Reply With Quote
I thought this was an interesting article. Any thought that Gingrich was going to limit the federal government should be put to rest by his pamphlet on the Courts.
Two former attorneys general under President George W. Bush have found a few things to like in Newt Gingrich's position paper on reining in the authority of the federal courts, but other parts, they say, are downright disturbing.
Some of the ideas are "dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle," said former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
In a 28-page position paper en led, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Cons ution," Gingrich argues that when the Supreme Court gets it wrong cons utionally, the president and Congress have the power to check the court, including, in some cases, the power to simply ignore a Supreme Court decision.
"Our Founding Fathers believed that the Supreme Court was the weakest branch and that the legislative and executive branches would have ample abilities to check a Supreme Court that exceeded its powers," he argues.
Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales, in exclusive interviews with Fox News' Megyn Kelly, said they are particularly alarmed by provisions such as allowing Congress to subpoena judges after controversial rulings to "explain their cons utional reasoning" to the politicians who passed the laws.
"The only basis by which Congress can subpoena people is to consider legislation. To subpoena judges to beat them up about their decisions has only -- if they are going to say that has to do with legislation they might propose, that's completely dishonest," Mukasey said.
"I think we have a great government, a great country because it's built upon the foundation of the rule of law. And one of the things that makes it great and the rule of law is protected by having a strong independent judiciary," Gonzales said.
"And the notion of bringing judges before Congress like a schoolchild being brought before the principal to me is a little bit troubling. I believe that a strong and independent judiciary doesn't mean that the judiciary is above scrutiny, that it is above criticism for the work that it does, but I cannot support and would not support efforts that would appear to be intimidation or retaliation against judges."
Mukasey has counseled Mitt Romney, Gingrich's chief rival for the Republican presidential nomination, but said only once, and he would do the same for any GOP candidate. He 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.
"The fact is the Cons ution empowers the Supreme Court to establish lower federal courts. Presumably it can undo lower federal courts. But to say that you are going to undo an entire court -- simply because you don't like some of their decisions -- when there are thousands of cases before that court is totally irresponsible," Mukasey said.
Gingrich said that the U.S. does not have to "tolerate radical, anti-American judges rewriting the American Cons ution." Among his proposals, Gingrich said he would kick judges off the bench if their rulings run too far afield of the Cons ution.
"Judge Biery in San Antonio Texas on June 1st issued a decree that not only could students not pray at their graduation but they could not use the word 'benediction,' they could not use the word 'invocation,' they could not use the word 'God,' they couldn't use the word 'prayer,' they couldn't ask the audience to stand, and if they violated his order he would arrest and imprison the superintendent," Gingrich said at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition speech in October. "Judge Beiry's court should be abolished now."
But he also cites recent decisions about terrorism and detainees by the philosophically-split Supreme Court.
"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.
While technically it's possible for Congress to impeach a judge or eliminate a court, both Mukasey and Gonzales expressed serious concern about putting a judge's job on the line based on his or her decisions.
"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. I think the way you deal with decisions made by judges that you are not happy with is you win presidential elections. You elect a president who is going to appoint people to the judiciary who understand the appropriate rule of judges," Gonzales said.
"That's why they have a judiciary that's supposed to be independent," Mukasey added. "That's why they have judges who serve guaranteed life terms who have salaries that can't be diminished during their lifetime so that they are independent of political pressure."
Both Mukasey and Gonzales applaud Gingrich for calling attention to problems in the judicial system. Both say they support his calls to make judicial appointments more of a focus of political campaigns, a preference for judges who follow the original intent of the Cons ution and steering clear of foreign law in interpreting the founders' intent.
"There's a lot in here that's good. Take a red pen to the parts that are bad, stick with the parts that are good and run on it," Mukasey said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1gdAErbWz
I thought this was an interesting article. Any thought that Gingrich was going to limit the federal government should be put to rest by his pamphlet on the Courts.
"The only basis by which Congress can subpoena people is to consider legislation"
huh?
Figures that Fox Repug network would give Gonzo air time.
http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf
Here is a copy of the paper.
Gingrich = shoot from the hip niga
I hate to agree with another guy with complete disregard for the law, like Gonzales, but just reading the first two or three argumentative pages on Newt's paper you can tell where that's going.
It's hard to have judicial independence that's not permeated by political games when you have party guys looking over your shoulder. Especially this current crop of Congressmen who have shown to be nothing but party cheerleaders.
One branch of government is seemingly ruined for the foreseeable future. Newt is hoping it spreads. No thanks.
I disagree with a lot of Newt's positions on the judiciary but, the article does a poor job of arguing against him.
There are three co-equal branches of government. The U. S. Supreme Court doesn't, nor do the lesser courts, enjoy some special sanc y just because they wear robes.
For instance, if a court renders a decision that either the Executive or Legislative branches believe is counter to the principles of the Cons ution or the intent of statute AND nothing in the ruling explains why the court ruled that way, I believe the Congress should have the power to compel the court to explain its ruling.
As far as Mukasey's straw man that Congress can only subpoena to consider legislation and that if they were going to claim they were considering future legislation, it would be dishonest; that's not what immediately came to my mind. I thought, , Congress may want to know what it was about existing law the Court did not understand or on which it differed. I believe that's a legitimate use of subpoena power -- if the Court refuses to explain itself in the ruling.
As for the 9th Circus and the San Antonio Judge, I disagree with Gingrich. Those are the Judiciary's Clowns let them deal with their idiocy.
But, this paragraph completely moves the goal post in order to make a completely irrelevant point:
My understanding from earlier in the article, is that it's not on rulings that are unpopular Gingrich is wanting to be able to hold the courts accountable but, on rulings believed to be counter to law or the Cons ution."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. I think the way you deal with decisions made by judges that you are not happy with is you win presidential elections. You elect a president who is going to appoint people to the judiciary who understand the appropriate rule of judges," Gonzales said.
Otherwise, I am in agreement with Judge Gonzales.
Who is going to declare what is cons utional? Is not that what courts are suppossed to do? Congress would abuse the subpoena power to win cheap political points and to try to intimidate the judicial branch. No Thank You.
BTW, I do not think this piece was intended to be an argument against Gingrich but rather reporting that two former AGs believe this line of thinking to be dangerous.
"understand the appropriate rule of judges"
... upon which there is wide disagreement, as there is about the Cons ution itself.
...
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-19-2011 at 09:43 AM.
All I was suggesting is the Judiciary be compelled to explain how their rulings jibe with the law and Cons ution. I think if Congress is not clear on how the Court arrived at a ruling and, the Court refuses to explain, Congress should have the power to compel an explanation.
I think the Judiciary already abuses its perceived insulation from criticism to do some fairly whacky .
Certainly, you are correct but, we don't know the specific question former AG Gonzales was asked, by the writer, to elicit a response that addressed "unpopular" instead of "uncons utional or illegal" rulings.
Whatever the case, Judge Gonzales' response was not germane to the premise that Gingrich wants to hold judges accountable for rulings that are either counter to the law or cons ution.
The court's opinion is always available. It always include the reasons that support the ruling. What else do you want Yoni?
The federal courts are answerable to the Executive and the Legislative branches, at least at the point in time before a judge becomes a judge. After that, the power of both the Executive and the Legislative, vis-a-vis the courts lies in their ability to re-enact laws that the Courts have struck down, taking care to avoid the particular problems that the Courts identify.
In the first place, the notion that a Court would ever strike down a law without engaging in a fairly detailed explanation for that choice is far-fetched. When Courts rule without explanation, it tends to be in run of the mill disputes that are quite attenuated from any cons utional concern. No Court -- not even the Ninth Circuit -- strikes down a law on a whim or without some thoroughly-explained rationale.
What you want, then, is to give the other two branches the ability to exert political pressure (tacitly or explicitly) on the courts; I'd argue that those efforts would be, themselves, extra-cons utional, given the decidedly non-political structure of the Courts.
Why not just re-write Article III while you're at it?
It can usually reference the detailed opinion to get all of the rationale it should need. Having been presented with that, a claim that "we just don't understand" is pretty readily shown to really be a claim that "we just don't like what we read" that is then used to subject unelected judges to the vicissitudes of politics. Again, that result is plainly beyond the contemplation of the Cons ution.
It was asked earlier, but it seems relevant to ask again: upon whose "belief" is that to be based? Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia are both extraordinarily well-respected cons utional scholars and they frequently do not agree about what particular parts of the Cons ution mean in certain contexts. If Breyer's view prevails in a decision of the Supreme Court, who decides that he should be called to Congress to explain himself (notwithstanding the rationale he's already expressed at length)? If Scalia wins, then who? And how does subjecting either to such inquiry possibly comport with the structure of Articles I, II, and III?
Ya think Barry's been bad for civil liberties? Noot will intimidate/arrest judges he doesn't like
Newt Gingrich Would Send U.S. Marshals To Arrest ‘Activist’ Judges
SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a Congressional hearing… how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?
GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...arshal-judges/
It was just a matter of time before something ridiculous came out of Newt's mouth.
Of course, it should all be up to President Newt, with his objectively unassailable view of the Cons ution and his wholly non-partisan view of the way in which cases should be decided.
I just wish Newt would shut up so he could wrap up the GOP nomination already!
La Raza for Newt in 2012!
Newt's chances are slowly slipping away. Damnit!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
