Unfortunately the right wing base is lapping up what Gingrich has to say -- they are the ones that have been unable to implement their agenda via the legislative process (outlawing of abortion), or by executive fiat (torture, suspension of habeas corpus, domestic use of military), so they intend to simply bypass one-third of the constitution in order to gut other parts of it.[...] 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.
Unfortunately the right wing base is lapping up what Gingrich has to say -- they are the ones that have been unable to implement their agenda via the legislative process (outlawing of abortion), or by executive fiat (torture, suspension of habeas corpus, domestic use of military), so they intend to simply bypass one-third of the constitution in order to gut other parts of it.
Unfortunately the right wing base is lapping up what Gingrich has to say -- they are the ones that have been unable to implement their agenda via the legislative process (outlawing of abortion), or by executive fiat (torture, suspension of habeas corpus, domestic use of military), so they intend to simply bypass one-third of the constitution in order to gut other parts of it.
True, but keep in mind that Fox -- like the hard right in general -- maintains its popularity and power based upon generating fear, anger, and hatred.Kudos to Faux News for posting this article. Its not every day they shed light on a fellow Republican embracing Fascism.
Yep. Anyone who finds the Constitution to be nothing but a barrier to their goals is to be feared.
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).
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.
This is really going to hurt Newt if he manages to get the nomination. It just confirms the worst fears people have about him; he's erratic, acts on impulse, "creative" but not necessarily in a good way. If Obama ever said something that crazy I would have to pick my jaw up off the floor.
You'll have to give me some examples.I understand what you are saying, but you missed my point.
Lately, our Presidents have taken upon themselves to be quite selective about their duties...even to the point of ignoring high level Court rulings. [...]
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"
1. You'll have to give me some examples.
2. You're also aware that Gingrich proposes removing dissenting judges from the bench, and outright dissolving the 9th Circuit? Has this been going on previously as well?
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
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.
Don't know about that though. The supreme court is the end of the line pretty much. What they say goes and if you get activist judges like we have on there now, they can invent interpretations and voila it's done. The only way to bind the judiciary from such loose and free-willing interpretations is the make specific notes via a constitutional amendment but doing that is extremely slow and unlikely to happen. Judiciary has a helluva power.
They can strike down the executive sword, strike down the legislative purse and basically invent new laws. And they only police themselves.
1. Example:
Your example is nothing like what Newt proposed. In the moratorium case, the judge initially ruled that the government's moratorium was invalid because the order instating it didn't contain sufficient factual basis. Understandable, given that the reasons were stated in a paragraph and a half. The government then amended the order to include over 20 pages of reasoning for the moratorium, and they reinstated it. The judge later issued a contempt order, but he essentially moved the goal posts. He argued that the administration issued essentially the same moratorium, which was true, but his basis for striking it down didn't have anything to do with the nature of moratorium itself. His order just said that the government hadn't provided enough reasoning for the moratorium. And of course by the time the contempt ruling was issued the moratorium had long since been lifted. The government had good grounds to appeal but chose not to, as the penalty was just attorneys' fees.
In other words, the government had a good faith belief that they were complying with the judge's order. The judge disagreed. That's entirely different than saying you will try to remove judges with whom you disagree.
But arn't there ways to recast the intentions in a way that doesn't reach the objectionable level of "getting rid of those you disagree with"? And wouldn't you dismissing those arguments fall into the same shifting goal posts argument.
Cause, for example, my understanding is that the 9th circuit is overturned way more than any other appelate court, and has a pretty wide reputation as being hyper liberal in its overall positions.
And since the law is that law, various interpretations of the law must be right or wrong (even though we may not know what the "correct" view of the law is, there must be a correct view or the law would be too ambiguous to be enforceable or otherwise would contrave the principle that the law should apply equally to everyone). And if the high cort keeps telling one subordinate court that it is wrong and the subordinate court continues to purusue interpretation of the law through its ideological mindset (which has most frequently been repudiated by a court which is supposed to bind it), then should there not be some mechanism to address that systematic dysfunction, which ultimately is both unjust and inefficient?
And if so, then what is that mechanism?
First of all, 9th Cir. reversal rates are overstated. Last year and the year before, they were reversed at the third highest rate. Overall, though, they have had more cases taken up by the Court. Does that mean they're wrong? At the moment we have an extremely conservative Court, and the 9th is traditionally a pretty liberal Circuit Court. These things even out over time, and there is are existing mechanisms to deal with them. Namely, Presidents get to appoint judges to the federal courts. Other than that the judiciary is independent, and that's how it's supposed to be. They are a separate but equal branch, and each President is not entitled to replace the judiciary with one that's more agreeable to them. That would rather defeat the purpose of the system of checks and balances established in the Constitution.
OK, that makes sense. And sorry, the checks and balances thing is a bit foreign coming from a parliamentary system where the executive is drawn from and often completely controls the legislature and wherre the judiciary has historically been largely subbordinate. I honestly don't know how your constitutional powers all fit together.
But you guys also do some pretty ... zany things (in our view) like electing judges. If the people have the right to elect local judges, then can those rights not be extended up the chain to appelate level or be delegated upwards to the legislature?
Also, is what Gingrich said wrong? Have there been multiple historical instances hwere the legislature/executive has undertaken to reform court structure in response to what was viewed as a court position that diverged too far from the position of the legislature/executive?
And if so, were those previous acts illegal or did something happen to change the law in the interim?
We don't elect federal judges. Some, but not all, states have judicial elections.
The most famous example of interference with the federal courts was FDR's Court packing scandal. He tried to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court, which would have allowed him to appoint new ones and thus gain a more sympathetic audience. The effort failed and is widely regarded as a stain on Roosevelt's otherwise bright reputation. It's hardly something one would cite as a great precedent ... if one had a good understanding of our constitutional system.
Your example is nothing like what Newt proposed. In the moratorium case, the judge initially ruled that the government's moratorium was invalid because the order instating it didn't contain sufficient factual basis. Understandable, given that the reasons were stated in a paragraph and a half. The government then amended the order to include over 20 pages of reasoning for the moratorium, and they reinstated it. The judge later issued a contempt order, but he essentially moved the goal posts. He argued that the administration issued essentially the same moratorium, which was true, but his basis for striking it down didn't have anything to do with the nature of moratorium itself. His order just said that the government hadn't provided enough reasoning for the moratorium. And of course by the time the contempt ruling was issued the moratorium had long since been lifted. The government had good grounds to appeal but chose not to, as the penalty was just attorneys' fees.
In other words, the government had a good faith belief that they were complying with the judge's order. The judge disagreed. That's entirely different than saying you will try to remove judges with whom you disagree.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?