating from the bench?

 

[Captain America]

Sorry, doesn't everybody say this?

Now I generally agree with you sayng that the right wing does this, but, for example, if the Supreme Court reversed Roe v Wade based on judicial interpretation of the constitution, would you say that is the law of the land or legislating from the bench?

Well, being a pro-life person, I would probably say it was the "new" law of the land.

True, I do seem to remember the left maybe making a comment or two, once upon a time, about "legislating from the bench" on issues that went against their ideals. But who can deny that, for the most part, it has been the rightwing battle cry for years now?

 

[CJ 2.0]

One thing I don't think I've seen mentioned here (apologies if it has been), is the fact that Congress and the President DO have the power to dissolve the 9th Circuit Court.

The Constitution establishes a Supreme Court and leaves it up to the Legislative Branch to put into place whatever lower courts they deem necessary or desirable. Congress did that way back and the President, at the time, signed off on it. At any time, they could change things.

If this is true, then the issue becomes normative. there often are normative practices in mature systems where even if someone technically has an absolute right he or she is extremely reluctant to exercise that right unless the circumstances are dire enough to call for this exercise.

It's like saying yes the legislature has the right to expropriate private property whenever it wants, but it should exercise that right sparingly or it would undermine its overall validity within the broader system in the eyes of the public.

Sounds like the system put in place was designed to allow modification for administrative reasons (e.g., efficiency in ensuring adequate coverage or to address over-saturation). So while the right may exist absolutely, if it was allocated based on a more narrow concern should those to which the right has been granted feel constrained to exercise that tright only in furtherance of the objective for which the right were allocated in the first place.

Note, this is actually a similar argument to saying that judges should not be particularly activist while sitting on the bench, and should never allow ideological objectives to colour their interpretation of the law. Sure they have the right to allow such colour to seep in, but as a normative matter they should not and the practice if routinely engaged in ultimately would undermine the legitimacy of the authority of the court.

 

[1Perry]

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.

I'm betting you are proven wrong before long. I imagine I can find other examples but this will work.

Bush tried to detain a citizen indefinately without a trial. The courts rebuffed him. Congress then decided to make it a law. The courts are going to negate that law.

 

[Karl]

Sorry, so while it the job of the legislature to propose laws and the executive to execute them, it is up to the judiciary to tell the legislature and the executive what they actually say [...]

No. It is up to the judiciary to interpret the constitution. As to laws passed by the legislative, the judiciary merely rules on the constitutionality of those laws should they be challenged in a proper manner.

[...] and by passing those laws the legislature and executive lose the ability to change them?

I don't really understand what that sentence means, but I'll take a shot and say it is incorrect. If a law, or part of a law, is challenged by someone, causing the judiciary to rule it unconstitutional then the legislative can pass a similar law that they feel will be within accordance of the constitution (based upon the judiciary's opinion about the prior law) or they can institute the constitutional amendment process. Until then that particular law, or that part of a law, is stricken from the books.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Well, being a pro-life person, I would probably say it was the "new" law of the land.

True, I do seem to remember the left maybe making a comment or two, once upon a time, about "legislating from the bench" on issues that went against their ideals. But who can deny that, for the most part, it has been the rightwing battle cry for years now?

It has. But this may have at least something to do with the general right-wing tendancy to see non-elected intervention (and indeed any government intervention) in regulating activities as a negative thing (appreciating of course that "social conservatism" doesn't really do this where it tries to use government to impose beliefs and practices on the population). it also may have something to do with their perception of a general bias in extending "rights" by judicial fiat where those rights effectively limit what those who lean right feel is THEIR right to do.

All else the same,, though, I think whoever the wind is blowing against is the party more likely to be yelling the loudest about its smell.

Oh, and I do totally agree with the right wing about bias in the general "mainstream" media, and in that context I think it makes sense that they are the loudest screamers about it. Though of course I also appreciate the "faux news" complaints of the left.

Fundamentally though, I think every side of government, every side of political parties, and most of the media targeted at the masses pander to their audiences and treat them like they are special needs.

Which I guess is not an unequivocal condemnation, as the masses sort of ARE special needs (by definition half have IQs over 100, while the average university student both is around 115 and is not actually very bright).

But it still remains a condemnation. You are not going to get a legitimate, rational, comprehensive analysis of this or any other issue out of the media or the population, with very limited exceptions. Because the level of discourse in general about any issues, and in particular about political, economic and philosophical issues, is abysmal.

 

[CJ 2.0]

No. It is up to the judiciary to interpret the constitution. As to laws passed by the legislative, the judiciary merely rules on the constitutionality of those laws should they be challenged in a proper manner.

well, it technically does more than that, as its role also is to interpret laws passed by the legislature, but that's fine. I think your point was where I expected it should be and I agree with its sentiment - the role of the judiciary in its "balance of powers" function is to ensure that the laws enabling other branches of govenrment also suitably constrain the over-reach of those other brances.

I don't really understand what that sentence means, but I'll take a shot and say it is incorrect. If a law, or part of a law, is challenged by someone, causing the judiciary to rule it unconstitutional then the legislative can pass a similar law that they feel will be within accordance of the constitution (based upon the judiciary's opinion about the prior law) or they can institute the constitutional amendment process. Until then that particular law, or that part of a law, is stricken from the books.

sorry, I guess it was a bit of a straw man addressing the what i saw as somewhat loose language in the initial post. As with your other comment, I agree with this.

 

[Captain America]

It has. But this may have at least something to do with the general right-wing tendancy to see non-elected intervention (and indeed any government intervention) in regulating activities as a negative thing (appreciating of course that "social conservatism" doesn't really do this where it tries to use government to impose beliefs and practices on the population). it also may have something to do with their perception of a general bias in extending "rights" by judicial fiat where those rights effectively limit what those who lean right feel is THEIR right to do.

All else the same,, though, I think whoever the wind is blowing against is the party more likely to be yelling the loudest about its smell.

Oh, and I do totally agree with the right wing about bias in the general "mainstream" media, and in that context I think it makes sense that they are the loudest screamers about it. Though of course I also appreciate the "faux news" complaints of the left.

Fundamentally though, I think every side of government, every side of political parties, and most of the media targeted at the masses pander to their audiences and treat them like they are special needs.

Which I guess is not an unequivocal condemnation, as the masses sort of ARE special needs (by definition half have IQs over 100, while the average university student both is around 115 and is not actually very bright).

But it still remains a condemnation. You are not going to get a legitimate, rational, comprehensive analysis of this or any other issue out of the media or the population, with very limited exceptions. Because the level of discourse in general about any issues, and in particular about political, economic and philosophical issues, is abysmal.

Very well put CJ.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Very well put CJ.

Wow, thanks captain.

And I should add. I hold a special place of contempt for the partisan hack "analysts" that make up the secondary core of "reporters" on all of the media channels during election season. When you hire an Obama advisor or a Clinto advisor as an "analyst" and put them on CNN, they use the platform to pretend they are providing an objective "analysis" when really all they are doing is hocking for their guy (or gal).

I actually find that patently offensive. A news program pretending to be objective has absolutely no business lending credibility to a partisan hack by pretending they are an analyst. Sure, have them on to be interviewed by legitimate news people, but don't hire James Carville to talk about the impact of Jerimayah Wright on the Clinton-Obama primary, and don't keep on Roland Martin or that Obama sycopant woman to provide "analysis" of the general election run against McCain. Cause all they do is use every single event and every single question to provide as much spin as they can for their guy. Which incidentally is not what an "analyst" is supposed to actually do.

 

[Karl]

[...] Lately, our Presidents have taken upon themselves to be quite selective about their duties...even to the point of ignoring high level Court rulings. [...]

You'll have to give me some examples. [...]

Example:

The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater-drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.

Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.
U.S. in Contempt Over Gulf Drill Ban, Judge Rules - Bloomberg

I would argue that the judge was not ignored, but rather the Obama administration tried to 'rule around' the judge (by lifting one moratorium and imposing a slightly different, but effectively same one). Semantics, perhaps, but using the below analysis of Gingrich's position paper the judge would likely be removed from office.

He [former G.W. Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey] and Gonzales said they were also not happy with the Gingrich call for the power to impeach judges or abolish judgeships following any ruling considered particularly outrageous. They were additionally very skeptical of Gingrich's suggestion that we should just "do away with" the Ninth Circuit because of some of the left-leaning decisions from that group of jurists.

EXCLUSIVE: Former Bush Attorneys General Call Gingrich Position On Courts -Dangerous- | Fox News

 

[Karl]

One thing I don't think I've seen mentioned here (apologies if it has been), is the fact that Congress and the President DO have the power to dissolve the 9th Circuit Court.

The Constitution establishes a Supreme Court and leaves it up to the Legislative Branch to put into place whatever lower courts they deem necessary or desirable. Congress did that way back and the President, at the time, signed off on it. At any time, they could change things.

Technically true, but if the government (executive/legislative) dissolves a particular appeals court simply because one political party doesn't like the rulings, then it is the duty of the people to see to it that the government itself is dissolved.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Technically true, but if the government (executive/legislative) dissolves a particular appeals court simply because one political party doesn't like the rulings, then it is the duty of the people to see to it that the government itself is dissolved.

Unless the people agree with that exercise of authority, you mean?

 

[Karl]

Unless the people agree with that exercise of authority, you mean?

I do not mean.

 

[CJ 2.0]

I do not mean.

So your avatar is intended to be self-descriptive?

 

[Captain America]

Wow, thanks captain.

And I should add. I hold a special place of contempt for the partisan hack "analysts" that make up the secondary core of "reporters" on all of the media channels during election season. When you hire an Obama advisor or a Clinto advisor as an "analyst" and put them on CNN, they use the platform to pretend they are providing an objective "analysis" when really all they are doing is hocking for their guy (or gal).

I actually find that patently offensive. A news program pretending to be objective has absolutely no business lending credibility to a partisan hack by pretending they are an analyst. Sure, have them on to be interviewed by legitimate news people, but don't hire James Carville to talk about the impact of Jerimayah Wright on the Clinton-Obama primary, and don't keep on Roland Martin or that Obama sycopant woman to provide "analysis" of the general election run against McCain. Cause all they do is use every single event and every single question to provide as much spin as they can for their guy. Which incidentally is not what an "analyst" is supposed to actually do.

I remember, once upon a time, there were only 3 channels on TV. (And that was in the 4th largest city in the USA.) The news was the news. It mattered not which channel you watched. It was all the same. You got 30 minutes of news, sports and weather, 3 times a day. The only difference was what kind of pointer and weather maps the weatherman might have used. Actually, quite boring.

These days, you have a zillion channels on TV with countless 24/7 "news" channels. What used to be reported in 30 minutes now takes all day to do. To fill in for "lack of news" they will just make up their own to fill the time slots. The rightwing sheeple have their FAUXNews. The tree-huggers have their MSNBC. It is news designed to cater to whatever market they are trying to reach without any credibility whatsoever.

Back during the cold war we were told in school that the "commies" will use "propaganda" to try to divide and conquer America. Turns out, it wasn't the commies at all that ended up doing it. It was the very capitalistic pigs, that was warning us about the commies in the fisrt place, that ended up marketing this propaganda that has since torn the nation apart pitting neighbor against neighbor.

FAUXNEWS, MSNBC, Limbaugh, Hannity, Maddow, Ed Schultz, O'reilly, it don't matter. In my opinion, anyone who follows any of these type of "journalists" are simply weak minded sheeple. These propagandists, and the people who sign their checks, are doing GREAT harm to our country and the weak minded people who suck up their swill, thus supporting their market shares, are equally to blame. Many can be found on this very forum.

 

[Cameron]

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.

I guess you won't complain if Obama decides to implement Obamacare even after a Supreme Court decision striking it down then?

 

[Karl]

So your avatar is intended to be self-descriptive?

A dictionary would inform you that Gingrich's plan of action is that of a fascist, while mine would be of the anti variety.

 

[CJ 2.0]

A dictionary would inform you that Gingrich's plan of action is that of a fascist, while mine would be of the anti variety.

Sorry, directing people to act in a particular way whether they want to or not isn't quite liberal democratic.

You have the right to vote but you can onyl vote as I tell you to?

And for the record, I don';t really see what Gingrich proposed as being "fascist". It may be illegal, but otherwise for a validly elected individual, who will be subject to further valid elections, to exercise his or her discretion within that legislative or executive role to pursue a policy interest he or she believes he has a mandate for and which is in the best interest of his constituents is in no way, shape or form "fascist".

As opposed to telling people that they must act a certain way because you want them to, which also isn't fascist (to be fair) but seems quite a bit closer.

 

[apdst]

I remember, once upon a time, there were only 3 channels on TV. (And that was in the 4th largest city in the USA.) The news was the news. It mattered not which channel you watched. It was all the same. You got 30 minutes of news, sports and weather, 3 times a day. The only difference was what kind of pointer and weather maps the weatherman might have used. Actually, quite boring.

These days, you have a zillion channels on TV with countless 24/7 "news" channels. What used to be reported in 30 minutes now takes all day to do. To fill in for "lack of news" they will just make up their own to fill the time slots. The rightwing sheeple have their FAUXNews. The tree-huggers have their MSNBC. It is news designed to cater to whatever market they are trying to reach without any credibility whatsoever.

Back during the cold war we were told in school that the "commies" will use "propaganda" to try to divide and conquer America. Turns out, it wasn't the commies at all that ended up doing it. It was the very capitalistic pigs, that was warning us about the commies in the fisrt place, that ended up marketing this propaganda that has since torn the nation apart pitting neighbor against neighbor.

FAUXNEWS, MSNBC, Limbaugh, Hannity, Maddow, Ed Schultz, O'reilly, it don't matter. In my opinion, anyone who follows any of these type of "journalists" are simply weak minded sheeple. These propagandists, and the people who sign their checks, are doing GREAT harm to our country and the weak minded people who suck up their swill, thus supporting their market shares, are equally to blame. Many can be found on this very forum.

What should we be watching? Keith Olberamn on the Al Gore channel?

 

[haymarket]

The GOP really needs to pick Newt as the standard bearer for their party next summer. I eagerly look forward to it and the diarrhea of the mouth he will be subject to again and again and again during the campaign.

 

[CJ 2.0]

What should we be watching? Keith Olberamn on the Al Gore channel?

No, I think his point is that pretty much everyone of them is crap, Olberman included (and I would add, especially). They are propagandists, not educators.

the role of the educator is to provide you with the knowledge and analytical framework necessary for you to be ifnormed and to analyze that information - simply put, their role ought to be to enable you to make your own informed decisions. The role of the propagandist is to make you believe what they want you to believe.

And Olberman clearly fits into that mold, as does whats-his-face (the ex fox guy with glasses with the zany conspiracy theories and glasses who cried a lot) - Glen Back.

Oh, and I'll add John Stewart to the list. While he is a comedian, he clearly sees his political role (which is not his only or primary offering as he is a comedian) as propagandizing to advance his positions rather than educating people to make informed decisions (while being funny). And while it is more ok for him because he doesn't have any obligations to do anything but sell advertising, he is still a propagandist that does more harm than good by focusing his efforts on trivializing views and individuals he does not agree with. The truly impartial comedian/educator goes after everybody equally. Stewart does a bit of that, but clearly his focus is overwhelmingly on conservatives and republicans.

But he's damned funny (though Colbert is funnier), which sort of makes it ok.

 

[CJ 2.0]

The GOP really needs to pick Newt as the standard bearer for their party next summer. I eagerly look forward to it and the diarrhea of the mouth he will be subject to again and again and again during the campaign.

Please expalin. From what I've seen, he has been extremely articulate and, unlike the carefully managed Obama and Romney, has always been prepared to engage with voters to allow them the ifnormation they want to make an informed decision.

Unlike Obama, who spred mythos and vapid emptiness ("hope and change") in lieu of actually engaging on substance.

While it is totally legitimate to disagree with Gingrich on his view of govenrment (either disagreing on the left or the right - as he is not the small-government conservative that fits well within the right wing of the republican party) or climate change or whatever, it is not legitimate to act like a partisan hack and dismiss him out of hand because, what, he freely expresses his views?

I actually would be looking forward to it because I honestly think he would own, sorry - p0wn - Obama in substantive discussions and analysis, which I would just love to watch.

 

[Thunder]

This alone makes Gingrich a VERY dangerous man.

If he became President, and ordered the Justice Department and the Department of Defense to ignore Supreme Court rulings, he could be immediately impeached.

 

[CJ 2.0]

This alone makes Gingrich a VERY dangerous man.

If he became President, and ordered the Justice Department and the Department of Defense to ignore Supreme Court rulings, he could be immediately impeached.

But is that what he propsoed? I thought he propsoed using legislative/executive powers that already exist under your constitution to consolidate and reshuffle the judicial system and/or address perceived issues with who has been appointed to the bench.

And maybe some of that is not permitted, but I don't think that anyone had proposed the executive simply ignore laws it doesn't like (although the Obama administration seems to have done that in spades and no one seems to care that much)

 

[roguenuke]

Please expalin. From what I've seen, he has been extremely articulate and, unlike the carefully managed Obama and Romney, has always been prepared to engage with voters to allow them the ifnormation they want to make an informed decision.

Unlike Obama, who spred mythos and vapid emptiness ("hope and change") in lieu of actually engaging on substance.

While it is totally legitimate to disagree with Gingrich on his view of govenrment (either disagreing on the left or the right - as he is not the small-government conservative that fits well within the right wing of the republican party) or climate change or whatever, it is not legitimate to act like a partisan hack and dismiss him out of hand because, what, he freely expresses his views?

I actually would be looking forward to it because I honestly think he would own, sorry - p0wn - Obama in substantive discussions and analysis, which I would just love to watch.

While honesty and being able to debate and engage people well in conversation are good qualities, a President also needs to be able to appeal to a good portion of the people as well. If a Presidential candidate says something that the majority of the people do not agree with, they are not likely to get elected, no matter how well they say it or can explain their position.