Patterico's Pontifications

12/18/2011

Newt Gingrich’s assault on the courts: “zany” or brilliant?

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 9:03 am



[Posted by Karl]

That’s the question Matt Lewis has posed about Newt’s current favorite target:

Never one to be accused of timidity, Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich is turning up the volume of his ongoing assault on “activist judges” so high that even conservatives say he is going too far.

In a half-hour phone call with reporters Saturday, Gingrich said that, as president, he would abolish whole courts to be rid of judges whose decisions he feels are out of step with the country.

***

The former House speaker has been emboldened by his reception on the campaign trial, where conservative voters have cheered his view that judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage or against prayer in school are “activists” who should be thrown out. In particular, Gingrich has criticized the US. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, on the West Coast, as well as U.S. District Judge Fred Biery of Texas, who ruled this year that a public school district in Texas could not, among other things, use the words “prayer,” “amen,” “invocation” or “benediction” during a graduation ceremony.

[Update: Via Allahpundit, Gingrich adds that Congress has the power to dispatch the Capitol Police or US Marshals to apprehend a federal judge who renders a decision lawmakers broadly oppose.]

While “zany” and “brilliant” are perhaps too stark as adjectives here, there are certainly measures of silly and clever at work here.  The proposal is silly not only because of the constitutional concerns raised even by conservatives, but also because the proposal would be impractical, even with a friendlier Congress than a President Gingrich would be likely to have.  It is classic Newt, spitballing “outside the box,” with little regard to the political realities.  John Gizzi (White House Correspondent & Political Editor for Human Events) points out the plan resembles that of that of fictional Confederate Pres. Jake Featherston abolishing the Supreme Court in The Victorious Opposition, noting that Harry Turtledove, who wrote Victorious Opposition and created a series about the Confederate States of America existing beside the USA from 1865-1944, is a Newt favorite.  Odds that the left would eventually seize on this similarity, even if coincidental, to paint Gingrich as a crypto-Confederate and discredit federalism further approach 100%.

On the clever side of the ledger, if Newt is truly serious in these attacks — and Newt’s commitment to various ideas can be as fleeting as his commitment to, well, you know — perhaps he expects them to fail, while pushing the courts in a more conservative direction.  This was the perceived result of FDR’s court-packing plan.  But Newt’s current focus on the issue has an element of the opportunistic.  He appears to be fading in the polls, and may be sliding to third in Iowa.  Attacking judicial activism is usually a solid way to appeal to conservatives, particulalrly the social conservatives Newt would like to unite if he is to win in Iowa.  It’s also a subtle way of reminding them he poured $150,000 into the successful 2010 campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court judges after the state’s high court struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage.

–Karl

218 Responses to “Newt Gingrich’s assault on the courts: “zany” or brilliant?”

  1. Ding!

    Karl (e39d6b)

  2. Halfzanyassed.

    Colonel Haiku (caa4c2)

  3. Half-assed.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  4. he’s scary but I’d still vote for him over Wall Street Romney

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  5. also it’s kinda pathetic how Gingrich tries to make up for all these tacky sluts he keeps marrying by attacking gay people

    but all that social con drivel is just for the gap-toothed evangelical ethanol-sipping hayseeds in Iowa I don’t think he’s really actually super-sincere about it

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  6. Ah, there are plenty of foolish decisions like Kelo, the detainee cases, that deserve not to be abided by, the 9th Circuit is a practical joke
    with the exception of one or two members

    narciso (87e966)

  7. This suggestion is an example of Newt’s tendency to go off the reservation with odd ideas. If you want to call that “zany: I won’t stop you. It may be a good topic for a BS session in the dorm at midnight but doesn’t sound thought out for prime time.

    Mike K (9ebddd)

  8. SS reform must be done.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  9. No offense, but “political realities” is not a forward looking acknowledgement of socioeconomic reality.

    Congress has indeed tucked its tail in for mere longevity purposes and acceded power to both the Executive and Judicial branches in bureaucratic regulation and activism.

    The pendulum will certainly swing back with the continued collapse of revenues and the inevitable further reductions to services–note disappearing judicial services in Californistan.

    We are in for class warfare the world over and the next quarter will make that horrifically evident.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  10. The typical isolation of the enemy, Newt, as deranged, a la that of Angle, O’Donnell, Paul and Bachmann might have succeeded but for the continued sham that is Congress particularly the token opposition of Republicans.

    Boehner and McConnell are rubber stamping sabotage of the economy with the SS tax reduction and unemployment extension and labelling Urkel’s “cave” on the Keystone as a victory.

    The will get nothing and never intended anything of the sort. ESAD GOP.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  11. Actually the Court packing plan, ‘worked’ in the sense of securing the recalcitrant members approval
    of the New Deal program, in the short run, it helped
    energize the Southern Democrat and GOP opposition,

    narciso (87e966)

  12. Now as it turns out, Newt has his own set of novels on the period, and ‘unexpectedly’ he can’t win with
    the reviewer, no matter what he does;

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/how-newts-new-novel-plays-politics-with-the-past/249471/

    narciso (87e966)

  13. Forgive me for not checking the details myself. But what does Newt plan to do with the 9th Circuit judges after he abolishes the 9th Circuit? (That is, assuming he really does not intend to arrest them.) They do have life tenure.

    NCC (4d35e7)

  14. Now I don’t thing Newt is right on this one but Charles can go take it up the pooper.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  15. They do have life tenure.

    — They could serve out their life tenure at Leavenworth.

    Sounds like a fair return for some of their Constitution-shredding decisions.

    Icy (94b22d)

  16. Forgive me for not checking the details myself. But what does Newt plan to do with the 9th Circuit judges after he abolishes the 9th Circuit? (That is, assuming he really does not intend to arrest them.) They do have life tenure.

    Comment by NCC — 12/18/2011 @ 10:40 am

    Abolishing the 9th circuit is a very clever, perhaps too clever by half idea. If I read Newt correctly by abolishing the 9th he instantly relegates those judges to nowhere and then by cleverly reconstituting the court yet again by another name a republican senate confirms rational judges. A stunt like that if it works would make all of the current 9th circuit judges senior judges, they will receive pay and benefits but will hear no cases since they won’t be sitting on a circuit.

    cubanbob (ad2274)

  17. Not so zany on Newt’s part is rousing the base towards him and with it campaign funds but also laying down a marker for the courts should he win. FDR’s court packing didn’t go through but FDR’s efforts did bend the court to his way of thinking. Newt is a historian and perhaps this lesson wasn’t lost on him.

    cubanbob (ad2274)

  18. don’t it all depend
    typical isolation
    on whose ox is gored

    Colonel Haiku (caa4c2)

  19. Bemidji Midget
    keeps getting tossed to and fro
    will he win the prize?

    Colonel Haiku (caa4c2)

  20. ____________________________________________

    so high that even conservatives say he is going too far.

    A d’oh! moment for Gingrich that, unlike some of the key faux pax of Romney, Perry and Cain, has a right-leaning slant to it. But then his comment sounds so flippantly conservative, it comes off no better than the mush of Romney, the “you have no heart” of Perry or the Clintonian skeletons-in-the-closet of Cain.

    By itself, I’d shrug it off. But Gingrich in general has lots of excess baggage to contend with. I’d still vote for him over President “Goddamn America,” but I have a suspicion a good portion of the electorate wouldn’t.

    Mark (411533)

  21. Congress to Judge – You decided that case wrongly

    Judge – No I didn’t

    Congress – We’re sending some Marshals over to bring you here to explain your decision to us

    Judge – You don’t have oversight power over me

    Congress – That’s not what Czar Gingrich says

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  22. Byron York has a column up that practically all of the IA conservatives are ready to move off their current pick to go with a closer at caucus.

    Rasmussen has the “undecideds” at 60%.

    You know who this helps.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  23. “You know who this helps.”

    gary – I know I’m safe saying you have no clue.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. Now that was just plain mean, daley.

    Colonel Haiku (caa4c2)

  25. 23. “I know I’m safe saying you have no clue.”

    What are you talking about, you’re the FIB. Go Cubs, go Bears.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  26. Racial profiling is wrong unless it is against white people.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  27. “Now that was just plain mean, daley.”

    Colonel – Sometimes the truth hurts.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  28. So, you’re going to fix the problem of judges exercising unconstitutional powers (legislating from the bench) by having a prsident exercise unconstitutional powers (abolishing courts)?

    Gingrich is an idiot. Always has been.

    “Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

    Congress decides what courts we’re going to have (except for the Supreme Court), not presidents.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  29. I’m not a Newt fan, but I would point out that Obama got elected advocating for “zany”, silly, juvenile and unconstitutional policy positions.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. RACIST…………not

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  31. So it really is Romney, eh?

    Random (38d59c)

  32. I think that Gingrich could win the Republican Caucus with those kinds of words, but I don’t think that ordinary, middle of the road Americans will appreciate those comments.

    Andrew (753c4f)

  33. SPQR is right. I’d much rather see candidates talking about zany and non-zany approaches to things that worry conservatives, as opposed to an agenda focused on all the zany things liberals want.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  34. While I think the court unpacking scheme is ill-advised, the idea of impeachment for egregious overreach by judges (Thelton Henderson and Stephen Reinhardt come to mind) isn’t absurd. Nor is the idea that the judicial branch has assigned itself far more power over the other branches than was ever intended. Further, the Federal court’s micromanagement of states is embarrassing at best.

    Gingrich’s opinion about judicial overruling of Congress isn’t his alone; many in Congress on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. To some degree they have attempted to remedy this through Supreme Court confirmation hearings, but that is a weak tool at best. Targeted (and rare) impeachments of extreme judges may serve better. The “circuit reform” method seems fraught with dangers, tho.

    As for the idea that the President could simply ignore the courts, Gingrich is being misquoted. He said that in extreme cases, where clear executive authority (e.g. the CinC’s war powers) was being micromanaged by courts the President need not heed them as they would be overstepping their authority. He indicated that this would be rare and limited to areas where the separation of powers was clear.

    The press, of course, is conflating a lot of stuff in their reports.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  35. Note one Dept. of the Interior Secretary Salazar re: the authority of the courts. With Holder as Attorney General we have a great doorstop in the Judicial Branch.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  36. Romney-I admit I’am really an alien from a distant planet who came here to suck your brains out through a bendy straw.

    Romneybots-Huzzah!!!

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  37. Gingrich seems to play a bit fast and loose with history in this area. The repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801 (the Midnight Judges Act pushed through by the lame duck Federalists) did indeed remove courts and judges, but that was in response to a blatant court packing by the outgoing Federalists.

    Then Jefferson tried to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase on political grounds:

    Wikipedia says this:

    All the counts involved Chase’s work as a trial judge in lower circuit courts. (In that era, Supreme Court justices had the added duty of serving as individuals on circuit courts, a practice that was ended in the late 19th century.) The heart of the allegations was that political bias had led Chase to treat defendants and their counsel in a blatantly unfair manner. Chase’s defense lawyers called the prosecution a political effort by his Republican enemies. In answer to the articles of impeachment, Chase argued that all of his actions had been motivated by adherence to precedent, judicial duty to restrain advocates from improper statements of law, and considerations of judicial efficiency.

    The Senate voted to acquit Chase of all charges on March 1, 1805. He is the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have been impeached.[4]

    The impeachment raised constitutional questions over the nature of the judiciary and was the end of a series of efforts to define the appropriate extent of judicial independence under the Constitution. It set the limits of the impeachment power, fixed the concept that the judiciary was prohibited from engaging in partisan politics, defined the role of the judge in a criminal jury trial, and clarified judicial independence. The construction was largely attitudinal as it modified political norms without codifying new legal doctrines.[10]

    The acquittal of Chase — by lopsided margins on several counts — set an unofficial precedent that many historians say helped ensure the independence of the judiciary. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book Grand Inquests, some senators declined to convict Chase despite their partisan hostility to him, apparently because they doubted that the mere quality of his judging was grounds for removal. Furthermore, federal judges became much more cautious by avoiding the appearance of political partisanship.[11] All impeachments of federal judges since Chase have been based on allegations of legal or ethical misconduct, not on judicial performance.

    As is says, the result was that it was agreed that impeachment not be used as a political tool, AND that judges would refrain from partisan activity. One might also say that judges who engage in clearly ideological rulings, the Constitution be damned, are eligible for impeachment.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  38. As has been remarked about Newt, his ideas may at times be zany, and impractical, but at least he has ideas.

    Newt Gingrich, AFAICR, has never voted “Present”.

    That being said, thinking that the Congress could summon the spine to rein-in wayward courts such as the 9th Circus is a “Bridge Too Far”, but may just tamp-down some of the more outrageous behavior in those courts, at least at the District level which seem to be innundated with undisciplined legal “thinking” lately.

    AD-RtR/OS! (e5abf1)

  39. ______________________________________________

    I don’t think that ordinary, middle of the road Americans will appreciate those comments.

    And yet they gave a million passes to the “Goddamn America” underpinnings of Obama. Or, as DRJ noted, the zany agenda of the left.

    It’s interesting that while I’m often irritated about the likelihood of the typical voter in the US or throughout the Western world in general tilting left, there’s a peculiar flip-side variation of that occurring throughout the Middle East.

    Oddly enough, but not too surprising, a variety of liberals in the West are less bothered by the following (call it “Obama’s New World Order”) than they are by, say, the specter of traditional Christianity in the United States. Or that larger numbers of folks on the right in the US (if not also Europe, etc) are more irritated by the following than the way many on the left are responding, certainly those on college campuses or in the protected little world of the MSM.

    almasryalyoum.com, December 18, 2011:

    Turnout in the second round of Egypt’s parliamentary election reached 67 percent, according to Abdul Moez Ibrahim, the head of the supreme election committee. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) claim to have received 40 percent of the votes.

    Over 12 million voters cast their ballots on Wednesday and Thursday in nine of the country’s 27 provinces. The total number of eligible voters is almost 19 million.

    Ibrahim said that there were fewer irregularities than in the first round. “The negative aspects declined,” he said, “which means we are making progress.”

    There will be a run-off in most of the constituencies next Wednesday, as few candidates managed to secure a majority of votes. …[U]nofficial counts say that the FJP is leading the polls in most of the nine governorates, while the runner-up is the Salafi Nour Party.

    The FJP list has secured about 40 percent of votes in the second round of Egypt’s staggered parliamentary election, a party source told Reuters on Sunday. The list led by the FJP achieved more votes than it did in the first round, where they got about 37 percent of the votes.

    The poll, held over six weeks, is the first since President Hosni Mubarak was ousted in February.

    Mark (411533)

  40. So it really is Romney, eh?
    Comment by Random — 12/18/2011 @ 12:31 pm

    — What does your gut tell you?

    Icy (94b22d)

  41. These proposals are laughably meek. We’re way past pitchforks and torches time as it is.

    j curtis (ce0d10)

  42. Romney-I admit I’am really an alien from a distant planet who came here to suck your brains out through a bendy straw.

    — It’s a shame you were not able to don your tin-foil hat in time to avoid assimilation.

    Icy (94b22d)

  43. If we are truly a Republic, and if “…such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…” are creatures of The Congress, then that Congress may call those Judges forward for testimony before the relevant committees that are charged with oversight and funding, just as they can call all relevant government functionaries to account.

    It might be helpful in re-establishing the lines of accountability for the Congress to do so.
    Judges should realize that though their appointment and compensation is for a lifetime of “…good Behavior…”, the bench they sit upon can be a transitory thing.

    AD-RtR/OS! (e5abf1)

  44. Judges and justices HAVE to be “eligible” for impeachment; otherwise, the bending of the Constitution to fit a political ideal will continue unabated.

    Icy (94b22d)

  45. I would pay good money for a front row seat to watch Issa grill Stephen Breyer.

    Icy (94b22d)

  46. Obama has earned the Register’s endorsement for the presidency because of his steadfastness in the face of uncertainty, his clear-eyed vision for a more just America and his potential for rallying the country to do great things

    -DM register endorsement of Obama

    same paper that endorsed another democrat today – Mitt Donkey

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081025/OPINION03/810260320/Register-editorial-board-endorses-Obama-President

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  47. Icy: Yes, that would be interesting, but could never happen as members of SCOTUS are of equal status to, and therefore unaccountable to, Members of Congress.
    Stephen Reinhardt, though, is a different matter.

    AD-RtR/OS! (e5abf1)

  48. God! A different idea! Zany? Hmmmm…. At least Newt doesn’t come across as a typical blood sucking politician! I am sure he knew at the end of that statement he didn’t have a hope of getting elected then…but, how often have we screeched at judges after a particularly progressive leftist utterance?
    Conservatives and the Right need to grow a pair of solid gold cajones and the fortitude to make use of them.

    Sue (68bdd6)

  49. and you take Sally
    and Newt will take Sue there ain’t
    no diff ‘tween da two

    Colonel Haiku (caa4c2)

  50. So one thing that seems to have been missed here is that Gingrich did not call for arresting judges whose decisions congress disagreed with. He called for having them summoned to explain their decisions to Congress, and if they choose not to appear, then they could be compelled to appear. IE just like every single other person in the US who would ignore a Congressional subpoena.

    Now you might be able to argue that separation of powers prevents Congress from forcing judges to appear, and I might even buy that argument. But I don’t think it’s ever been established, so the presumption that judges aren’t above the law doesn’t seem like too big of a stretch to me.

    Skip (ca0b06)

  51. 47. Alcee Hastings, impeached by Congress, convicted of bribery and perjury and serving in House since except a few years paying society.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  52. gary, since when was Alcee a member of SCOTUS?

    District Judge Hastings was properly “impeached” by the House, and “convicted and removed from office” by the Senate, for the offenses he was alleged to have participated in, but never convicted for in a court of law (though the person who bribed him was – interesting, isn’t it, that someone can be convicted of bribing a judge, and sent to prison; yet the judge is acquited (or not charged with the crime) of accepting a bribe?).

    Just as the Congress has no power to compel the President to appear before them, and he must ask their permission to address them, so to the Justices of the Supreme Court cannot compel members of Congress to appear in their venue, nor are they allowed to enter the Chambers of Congress without an invitation.

    It’s that old Separation of Powers thingie.

    AD-RtR/OS! (e5abf1)

  53. President Chevrolet is going out on a vacation on our dime. it sickens me.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  54. 52. Sorry, your word “unaccountable”. I didn’t say anything about the compelling of an appearance aspect.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  55. Hey Drew, where is it written that “members of SCOTUS are of equal status to, and therefore unaccountable to, Members of Congress”? Does not the system of checks & balances apply to the co-equal branches of government?

    Icy (94b22d)

  56. No, the only way Congress has to discipline the Supremes (at least what was taught to me by a teacher who reached the age of majority during the FDR years) would be to cut their funding, though they may not touch their compensation.
    Doesn’t mean that they can’t kill the telephone service, shut off the lights and heat, no pay for staff.
    And, this is where Newt is actually on somewhat stable ground, the President can just refuse to enforce the rulings of the Court since the entire Executive Branch answers to, and (theoretically takes direction from) him. This is what Andrew Jackson threatened – sort of like Stalin’s dismissal of the Pope: “How many divisions does he command?”
    It would be a “Constitutional Crisis” that would demand an examination of what is actually going on, which could be helpful as so much of what is wrong in DC is what is legal, not illegal.

    AD-RtR/OS! (e5abf1)

  57. more…
    The co-equal branches of government ARE the checks and balances.

    AD-RtR/OS! (e5abf1)

  58. gary, I would reiterate that the Justices at SCOTUS, are NOT accountable to the Congress per se, but the Judges of the inferior courts are.

    What Congress creates, Congress can discipline or dismiss.

    Just as Presidential appointees of a certain level (usally those requiring Senate confirmation) can only be fired by the President
    (see that great scene at the end in Absent Malice with Wilford Brimley).

    AD-RtR/OS! (e5abf1)

  59. I wouldn’t have taken that particular tack, but Gizzi was plainly out of line,

    narciso (87e966)

  60. Vicious racist EricPWJohnson rumor-mongering

    — FTFY

    Icy (94b22d)

  61. Heh.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  62. Newt’s just pandering to the fundie voters in IA.

    Look forward to everyone rationalizing his behavior during the general though.

    B.Obama (973a68)

  63. What the right can do with Judges the left can and will do, squared (XX). We should be careful opening that door at this point in our history.

    I agree with Newt that Judges in some circuits are out of control but the answer is tho make sure the right doesn’t splinter into clicks based on religion or anti-religion, social, economic, libertarian, and intellectual groups. We need to gather as a block to get candidates that will improve the judge selection in the Senate.

    Roy Beans (1596be)

  64. Everyone is just pandering to the fundie voters in IA.

    Except me. Me I’m eating tasty enchiladas what NG made with hatch chilies. They are soooo crazy good I almost feel sorry for those corn-fed fundies what are enchiladaless tonight.

    Almost.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  65. …Is B.Obama one of our previously banned pests trolls?

    AD-RtR/OS! (e5abf1)

  66. It is a vapid little troll, of that there is no doubt.

    JD (318f81)

  67. Oh well, back to the Charger game.

    AD-RtR/OS! (e5abf1)

  68. What they already have done, re court packing, how
    Obama actually exhibits absolute contempt for the court, in his statement and his selections, because
    they do not with his view of ‘positive rights’ that are only possible through community organization,

    narciso (87e966)

  69. 56, 57, 58. No, for cause a Supreme Court Justice can be impeached, tried and removed by Congress, just as the Executive can. Articles I, II, and III.

    I do find your point about compelling their appearance convincing.

    64. Has a very valid point, we’ve already with the Dimmis exceeded responsible representative government. Still, I don’t see it getting better before it gets much worse, near term.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  70. I never have denied that Congress cannot impeach and remove Justices (it is what the Birch Society called for for years re Earl Warren – and was tried once, 200 years ago),
    it is just that I doubt that it can ever be done, particularly when we see the difficulty of bringing such action against the President,
    even when that President admitted in court to violating his oath of office
    (and for anyone who thinks that lying to a Grand Jury, and obstruction of justice,
    is not a violation of affirming to faithfully execute the law, you and I live on different planets).

    AD-RtR/OS! (e5abf1)

  71. So, you’re going to fix the problem of judges exercising unconstitutional powers (legislating from the bench) by having a prsident exercise unconstitutional powers (abolishing courts)?

    What’s unconstitutional about it?

    Congress decides what courts we’re going to have (except for the Supreme Court), not presidents.

    Of course. Who has suggested otherwise? Certainly not Gingrich.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  72. The repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801 (the Midnight Judges Act pushed through by the lame duck Federalists) did indeed remove courts and judges, but that was in response to a blatant court packing by the outgoing Federalists.

    So? Who cares what it was in response to. Either it was valid or it was not. If it was valid then there’s no reason it couldn’t be done again.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  73. “Of course. Who has suggested otherwise? Certainly not Gingrich.”

    Well, according to the WaPo he did…

    “In a half-hour phone call with reporters Saturday, Gingrich said that, as president, he would abolish whole courts to be rid of judges whose decisions he feels are out of step with the country.”

    Of course, it is the WaPo…

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  74. If a judge honestly believes that the constitution or the law mean what he says they do, then it’s his duty to rule that way, and it would be wrong of Congress to impeach him for it. But if he does not believe that, if he knows very well what the provision in question means but deliberately rules the opposite, then not only is his decision ultra vires, he is guilty of misconduct and ought to be impeached. Sometimes the meaning of a clause is crystal clear, so that it’s impossible for anyone to be honestly mistaken about it. Sometimes an interpretation is just barely plausible, but Congress may decide that his protestations that he really thinks his interpretation is the correct one are not believable, just as any trier of fact may decide on a witness’s credibility.

    Sometimes his own words may be adduced to show that he doesn’t care about the law’s meaning, or doesn’t even believe in the concept that laws have objective meanings that don’t change and aren’t subject to whim. If he has publicly stated or written that the law means whatever the courts want it to mean, then that should be good evidence that he judges that way, and therefore when he blatantly misinterprets a provision it should be presumed that he’s following his own advice and ruling as he wants to.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  75. I’m pretty sure he did not say he would abolish courts, but that he’d propose to Congress that it do so.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  76. “I’m pretty sure he did not say he would abolish courts..”

    You’ll have to take that one up with the WaPo.

    That’s what they’re claiming.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  77. The same WaPo article also claimed: “Gingrich suggested the president could send federal law enforcement authorities to arrest judges who make controversial rulings in order to compel them to justify their decisions before congressional hearings.” and “Gingrich said he would send the U.S. Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to arrest the judges and force them to testify.” And yet if you read the transcript you can clearly see that he said no such thing. WaPo blatantly made it up, either out of malice or (more likely) sheer ignorance and stupidity.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  78. The only thing that really bothers me with this, is that it might not be useful in reducing the power lawyers have in our society, something that has become disproportionate and unhealthy.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  79. 78. Thanks for reading WaPo for us. I registered to comment one time and they filled my account with email spam.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  80. Newt has a point, even if he may have gone a little too far. If each branch is separate but equal and the congress is the most representative of the people, at least on paper, Congress can over-ride the court.
    The President can once again veto and congress can once again override the President. The President can refuse to enforce the law and congress can impeach the President.

    Edward cropper (367a8c)

  81. “I’m pretty sure he did not say *he* would abolish courts, but that he’d propose to Congress that it do so.”

    That’s my sense of it too. When a president or candidate says he’s going to do something (outside of executive orders), he means propose it, get Congress to pass it, THEN sign it — much the way they’re called the “Bush tax cuts.”

    NJMark (7206b2)

  82. Who roots for the San Diego Chargers?

    AD do.

    Colonel Haiku (caa4c2)

  83. Meanwhile back at the ranch;

    http://bigjournalism.com/author/mchastain

    narciso (87e966)

  84. AD do….I lived there for ten years, but still have a strong connection to the Rams (St.Louis Lambs);
    and being a past resident explains my support of that hopeless West-Coast version of Casey Stengel’s Mets, The Padres (Can’t anyone here play this game?).

    But as to the question of “Did he, or Didn’t he?”, I would just remind the wretched-scribes of the WaPo that:
    “The President proposes, the Congress disposes (and the Justices muddle)!”

    AD-RtR/OS! (dadeb3)

  85. Milhouse

    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.

    Hard to parse that one.

    B.Obama (e0fdd2)

  86. AD… that “AD do” phrase… Folks who lived in SoCal years ago may remember the TV commercials for AD Plumbing, wherein the voiceover would ask questions and the old plumber dude would answer each with “AD do”…

    Colonel Haiku (caa4c2)

  87. AD Do remember!

    AD-RtR/OS! (dadeb3)

  88. The most annoying commercial of all time.

    Kevin M (dc4ce6)

  89. No!
    That would be “You’re killing me, Larry!”

    AD-RtR/OS! (dadeb3)

  90. I note that the Dept. of Education, the FDA and even NOAA have swat teams.

    Proper procedure for subduing a resisting jurist would be to pull the silks over their head and apply a few raps, “Order, order!”

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  91. Steven Hayward over at Power Line has his perspective of Newt and the Courts up, it’s worth a read:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/12/newt-for-scotus.php

    AD-RtR/OS! (dadeb3)

  92. Hard to parse that one.

    Not to anyone literate in English.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  93. Parse away.

    Moot point anyway. Given that Fannie & Freddie’s Historian, appears to be tanking in IA.

    B.Obama (e0fdd2)

  94. The numbers in IA seem to be in a state of high-flux, and will probably continue to do so until the caucus’ are actually conducted.
    Then, we will know.

    AD-RtR/OS! (dadeb3)

  95. Only someone intent on distorting the clear meaning would demand a parsing. “b.obama” is just like its namesake.

    JD (9351a4)

  96. Did you know that because Newt had a credit line at Tiffany’s, it is proof that he will pilfer public funds for use at Tiffany’s if he was ever elected President? Our. The new resident liar said so.

    JD (9351a4)

  97. JD, he probably stepped out-of-sight of his teleprompter.

    AD-RtR/OS! (dadeb3)

  98. “One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge…”–to Gongrich…who agrees

    About what I’d expect out of an idiot like Gingrich. Only one little problem: Congress doesn’t have judicial powers any more than judges have legislative powers. They can’t legally subpoena anyone (even though they do it all the time anyway…just like judges illegally legislate from the bench all the time).

    That’s the kind of “solution” I expect from lefties (like Gingrich, who is a big government boy all the way…especially if he’s going to turn a profit from his involvement with big government)…more abuse of government powers will fix the problem of government abuse of power.

    Yeah, sure it will.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  99. Go eff youself Barack Obama.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  100. The solution is to replace the recalcitrant judges
    on the 9th Circuit like Reinhardt, Walker, et al.

    narciso (87e966)

  101. Soylent Green is just another movie which is lefty feel good pap.

    I mean they have the classic bads in the lefts mind greenhouse gases and too many people.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  102. Anyway Newt is a dumbass.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  103. John Gizzi (White House Correspondent & Political Editor for Human Events) points out the plan resembles that of that of fictional Confederate Pres. Jake Featherston abolishing the Supreme Court in The Victorious Opposition, noting that Harry Turtledove, who wrote Victorious Opposition and created a series about the Confederate States of America existing beside the USA from 1865-1944, is a Newt favorite.

    This sounds to me like some kind of attempt to slander Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich himself refers to Thomas Jefferson in 1802 and the intermediate source might be some sort of article by someone.

    I didn’t know about he books, but judging from the Amazon.com this is not a prominent feature of taht book. The series is about what if the South had won the Civil War, but Harry Turtledove doesn’t say things would have been good. Jake Featherston is a really bad guy. Turtledove, in is alternate history has basically transposed some elements of cause of World War II to the North American continent. Featherston is someone who is consolidating power, making territorial demands, and edging close to murdering a whole group of people (blacks)

    The reviews criticize Turtledove for constantly re-introducing his characters, even in the same book, and even re-explaining tobacco over and over again. He has some real people in important positions where he shouldn’t – he has both Herbert Hoover and Al Smith being president of the United States of America and has cameos for Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan in the 1930s. Huey Long is in there and instead of doing something logical he proceeds along his planned path. One review compared reading these books
    to watching a TV soap opera – the plot has many improbabilities but you keep on reading it to see what happens next. Turtledove even has a big war break out in June 22, 1941, as if, no matter how history went a war would have started on that date.

    About Gingrich’s proposal: If you had a majority to do that you’d have s majority to do a lot less. Nobody is going to abolish the court. What’s been proposed is splitting the 9th circuit. And packing the court which happens every few presidents anyway. That takes care of precedents although not for not too important litigants who might be facing these judges.

    And why would judges need to be subpoenaed to explain their decisions? They all issue opinions anyway.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  104. So, should President Grant have acquiesced, as he did in US v Cruikshank (1875), when the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not allow the federal government to outlaw lynching of blacks, or protect citizens civil rights except in the most narrow of cases? As it stands he did, and Jim Crow followed as the troops left the South and the Democrats took back over.

    Seems like a perfect case for a President to say “Screw that!”

    Kevin M (563f77)

  105. Using Jake Featherstone in an argument is a Godwin violation, since Featherstone is clearly based on Hitler. The Supreme Court thing may or may not be there, but it is more relevant that Featherstone develops a Final Solution for Southern blacks, blaming them for the South’s losses in the WWI-analog of an earlier book. The Hitler/Featherstone analog is pretty hard to miss, and to say that Newt is a Featherstone fan is IDENTICAL to calling him a Hitler follower.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  106. From my 10;31 link Yesterday, I pointed out that Newt’s own civil war novel, espoused exactly the opposite sentiment.

    narciso (87e966)

  107. Congress doesn’t have judicial powers any more than judges have legislative powers. They can’t legally subpoena anyone (even though they do it all the time anyway…just like judges illegally legislate from the bench all the time).

    Say what?! Where the @#$% do you get that? What has the subpoena power got to do with judicial powers? Congress has always had the subpoena power, just as Parliament did before it. Indeed Parliament has the power to try and punish contempt cases itself, rather than refer them to the executive for prosecution before the judiciary; I don’t know when or how Congress lost that power, but surely it was well after 1789.

    […]

    Some research reveals that Congress never lost this power, it just hasn’t lately chosen to exercise it. (see Jurney v MacCracken)

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  108. Narciso isn’t that what Obama says to Reggie Love?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  109. And why would judges need to be subpoenaed to explain their decisions? They all issue opinions anyway.

    They can be made to explain to a skeptical congressional committee, from the witness box rather than the bench, how exactly they reached the far-fetched conclusion that they claim to honestly believe reflects what the constitutional or statutory provision in question means. And they can be examined on that, and confronted with contradictory evidence and have to explain it away. They don’t have to do any of that in their opinions.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  110. B-but it is Messiah Newt who parts the Red Sea with his wisdom a man who will lower ocean levels with his omnipotence.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  111. So, should President Grant have acquiesced, as he did in US v Cruikshank (1875), when the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not allow the federal government to outlaw lynching of blacks, or protect citizens civil rights except in the most narrow of cases?

    Only if, on reflection, he was convinced that this was what the constitution really meant; or at least if he could not be certain that it wasn’t, in which case prudence alone would dictate that he accept the experts’ opinion. But if, after reading and thinking about the constitutional provision, and researching any relevant material that could shed light on its meaning, he concluded that the Court got it wrong, then he had a sworn duty to uphold the constitution rather than the Supreme Court’s diktat.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  112. Let me get this straight NY has enough to pay for enivromentally friendly stuff but not fire fighters?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  113. The more I think about it, the comment by a reporter for Human Events, suggesting that Newt identified with the Hitler character in a novel is but a whisker away from the White House calling their opponents Nazis.

    Human Events owes Gingrich an apology, and the correspondent’s head. There are limits to what can be said in a campaign, and that kind of slander is well and truly over them.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  114. White House magazine

    Kevin M (563f77)

  115. Hard to parse that one.
    Comment by B.Obama — 12/19/2011 @ 8:36 am
    — And what, exactly, is there that needs to be parsed?

    Moot point anyway. Given that Fannie & Freddie’s Historian, appears to be tanking in IA.
    Comment by B.Obama — 12/19/2011 @ 2:03 pm
    — You appear to be ‘tanking’ yourself. Call your designated driver.

    Icy (b15d2e)

  116. A Kennedy accusing others of enriching each other?

    Rich.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  117. A Kennedy accusing others of enriching each other at the expense of others?

    Rich.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  118. http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/12/20/newt-gingrich-really/

    I think this is a huge mistake for Romney.

    Ag80 (866cca)

  119. The first and most glaring problem is that Newt is running for President, not Congress. The President cannot subpoena anyone to testify in front of Congress. Congress has to subpoena people to testify in front of Congress. Second, in the event that a judge defied a Congressional subpoena, who would enforce it? The judicial branch is generally loathe to enforce Congressional subpoenas against executive branch officials – you can guess how they would treat subpoenas issued to judges.
    — Regarding the first point, it does sound like Newt is saying that he would be ‘strongly encouraging’ a presumably GOP-controlled Congress as to what they should do. And maybe they would listen to them . . . and perhaps not.
    Regarding the second point, as it relates to the update:
    [Via Allahpundit, Gingrich adds that Congress has the power to dispatch the Capitol Police or US Marshals to apprehend a federal judge who renders a decision lawmakers broadly oppose.] a few thoughts: 1) It’s good to hear Newt acknowledge that it is the Legislative branch that would have to act; maybe he not-so-secretly wishes to be back there; 2) To the best of my knowledge the Congress, while being “in charge” of the Capitol Police, does NOT have any power to issue arrest warrants; 3) The U.S. Marshals are under the jurisdiction of the DOJ, part of the Executive branch; Congress cannot “dispatch” Marshals to arrest a judge; they could , I guess, request that a DOJ prosecutor seek out an arrest warrant for a judge that ignores a subpoena; as noted above, this prospect most likely would go over like a lead balloon.
    There is an alternative, however: Congress, at the behest of President “Bully” 2 (or “Too” if you prefer) could write it’s own arrest warrant in the form of a law; then the Marshals — who are required to “execute all lawful writs, processes, and orders issued under the authority of the United States” would be compelled into action. And so you would wind up with a scenario wherein an aggressive President somehow cajoles a friendly Congress into dragging judges before them at gunpoint (perhaps Newt favors shackles) to explain what they have already explained in their written opinions. IOW, each individual Congressional arrest warrant would also be a new federal law.

    No, gentle readers. Mr Newt is a progressive, plain and simple. A progressive with SOME genuinely conservative values, but a progressive nonetheless. He does not believe so much in less government control than he believes in ‘the right kind’ of government control.

    One more point about the Capitol Police: How does Newt propose to draw judges to step within the confines of their LIMITED jurisdiction? trail of candy? invite them to tour the Capitol grounds? gift certificates form Tiffany’s?

    Icy (b15d2e)

  120. I guess we’re racists for endorsing Marco Rubo right B.Osama?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  121. Icy, the easiest way for Congress to get a Judge to appear before it, is to include in the Jucidiary Funding Act that paychecks will only be issued out of the Speaker’s Office upon presentation of a photo ID.

    AD-RtR/OS! (dadeb3)

  122. Climate Change AKA Gorebull Warming is a hoax and the polar bears won’t be extinct you WWF freaks.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  123. Let me rephrase that Climate Change is real but it’s insidious conuterpart Gorebull Warming is not.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  124. “Congress has always had the subpoena power”

    Funny I must have missed the part of the Constitution that gives Congress that power.

    Must be one of those special unwritten enumerated powers.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  125. 120. Whoa, Icy, misunderestimated no mo.

    125. Funny personal problems.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  126. To the best of my knowledge the Congress, while being “in charge” of the Capitol Police, does NOT have any power to issue arrest warrants

    Yes, it does. It can also try people for contempt, and punish them.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  127. “Congress has always had the subpoena power”

    Funny I must have missed the part of the Constitution that gives Congress that power.

    Must be one of those special unwritten enumerated powers.

    It’s inherent in the concept of a parliament. The constitution doesn’t enumerate the courts’ power to issue subpoenas either, now does it? Do you imagine that means courts don’t have that power?! Parliament has always had this power, and Congress inherited it, and has been using it without protest since 1789.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  128. Milhouse, is there any record of arrest warrants that were issued by Congress and served by Capitol Police? Is there any record of punishments meted out to those convicted for contempt of Congress?

    Icy (7a23ed)

  129. Milhouse, is there any record of arrest warrants that were issued by Congress and served by Capitol Police? Is there any record of punishments meted out to those convicted for contempt of Congress?

    Sure. See Jurney v MacCracken

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  130. “It’s inherent in the concept of a parliament.”

    There’s no such thing as inherent powers in our federal system, only enumerated powers…and we don’t have a parliament, anyway. So what the British parliament does, or did in the past, is totally irrelevant.

    Government only has powers that we (the governed) delegate to it, like it says in the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of this country. They don’t have any magical unwritten, unenumerated powers.

    Congress doesn’t have the power to issue subpoenas any more than judges have the power to legislate from the bench. That’s what this whole argument is about. Whether the government and its agents (like judges) are bound by written law, or whether they can do whatever is expedient, using their magical, unwritten powers. Apparently, you side with the magical powers side of the argument, so you should have no problem with judges legislating from the bench.

    “The constitution doesn’t enumerate the courts’ power to issue subpoenas either, now does it?”

    Yes, it does. In the fifth and sixth amendments.

    Congress has no enumerated power to compel people to testify. The courts do.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  131. Dave, it comes from the Common Law that we inheirited from our English forebearers, that is recognized as part of Natural Law.
    You will notice that as it is not enumerated, it is not proscribed either, therefore AIUI the Common Law applies.

    AD-RtR/OS! (1e1a0b)

  132. “Dave, it comes from the Common Law…”

    That’s nice. We’re not subject to English laws here. That’s why we don’t have kings and such.

    We have a statutory system, not a common law system. And what the Brits did in the past means dick here in the USA.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  133. Dave, you might want to consult with a Constitutional Lawyer/Law Professor, or read Blackstone.
    Here’s an excerpt from Wiki:
    “…William Searle Holdsworth, one of Blackstone’s successors as Vinerian Professor, argued that “If the Commentaries had not been written when they were written, I think it very doubtful that [the United States], and other English speaking countries would have so universally adopted the common law”.[2] In the United States, copies influenced John Marshall, James Wilson, John Jay, John Adams, James Kent and Abraham Lincoln(empasis added-AD), and the Commentaries are cited in Supreme Court decisions between 10 and 12 times a year…”

    AD-RtR/OS! (1e1a0b)

  134. Unfortunately, Dave, judges have to fill the gaps sometimes.

    Statutes can’t be written to cover every single thing that comes up. So judges try to interpret them by relying on precedence and custom, so that we have a reliable judicial system.

    Of course, they don’t do this very well sometimes. In fact, they take leaps, and then justify them with concepts that are undemocratic in the extreme.

    If judges didn’t do this, calling on common law probably wouldn’t bother you so much. But because they do, naturally we want to reign then in. Judges shouldn’t be creating policy.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  135. “Dave, you might want to consult with a Constitutional Lawyer/Law Professor, or read Blackstone.”

    I don’t need to do that on this issue. We already decided what powers the federal government (and it’s various branches) can exercise, and it doesn’t make a lick of difference what the British parliament did or does.

    What our laws say is all that counts. What the British Parliament, or the Politburo, or whoever, did means nothing here.

    Article I, Section 8 lists the powers of Congress, and issuing subpoenas ain’t one of those powers.

    It’s just like the POTUS deciding to go to war with someone. He (or she, if we ever have a girl president) can’t legally do that. Not an enumerated power of the POTUS.

    “Unfortunately, Dave, judges have to fill the gaps sometimes.”

    No, I don’t want them to have discretionary power, because they always misuse it (even if there aren’t any gaps, and the law is clear)…which is exactly what we’re complaining about here: judges misuing power.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  136. Joe Wilson in regards to Obama insisting they won’t cover Illegals-YOU LIE!!!

    Lefty response to Joe Wilson-You need to pass Obamas stuff even if you don’t like it racist.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  137. No, I don’t want them to have discretionary power, because they always misuse it (even if there aren’t any gaps, and the law is clear)…which is exactly what we’re complaining about here: judges misuing power.

    Comment by Dave Surls — 12/20/2011 @ 2:41 pm

    I understand, and it’s not about what I want. I just don’t know how to arrange a system where judges don’t have to work out what the law meant in the unexpected or extreme cases.

    Indeed, you’ve got plenty of reason to not want to trust many judges with such power. Indeed there are plenty of cases where the law is clear but they interpret that away because they didn’t agree with it.

    But there’s no system that works better than the people trusted with it. That’s the source of our problems.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  138. Dave: Did you even read that Wiki quote I provided, or research Blackstone and his influence on the law in America?
    It doesn’t sound like it.
    When Blackstone’s Commentaries was one of the primary academic sources used by someone such as Abraham Lincoln in his self-education in the law, and is cited regularly over the years by Justices in the opinions (both majority and minority), the English (British) Common Law, and it’s influence upon American Common Law, is not something that can be so cavalierly dismissed.
    But, Hey!, WTF do I, a non-lawyer know.
    I’m just a guy who tries to stay out of jail and under the radar, while engaged in a very dangerous, but lawful, occupation.

    AD-RtR/OS! (1e1a0b)

  139. “Dave: Did you even read that Wiki quote I provided’

    Yeah, but it’s irrelevant.

    Congress doesn’t have any powers except enumerated powers per the supreme law of the land.

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Congress (or any branch of the federal government) has NO inherent powers AT ALL, including the power to issue subpoenas.

    It makes zero difference what they did in England. The Tenth Amendment is the law, Blackstone’s commentaries are not the law.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  140. Well, Dave, if what you say is true, then there must be a lot of Congressional Committee Chairmen, in whose name those subpeenees are issued, must be ensconced in jail cells somewhere for violating the Civil Rights of the recipients.

    They do have that power, and saying Nay will not make it not so.

    You are sounding like so many we disparage on the Left for not their breadth of knowledge, but how much they know that just isn’t so.

    Welcome to OWS!

    AD-RtR/OS! (1e1a0b)

  141. “Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term. After extensive investigation and negotiation by the House Ethics Committee, Gingrich was sanctioned US$300,000 by a 395-28 House vote. It was the first time in history a speaker was disciplined for ethical wrongdoing.[63][64]”

    “Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that “In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee”.”–speaking of Wiki

    I’ll tell you what’s zany. Letting this lowlife exercise any powers, much less the kind of unenumerated powers the WaPo claims he’s saying he wants to employ, if we’re ever dumb enough to let this clown within ten miles of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  142. Keep spewing your ignorance Dave.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  143. “They do have that power”

    Yeah, the “liberal” Democrat federal government had the power to use a bunch of poor black guys as guinea pigs in Nazi-like medical “experiments” too.

    They just didn’t have ENUMERATED powers to do that stuff.

    Same deal with Congress issuing subpoenas, presidents deciding to go to war all by their lonesomes…or judges writing the law on the fly, as if this actually was England under the common law.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  144. The left do not give a crap about pollution they just use that to put factories out of buisness.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  145. Powers…
    Just a layman’s look through the Constitution (Art-I) suggests to me that Congress’ powers rest to a great deal in in Sec-8 “…To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces…” and in the “necessary and proper” clause.

    IOW, the Founders gave to the Congress the ability to draft what supplemental powers that it thought that it, and the rest of the government, needed in order to function – as long as those powers do not encroach on the specified powers reserved to the People and several States, or exceed the enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government.

    If not, then I’m positive that SCOTUS would have long ago told the Congress that they may not do that – which they historically have been willing to do on many issues.

    BTW, where in Art-III are the courts given the power of subpeana?
    There is none, as this is a creation of the Congress under the above cited clauses in Sec-8, IMO.

    AD-RtR/OS! (1e1a0b)

  146. 146- more…
    In fact, this (subpeana) must have been an inherent power of government, or why would they Founders have felt it necessary to rein-in this power of the Courts to compel the appearance of people by subpeana and warrant in Am-IV, and that the subpeana right be extended to defendants in Am-VI?

    AD-RtR/OS! (1e1a0b)

  147. <a href="http://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2011/12/19/393640/&quot; target="_blankBiggovernment hearts Gov Goober

    EricPWJohnson (e83e82)

  148. aaannd I still suck……

    EricPWJohnson (e83e82)

  149. When she isn’t breaking wind, she’s breaking records for sheer stupidity.

    Colonel Haiku (8699c3)

  150. aaannd I still suck……

    Comment by EricPWJohnson

    There’s always tomorrow, Johnson…

    Colonel Haiku (8699c3)

  151. and there’s always Perryman.

    Colonel Haiku (8699c3)

  152. Eric @ 150,

    It’s amazing how often someone will say what I’ve been trying to say for some time, only distilled and direct.

    That’s a great article and it’s what I’ve been trying to convey. There is something broken about our system, and it’s time to get real. Those who have played into this prime time reality show system of choosing leadership have got to go, in my opinion. Many of them probably make a lot of money being unserious pundits, but this country needs a better class of pundits.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  153. Col

    Oh dont worry I’m sure I will screw up tomorrow as well, its been trend…

    Dustin,

    as the book tours and reality show contestants and the auditions for next fox news guy is over and we actually get down to – gee who really has a record – there was only one choice

    Reluctantly, only because he’s from Texas, the media is finally coming around and quit bashing and lying about him.

    EricPWJohnson (e83e82)

  154. Gen Malaise, Yahoo is telling you who they don’t want to run. They are democrats. They are scared to death of a candidate with a tremendous record.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  155. Gen Malaise

    That guy who thinks Santorum is impressivee was carter speech writer and top advisor to big labor.

    gee I wonder why he hates a gov who heads the largest non union state.

    EricPWJohnson (e83e82)

  156. Well it’s harder to be a consistent conservative in a blue state, Shapiro’s snark does get annoying after a while,

    narciso (87e966)

  157. Eric, Gov Goodhair – really?

    You’re avin a larf!

    Bring it on.

    B.Obama (857644)

  158. “b.Obama” – fess up. You are just an online performance artiste, aren’t you?

    JD (318f81)

  159. Well, he performs;
    whether or not it has anything to do with art is another matter

    AD-RtR/OS! (1e1a0b)

  160. Well it’s more like the infinite number of chimps attempting hamlet.

    narciso (87e966)

  161. narcisco,

    Texas turned purple under Perry then red, for almost 100 yrs it was a democrat controlled stste, until Perry knocked out the star of the democrat party Sharp in his first statewide race.

    The state was deep blue in the 90’s

    EricPWJohnson (e83e82)

  162. Well, except for a Governor, and a Senator or two, and …

    AD-RtR/OS! (1e1a0b)

  163. That was because they picked that fool Clayton Williams to challenge Ann Richards, you’re forgetting that W was there for almost two whole
    terms.

    narciso (87e966)

  164. Careful about what you say about my man Claytie…

    AD-RtR/OS! (1e1a0b)

  165. Perry, Gingrich, or the Mormon?

    It doesn’t really matter.

    Whoever wins the nomination will have had to run so far to the right just to get there, they will be in great danger of falling off the edge. One or two gentle nudges and they will be gone.

    B.Obama (857644)

  166. I have yet to see anyone convincingly mention Mormonism in good faith.

    But nice try.

    Oh, and Perry is surging in Iowa. Surging and probably I wrote him off too early. He’ll be battling for some time.

    I don’t mind putting two distinct ideologies against eachother “b.obama”. That’s what democracy should look like.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  167. Keep spewing your ignorance Dave.

    — DohBiden, Gingrichbot?

    Icy (7a23ed)

  168. Mendoucheous performance artiste

    JD (318f81)

  169. I have yet to see anyone convincingly mention Mormonism in good faith.

    — Agreed

    Icy (7a23ed)

  170. aaaaaand I still suck.

    Yes you do.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  171. No.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  172. Well Dustin, I like a fair fight as much as any man. But your side of the aisle doesn’t seem to be even really trying this go around. Pretty poor showing from what I’m seeing.

    B.Obama (857644)

  173. Dustin – apparently “b.obama” has issues with Mormons. Bigot.

    JD (318f81)

  174. Well, “B Obama”, I’m not surprised that people tend to enjoy ragging on how lame the field is.

    Has there ever been a year where we do not? We have to trust so much to one person, and inevitably, no one is ready. No one measures up.

    In 2008, the field was dominated by RINOs and folks with little executive experience.

    In 2012, all the contenders either were governors or senior legislators. They differ mainly on ideology. The ones I don’t like, mainly I don’t like them because they are not conservative in record.

    This is actually a very healthy set of contenders. We can really see what these guys and gal are made of by their accomplishments.

    And all but Ron Paul appear to be a lot better than your namesake in accomplishments and readiness to lead this monstrously huge government.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  175. Dustin – apparently “b.obama” has issues with Mormons. Bigot.

    Comment by JD — 12/20/2011 @ 7:46 pm

    Yep.

    If the first thought one has when summing Romney up is “mormon” damn, that is weird, stupid, and bigoted. Love him or hate him, the man has done a lot of things with his life and he’s kept his faith pretty private and separate from it (no slur intended, Icy).

    Dustin (cb3719)

  176. “In fact, this (subpeana) must have been an inherent power of government”

    No, there is no such thing as an inherent power of the federal government (or any government, for that matter)…only enumerated powers.

    But, we’re just going around in circles.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  177. Well Dustin, I like a fair fight as much as any man. But your side of the aisle doesn’t seem to be even really trying this go around. Pretty poor showing from what I’m seeing.
    Comment by B.Obama — 12/20/2011 @ 7:39 pm

    — If ad homs were snowballs you would be king of the igloo.

    Icy (7a23ed)

  178. Narcisco

    Perry was the Lt gov as well, also the Texas house was purple and the senate fled – left the state.

    Bush did alot too, but Perry has survived and won

    EricPWJohnson (e83e82)

  179. 179. Off hand, I can’t think of another woman in Congress I’d prefer to Michele.

    She must still be having hot flashes tho.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  180. It’s never “intended”, is it.

    But I DO know what you meant. All good.

    Icy (7a23ed)

  181. 182. Frank Davis’ bastard is making a comeback. CNN says so.

    Most trusted name in news.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  182. Narcisco,

    Here is a good article

    EricPWJohnson (e83e82)

  183. I feel your pain Dustin.

    But wait, maybe there’s still time to launch a Tebow candidacy?

    B.Obama (857644)

  184. B. Obama sounds a lot like imdw.

    Chuck Bartowski (69b74e)

  185. 180. “If the first thought one has when summing Romney up is “mormon” damn, that is weird, stupid, and bigoted”

    How about ‘High Princess’, it’s got the oligarchic entitlement, divine despot, delphic demigod thing going.

    I like it.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  186. Hey, with Urkel on Nicorette and getting all that rest why does he seem skinnier than a Dinka tribesman?

    Don’t suppose he’s SIV positive?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  187. Comment by Dave Surls — 12/20/2011 @ 7:52 pm

    Another display of your incomplete education, Dave.

    AD-RtR/OS! (1e1a0b)

  188. food stamps! You can make a tasty cheese platter for the holidays!

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  189. How about ‘High Princess’, it’s got the oligarchic entitlement, divine despot, delphic demigod thing going.

    I like it.

    Comment by gary gulrud — 12/20/2011 @ 8:16 pm

    Not bad.

    I prefer “Romneycare”.

    I mean, who gives a crap what this man’s private views are on religion?

    Unless we’re talking Rev Wright kinda stuff, where he actually does touch on political stuff in a really bizarre way, it is not an issue. Would the MSM make it an issue? Well yeah, but they will do that with any Republican, be he a Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, or Methodist.

    I care about the leadership.

    I feel your pain Dustin.

    But wait, maybe there’s still time to launch a Tebow candidacy?

    Comment by B.Obama — 12/20/2011 @ 8:10 pm

    You’re imdw, right? Might I ask: are you stef? Can you explain WTF you guys actually want? Is this stupid drama your actual ends? Just curious… doubt you even know what you want, actually.

    Anyway, I find several of the GOP field acceptable, and actually like one of them. My preferred two guys didn’t run, but there’s only two I genuinely have a huge problem with. It could be a lot worse.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  190. It could be a lot worse.

    Damn straight, one of them could actually get elected.

    B.Obama (857644)

  191. Comment by narciso — 12/19/2011 @ 7:34 pm

    From my 10;31 link Yesterday, I pointed out that Newt’s own civil war novel, espoused exactly the opposite sentiment.

    Opposite of what?

    Newt Gingrich has 3 Civil Wat novels. They don’t advance past the time of the Civil War. The first two are alternate history, in that they change the outcome of a battle, the last one is more of a historical novel. The last novel ocuses on a group of black Union soldiers.

    The link criticizes Gingrich for basically, making Robert E. Lee look better than he was, in that they have him doing something to try to prevent the execution of captured black Union soldiers (who in southern ideology, were murderous rebel slaves, and if the punishment is anything less than death, there’s no incentive not to rebel as in Haiti. In other words, they can’t very well be punished with lifetime slavery. That’s their condition anyway, so they must execute them, and they didn’t really distinguish whether some of the were free anyway. Robert E Lee didn’t and wouldn’t argue with that just like he didn’t argue with slavery or secession.)

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  192. one of them could actually get elected.

    Comment by B.Obama — 12/20/2011 @ 8:56 pm

    We agree!

    I can feel your trembling all the way out here. Look at these candidates. One of them will become Obama’s legacy.

    hahahahahahaha

    Dustin (cb3719)

  193. 195. Time rag:

    ‘For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was “too close to call.” A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.’

    Believe me, Carter was loved compared to Shinola Spokesmodel.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  194. In New York – Carl Kruger pleaded guilty. There was a blogger who actually stopped blogging fora while some years ago because of threats.

    John Liu is in trouble. And Weiner is probably living inthe same building with Chelsea Clinton.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  195. Gary the racist is back.

    Say hi everyone.

    B.Obama (857644)

  196. My friend R, who is a socialist, he said today over drinks that he thought O! was very reminiscent of Carter and that he wouldn’t vote for him again.

    He said he was… I can’t remember but it was one of those attacks from the left like… he’s indecisive and useless to the socialist cause.

    He said he wouldn’t vote for an R but he was looking for a 3rd party but not Donald Trump cause he’s a clown.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  197. 201. Hi, everyone. Thomas Sowell is backing Newt.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  198. No Dustin, one of them will be become the stark legacy of what allowing the teabaggers to take control of the party has done to the GOP.

    B.Obama (857644)

  199. one of them will be become the stark legacy of what allowing the teabaggers to take control of the party has done to the GOP.

    I can only hope.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  200. I can only hope.

    Same here.

    B.Obama (857644)

  201. Americans Elect, the No Labels crowd, say they’ll be on ballots in all 57.

    No word on their stumblebum yet, but Bloomberg or Trump can’t possibly pass up a strut past them.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  202. happyfeet, I can’t blame your friend for being frustrated.

    Obama tried to present himself as all things to all people, but it’s hard to imagine anyone who doesn’t have a direct feed to the public trough (particularly in DC) who doesn’t realize they got sold a load of crap.

    We should be ever watchful against politicians who appear to be saying just what they think we want to hear, because in those cases, they are just telling us they think we are suckers.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  203. You’re imdw, right? Might I ask: are you stef?
    Comment by Dustin — 12/20/2011 @ 8:40 pm

    stef and imdw were one and the same. Can’t prove B.Obama yet… that’s why he hasn’t been nuked. But I wouldn’t bet against you being right. Same smarmy condescension while always wrong.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  204. Thanks.

    Still wonder what these folks get out of this stuff. I guess I shouldn’t mind if it’s just silly comments about politics. That’s cool with me.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  205. Hi, everyone. Thomas Sowell is backing Newt.
    Comment by gary gulrud — 12/20/2011 @ 9:13 pm

    — No, not “everyone”; just anyone that thinks Sowell announced an official endorsement of Newt today. Fear not, though, for you are not alone.

    Icy (7a23ed)

  206. Nonetheless, I really think Sowell has a point.

    We need to play the hand we’re dealt, and ‘perfect’ is on in our deck.

    I think it’s time to change direction. Not head in the same direction, only doing it more skillfully, but actually change direction. That is how 2012 could be a truly important election.

    Or it could be just another of these same old elections, where I pick the guy who will do less damage, but really is largely OK with the domestic direction we’re headed on.

    Anyway, principles do matter, and primaries are the best time to stand on them as a voter.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  207. ‘perfect’ is on in our deck.

    rather, not in our deck. He said Reagan, too.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  208. Romney is telling us he really bad wants to be president and do president stuff and be president and all the other Republicans suck ass and would ruin America.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  209. Gotta love the fascist left questioning our patriotism?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  210. and I said to Willard well we certainly don’t want to ruin America do we so I for one am voting for you plus you’re so handsome you could be a catalog model

    and Willard just laughed and said you’re probably right happy

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  211. Yes, Sowell in his column spoke well of Newt, but said it was too early to be endorsing anyone.

    AD-RtR/OS! (1e1a0b)

  212. Gotta love how the atheists consider christianity and judaism as a form of brainwashing but they are too afraid to say the same about Islam………..oh no they aren’t afraid they love Islam.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  213. Well Pikachu, he is the Sorcerer’s apprentice, reading Alinsky, of course we know how that turned out, there was quite a ruckus,

    narciso (87e966)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1676 secs.