http://online.wsj.com/article_email...AxMTAxMDEwNzExNDcyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email
..."The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial," Mr. Gingrich said at a candidates' debate Thursday, something he would correct by calling judges before congressional inquiries, abolishing or defunding courts whose constitutional interpretations differ from his and impeaching judges not solely for criminal or ethical misconduct, as has been the practice, but also for their rulings.'''
Newt's Scary Idea
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Bro. Curtis, Dec 18, 2011.
Page 1 of 2
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
-
Scarlett O. ModeratorModerator
Oh, my! Sounds like he wants to cure a dictatorial judical branch with a little executive despotism of his own! That's a little like correcting a bleeding wound in your neck with a tourniquet! -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
FDR was a very popular president when he had this idea. I don't think Newt has the kind of charisma it would take to pull this off.
Anyway, if I was on the fence about Newt, this would be a deal-breaker. -
may pass a law in a state (see California Proposition 8) which just one judge can overthrow (as in prop. 8) without restraint or review, unless the case is appealed to a higher court.
Defense of marriage laws (anti-gay marriage laws), for example, can be passed by majority vote in the state, but only one homosexual judge is needed to overthrow the entire law by judicial fiat. Liberals fight fiercely over judicial appointments because they know the current system can be gamed to, in effect, enact legislation from the bench by a single or only a few activist judges, nullifying any law passed by majority voters of whole states. By assuming such powers, judges and courts overrule all legislative bodies and dictate to all voters what will be held legal and what will not be held legal. This has had horrible consequences for our nation thus far and desperately needs to be quickly fixed. -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
I disagree. I agree with the problems you identified, but they get fixed by keeping republican majorities in congress. While I have many problems with how the GOP has been governing, the federal judge nominations have been on, for the most part.
The problem is...democrats nominate judges they know will further the liberal agenda.
Republicans nominate judges they think can get by the democrats.
Elections have consequences. We see the fruit of things like Bush 41 going back on his "no new taxes" pledge.
This kind of power makes a presaident a dictator. Newt shows all the signs of being a totalitarian. -
righteousdude2 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Thanks BC....
....that is some sobering information.... :thumbs: -
-
I will tell y'all the scariest idea Newt came up with:
He decided to run for Prez!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: -
Regardless of this idea of his Newt would by far be a much better President. In fact my local dog catcher would be a much better President. But there is no way Newt could ever get this done. This would require support from a great many people in congress and that will never happen. Much ado about nothing.
-
-
Oh, and as for ole Newt, if my house was overrun with fleas, I wouldn't vote for him if he run for Orkin.......
I wouldn't vote for him if he was the only one on the ticket....... -
"Pursuant to the Constitution, nominations for the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals and District Courts are made by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Potential nominees are sometimes identified and recommended by members of Congress....." -
So, you'll vote for Obama? -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
A presidential candidate telling us he will pretty much ignore federal court rulings he doesn't like is "much ado about nothing" ?
And "better than Obama" is a legit campaign promise ?
C'mon Mandy. I give you credit for having more brains than that. -
I don't support him. And this is not any worse an idea than some of the things RP has come up with. In fact Newt's idea is less dangerous. RP could not get the support to accomplish some of his stuff either.But he is better than Obama regardless. My point is that the idea would not garner enough support to become reality. If were to be the repub candidate I would vote for him. However, I would much rather see Santorum at this point. -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
Chances are, if Newt gets in, he will have big republican majorities in boith houses of congress.
Bush didn't, and he pushed a law thru that lets them look at my library history. -
Bachman would have more trouble than Newt muscling some of these drastic ideas into Congressional approval, which is why I like Newt for his 'dirty boy' or 'tough guy' skills. Some of these liberals in both parties are going to put up a pretty good fight, and Newt proved in the Clinton years that he is up to the task, and I admired him then for that. I may not like his personal religious or moral beliefs, but that is not going to be an option in this next election. If I was going for my favorites in the political arena, Sara Palin would be first, followed closely by Perry and Bachman, and Romney would be on the bottom (actually, Huntsman would be on the bottom for me). -
Two things about the Supremes:
1. Democrats fight to the death to keep conservatives out while rino/neocons put up sheepish resistence to the confirmation of liberals.
2. It seems to me that when a judge cites "societal norms" or European laws in a decision, that judge should be impeached and their ruling voided. -
-
Page 1 of 2