Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[Katzndogz]

Of course Gingrich is correct. Every other branch of government is accountable but the judiciary. Every other branch is answerable but the judiciary. Balance needs to be restored or we end up with judicial tyranny.

Too many times ONE judge uses his unassailable power to overturn the vote or legislative action. There is nothing wrong with having a judge required to explain themselves when the use their power to legislate from the bench.

 

[johnwk]

During Thursday evening’s debate Gingrich had good cause to suggest eliminating the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress. Gingrich said “The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful and I think frankly arrogant in their misreading of the American people”.


Actually, “misreading” the American people is irrelevant when a court is deciding the constitutionality of a law. What is important is many of our judges and Justices have been “misreading” our Constitution‘s legislative intent, and intentionally pretending it means whatever their personal whims and fancies dictate the Constitution ought to mean. The advantage of subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress cannot be justified to rehash a decision of a court or its judges. But it can be justified to establish whether or not a decision has followed the fundamental rules of constitutional law, especially the primary rule which is stated as follows:


“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling



JWK



Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

See: Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress

 

[rightwinger]

Newt once again proves what an idiot he is. His attempt to diminish the strength of the judicial branch is a clear constitutional violation

What would have happened with civil rights if fat southern boys like Newt could arrest the judges whose opinions they did not like?

 

[rightwinger]

When votes on issues like homosexual marriage for example are put to referendum votes and decided by a majority of the populace, and then a liberal court with activist judges overturn the majority vote by the people, then yes, CLEARLY there is ACTIVISM going on by ACTIVIST JUDGES. They want to MAKE LAW FROM THE BENCH, not interpret it, and those judges should have their liberal, activist cans hauled up before congress to be investigated and possibly impeached. Newt is right, and I'm fully behind him on this one, as are many, many people I imagine, as he is currently enjoying another up tick in his poll numbers. He got a thundering applause when he made his comments at the last Iowa debate.

People are not allowed to vote on which rights others are allowed to have.....that is why we need courts

Should Civil Rights laws have been voted on?

How about voting on a Woman's right to vote? Especially when women were not allowed to vote on it

 

[johnwk]

Yeah..that whole separation of powers thing into equal parts is so passe!

"What Constitution?", asks the GOP.

Did you miss POST NO.3?

JWK




Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote.

 

[Paulie]

Yeah..that whole separation of powers thing into equal parts is so passe!

"What Constitution?", asks the GOP.

Newt's never been accused of respecting the constitution.

 

[Inthemiddle]

A judge is to interpret the constitution, not make new law. That is breaking his oath, or the law.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how our system of law works. Not all law is statutory.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Fallacious nonsense at best.

Gingreich is as full of authoritarian shit as a Thanksgiving turkey.

Yep, that's my concern as well.

 

[Paulie]

I'm no fan of a lot of what the Supreme Court decides, but this proposition seems to me to basically make an entire branch of government irrelevant and moot.

Everytime you turn around this fucking guy is trying to subvert the constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Specious nonsense. Only Congress can withdraw jurisdiction of certain cases from SCOTUS. The President has nothing to do with it, other than try to influence impeachment procedings.

This is a major blow to his nomination and election chances.

When did Newt ever have a chance to get nominated? The only idiots that think a guy named after an aquatic amphibian is qualified to be president are the ones that think statists want the government to be less powerful.

Come to think of it, the only idiot I know like that is you, it must have been a terrible blow when Newt showed how stupid he is.

 

[johnwk]

I'm no fan of a lot of what the Supreme Court decides, but this proposition seems to me to basically make an entire branch of government irrelevant and moot.

You mean that judicial branch of government which ignores the fundamental rules of constitutional law and our Constitution’s legislative intent in order to impose its whims and fancies as the supreme law of the land? Is that the branch of government you are talking about?

I find nothing wrong with a Congressional oversight committee giving an opportunity for a judge or Justice, prior to impeachment, to explain why his/her decision is in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution’s provisions, and that fundamental rules of constitutional law were followed, which certainly is not the case with Kelo.

JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote.

 

[Ragnar]

Newt had yet another horrible, terrible, no good idea.

Gingrich, the anti-conservative - The Washington Post

He says that the Founders considered the judiciary the “weakest” branch. Not exactly. Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch (Federalist 78) because, since it wields neither the sword nor the purse, its power resides solely in persuasive “judgment.” That, however, is not weakness but strength based on the public’s respect for public reasoning. Gingrich yearns to shatter that respect and trump such reasoning with raw political power, in the name of majoritarianism.

Perfectly stated.

Newt spews forth ideas and plans like a vomitorium but precious few of those ideas are good ones. This latest idea is one of his worst.

 

[konradv]

During Thursday evening’s debate Gingrich had good cause to suggest eliminating the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress. Gingrich said “The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful and I think frankly arrogant in their misreading of the American people”.


Actually, “misreading” the American people is irrelevant when a court is deciding the constitutionality of a law. What is important is many of our judges and Justices have been “misreading” our Constitution‘s legislative intent, and intentionally pretending it means whatever their personal whims and fancies dictate the Constitution ought to mean. The advantage of subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress cannot be justified to rehash a decision of a court or its judges. But it can be justified to establish whether or not a decision has followed the fundamental rules of constitutional law, especially the primary rule which is stated as follows:


“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

deleted

cut short per our policy. LINK UP to your post.
JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Maybe, if we were a democracy and not a republic. We don't go for mob rule. The Constitution doesn't allow for that sort of meddling by one branch against another. If judges are committing crimal acts, impeach them, otherwise hands off. I'm surprised that this could be coming from some who usually hold the Constitution sacrosanct!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is it that so many object to having a Congressional oversight committee subpoenaing a judge or Justice to explain how a particular decision was arrived at…

Because, as noted, it’s a violation of the separation of powers. Congress’ authority is limited to the courts, not individual judges; such ‘oversight’ would clearly have a partisan and chilling effect on judicial independence. Judges don’t answer to Congress, they answer to higher courts in the appellate system.

(1), in compliance with the fundamental rules of constitutional law;

Again, that's the role of the appellate courts, not Congress – members of Congress don’t know Constitutional case law, many haven’t even studied the law – the Pauls being an excellent and sad example.

and (2), how it is in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution?

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Determining what the Constitution means and how it’s applied is the sole purview of the courts.

Is it not in our best interests to agree to follow the fundamental rules of constitutional law and enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?

It is in our best interest to ensure the primacy of the rule of law. That can only be accomplished by guaranteeing absolute judicial independence. Indeed, it’s vital courts be free to apply the law as interpreted and established by the courts. Laws deemed un-Constitutional in the context of Constitutional case law must be struck down as such accordingly. That a law is ‘popular’ or supported by a large majority of voters doesn’t mitigate the fact the measure is illegal. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

A judge is to interpret the constitution, not make new law. That is breaking his oath, or the law.

Incorrect.

And yet again: that is a matter for the appellate courts – judges may rule with impunity, even if that ruling is later overturned, as long as the error was made in good faith.

See: Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress

That only takes us to a post you made on another forum. And you clearly don’t understand Kelo, you're just re-arguing it with the same failed argument.

You mean that judicial branch of government which ignores the fundamental rules of constitutional law and our Constitution’s legislative intent in order to impose its whims and fancies as the supreme law of the land? Is that the branch of government you are talking about?

The Supreme Court determines the ‘the fundamental rules of constitutional law,’ indeed, it writes the case law that is the Constitution. See: Marbury v. Madison (1803).

I understand you and other rightists reject Marbury, the doctrine of judicial review, and the supremacy of the courts with regard to determining what the Constitution means. But neither the Constitution nor its case law support that position: U.S. Constitution, Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

See also: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

 

[Ragnar]

Notes on the non-problem of judicial activism:

Arresting Judges: It Just Makes Sense - Reason Magazine

When listing the arguments in favor of a bill of rights, Thomas Jefferson in a 1789 letter to James Madison singled out one: “the legal check which it puts into the hands of the judiciary.”

But it wouldn’t be fair to expect Gingrich to follow a discipline as strict as originalism. He’s the last of the Aquarians, an impulsive sprite, enchanted with the flow of ideas and uncommitted to square, joyless principle. Gingrich’s insights are ideas for a nation that is all stomach.

In this case, his skylarking has led him to a place of real popular value. Forget for a moment that the judicial activism decried by both the left and the right is in reality a review process so deferential to legislative and executive will that courts overturn a mere three out of every 5,000 laws passed by Congress and state legislatures. Never mind that the decision Gingrich uses as his example of judicial overreach was itself thrown out under the current system.

Hell, maybe the courts are not active enough.

The Facts About Judicial Activism - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Congress passed 16,015 laws from 1954 to 2003. The Supreme Court struck down 104—or just two-thirds of one percent.

State legislatures passed 1,029,075 laws over the same period. The Court struck down 455—or less than one twentieth of one percent.

The federal government adopted 21,462 regulations from 1986 to 2006. The Court struck down 121--or about a half of a percent.

In any given year, the Court strikes down just three out of every 5,000 laws passed by Congress and state legislatures.

The Supreme Court overturned earlier precedents in just two percent of the cases it considered from 1954 to 2010.

The shining proof of Newt's stupidity will come next year when the Supreme Court saves a grateful nation from Obamacare and it's awful mandates and draconian over-regulation. So when the "professional Left" goes into vapors over "judicial activism" you can thank God that Newt is by then, long gone from the Republican nomination process.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is going to be fun. I haven't even read what Jones has to say, and I know he is going to be completely wrong.

Why is it that so many object to having a Congressional oversight committee subpoenaing a judge or Justice to explain how a particular decision was arrived at…

Because, as noted, it’s a violation of the separation of powers. Congress’ authority is limited to the courts, not individual judges; such ‘oversight’ would clearly have a partisan and chilling effect on judicial independence. Judges don’t answer to Congress, they answer to higher courts in the appellate system.

Actually, if you read the Constitution, you will see that federal judges do answer to Congress, it is the Supreme Court alone that is a seperate branch of government, and even they need to go to Congress for money. That explains why Congress is able to write a code of ethics for federal and appelate judges, but has no say over ethics rules for the Supreme Court.

(1), in compliance with the fundamental rules of constitutional law;

Again, that's the role of the appellate courts, not Congress – members of Congress don’t know Constitutional case law, many haven’t even studied the law – the Pauls being an excellent and sad example.

What makes you think judges know Constitutional case law? If judges did actually study it the Supreme Court would never unanimously overrule a judge because he ignored case law. I can also point out that actually knowing the Constitution is no guarantee that they actually agree with it. Obama is a perfect example of that, he supposedly taught it, yet he has no problem with the concept of indefinite detention of American citizens.

By the way, since most of Congress are lawyers you are making a pretty big assumption saying none of them actually studied Constitutional law.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Determining what the Constitution means and how it’s applied is the sole purview of the courts.

Really? Are you actually saying that Congress does not have the authority to read the Constitution and decide on its own what it means? If your position is actually true can you explain the doctrine of judicial deference? Doesn't properly applying deference require that the judical branch actually assume that Congress is properly interpreting the Constitution?

It is in our best interest to ensure the primacy of the rule of law. That can only be accomplished by guaranteeing absolute judicial independence. Indeed, it’s vital courts be free to apply the law as interpreted and established by the courts. Laws deemed un-Constitutional in the context of Constitutional case law must be struck down as such accordingly. That a law is ‘popular’ or supported by a large majority of voters doesn’t mitigate the fact the measure is illegal. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

Are you saying that if a judge suddenly decides that it is perfectly acceptable for the Executive Branch to order the Army to kill people on the streets of New York there is absolutely nothing that Congress could do about it? Are you aware that Congress literally has the power to strip a judge of his office through impeachment, and that 12 of the 15 impeachment proceedings in Congress were directed at various judges. some of them for doing nothing more than making decisions the other tow branches did not like?

Incorrect.

And yet again: that is a matter for the appellate courts – judges may rule with impunity, even if that ruling is later overturned, as long as the error was made in good faith.

Or Congress decides to impeach him.

See: Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress

That only takes us to a post you made on another forum. And you clearly don’t understand Kelo, you're just re-arguing it with the same failed argument.

I have no idea who you are quoting, or whether he understands Kelo or not, but I do know that if you disagree with his interpretation of it he is probably right because you consistently think you know more than you do.

You mean that judicial branch of government which ignores the fundamental rules of constitutional law and our Constitution’s legislative intent in order to impose its whims and fancies as the supreme law of the land? Is that the branch of government you are talking about?

The Supreme Court determines the ‘the fundamental rules of constitutional law,’ indeed, it writes the case law that is the Constitution. See: Marbury v. Madison (1803).

The Constitution is not written by the Supreme Court, and case law does not change the Constitution, The only way to change the Constitution is through an Amendment, and most of those have been written by Congress.

I understand you and other rightists reject Marbury, the doctrine of judicial review, and the supremacy of the courts with regard to determining what the Constitution means. But neither the Constitution nor its case law support that position: U.S. Constitution, Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

See also: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

None of that in any way supports your position that the Supreme Court writes the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[A]n evaluation of the limits on congressional investigatory oversight
authority requires an examination of the contexts in which Congress does have
authority over the federal court. There is little question that where Congress is
investigating the federal courts generally, its investigatory authority is broad, as
Congress has significant legislative authority over the structuring of the Judicial
Branch. However, where Congress is investigating individual judges or Justices,
then it would appear that Congress may need to articulate a legislative basis or some
other constitutional authority for such investigation.

[C]ircumstance under which Congress could exercise its oversight
authority over individual judges or Justices would be in anticipation of or during
impeachment proceedings. Federal judges are among those “civil Officers of the
United States” who can be impeached for engaging in conduct amounting to treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Clearly a judge or justice who rules un-cCnstitutiona the Pledge of Allegiance phrase declaring America a nation "under God," for example, is by no means engaging in ‘conduct amounting to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

[Chief Justice Rehnquist observed that] the appropriate means for challenging a judge’s decision on a given case is not the impeachment process, but rather the appeals process, which affords the parties affected an opportunity for review of the judge’s decision and correction of errors in that judgment. In addition, the reversal of a lower court decision does not generally mean that the judge below had engaged in conduct rising to the level of a “high crime or misdemeanor.”

Congress clearly has no authority to impeach or otherwise interrogate a judge or justice simply because his decision is politically unpopular, or overturns legislation enacted by a given representative body or the people via referendum.

If, for example, there is evidence a judge took a bribe and allowed it to influence his decision, then he’s obviously subject to criminal investigation and must answer to Congress accordingly.

But to subject a judge to a criminal proceeding simply because his ruling doesn’t comport to one’s subjective political dogma is the first step toward a dictatorship of Congress and the loss of our civil liberties.



Link to the quoted above.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32935.pdf

 

[oreo]

During Thursday evening’s debate Gingrich had good cause to suggest eliminating the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress. Gingrich said “The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful and I think frankly arrogant in their misreading of the American people”.


Actually, “misreading” the American people is irrelevant when a court is deciding the constitutionality of a law. What is important is many of our judges and Justices have been “misreading” our Constitution‘s legislative intent, and intentionally pretending it means whatever their personal whims and fancies dictate the Constitution ought to mean. The advantage of subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress cannot be justified to rehash a decision of a court or its judges. But it can be justified to establish whether or not a decision has followed the fundamental rules of constitutional law, especially the primary rule which is stated as follows:


“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

deleted

cut short per our policy. LINK UP to your post.
JWK



Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

When Judges start writing their own laws--instead of following the law is when they need to be impeached.

 

[Political Junky]

You get impeached for breaking the law. Not for issuing a decision others disagree with.

A judge is to interpret the constitution, not make new law. That is breaking his oath, or the law.

Oh, so like when the Supreme Court decided a corporation was a person?

Yes, like that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You get impeached for breaking the law. Not for issuing a decision others disagree with.

A judge is to interpret the constitution, not make new law. That is breaking his oath, or the law.

Oh, so like when the Supreme Court decided a corporation was a person?

The Supreme Court did not decide that, Congress and various legislatures did when they decided that corporations are bound by contract law and that they can sign contracts.