| || |
He said What?
December 20, 2011 - John Stack
Why are the other GOP contenders even running attack ads? (in Iowa, the PAC that is run by Romney supporters spent 8 times as much on attack ads against Gingrich, as Newt spent in total!) All the other candidates need to do is replay things newt says. The latest bumble by the Great White Newt is his disdain for ‘certain’ judges, and his complete disdain for the US Constitution.
Remember the separation of powers? There are 3 branches in government, The Executive (President) the Judicial (Supreme Court) and the Legislative (Congress and the Senate). The judicial, at the level of the Supreme Court at least, is there for one reason only – to determine if a law is Constitutional. They don’t pass laws. They don’t submit laws. In theory, the Court should be completely apolitical. There shouldn’t really be 5-4 decisions that are based on ideological background. Today, it is a split court, with William Kennedy often the swing vote for one side or the other. But, there really aren’t that many decisions that aren’t 9-0 or close to it. Only a very select few come down as 5-4.
Newt believes that as President, he shold have power to impeach judges and abolish courts for controversial decisions. He holds up that judges have become ‘grotesquely dictatorial’. He has called for the abolition of ‘anti-American’ courts. I’m not sure what he means by ‘anti-American ‘ courts. Does that mean a non-American can’t sit on the bench? Does it mean that he suspects some judges of actively pushing the agenda for another country through his or her court rulings? Ok. Lets be serious. He means any judge that would rule in favor in any way for anything for gay people or pro-choice people.
But how Gingrich says it, ‘arrogant in their misreading of the American people’ you wonder. Who is the dictator here? Misreading the American people? I would concur the USSC sometimes misreads the American people. And that’s OK. Its when the court misreads the constitution is when there is a problem. Gingrich claims he is on the high road, just trying to keep out ‘activist judges’. By the way, what is an activist judge? Honestly – anyone who uses the term to make a point, means any judge who rules in opposition to their political ideology. Many 5-4 rulings are in and of themselves completely activist rulings. They are along ‘party/ideological’ lines. Neither is looking truly at the Constitution for help in deciding. Or better put, the Constitution itself often offers very little help in deciding very complex ideas that were never contemplated by our forefathers.
What if Gingrich had his way? That the president be able to impeach judges, to send in law enforcement to arrest a judge for their opinion? Is this about as far away from any American ideal that we have? A judge is punished for an unpopular decision? Spunds like how some Banana republic operates, not the most powerful and influential country in the world operates. What are the unintended consequences for Newt? What if the president can arbitrarily remove a judge? What would stop Obama from immediately removing Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito (and possibly Kennedy) for their decision in Citizens United V. FEC? Mnay Americans feel that was judicial activism. Obama would then have 9 judges to act at his behest. Who would then go against the president? You rule against a policy of his, you are removed.
Gingrich has a lot of baggage. A lot of twisted muck in the life he has led. His beliefs on the US Judiciary in and of themselves should disqualify him for the post of President of the United States.
No comments posted for this article.
Post a Comment
News, Blogs & Events Web