Former House speaker Newt Gingrich appears to be running against the Constitution as much as against President Obama these days. Gingrich has been promising to round up judges who do not agree with him — statements that have even conservative figures like Michael Mukasey, former attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, denouncing him. Mukasey was the attorney general who blocked prosecutions into torture, but finds Gingrich truly scary. I am currently scheduled to be on Hardball tonight to discuss this latest attack on the judiciary.
On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Gingrich indicated that he would call judges who hand down controversial opinions to appear before Congress to answer for their transgressions and would send federal law enforcement to arrest judges failed to appear.
It is the latest attack on the judicial branch — attacks that led Mukasey to denounce his proposals as “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle.”
Here is one of the exchanges:
SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this and we’ll talk about enforcing it, because one of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, the congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before congress and hold a congressional hearing. Some people say that’s unconstitutional. But I’ll let that go for a minute.
I just want to ask you from a practical standpoint, how would you enforce that? Would you send the capital police down to arrest him?GINGRICH: If you had to.
SCHIEFFER: You would?
GINGRICH: Or you instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshal. Let’s take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical. How could he say he’s going to jail the superintendent over the word “benediction” and “invocation”? Because before you could — because I would then encourage impeachment, but before you move to impeach him you’d like to know why he said it.
Now clearly since the congress has….SCHIEFFER: What if he didn’t come? What if he said no thank you I’m not coming?
GINGRICH: Well, that is what happens in impeachment cases. In an impeachment case, the House studies whether or not — the House brings them in, the House subpoenas them. As a general rule they show up.
It is the very definition of demagogy to dangle out the image of judges being clapped in irons to satisfy citizens angry over decisions by judges. Article III is designed to guarantee independence from people like Gingrich so that judges can rule in favor of the Constitution and, yes, at times take positions disliked by the majority.
Source: Washington Post
FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.
I don’t care if you don’t keep your word. I was just pointing it out.
lol. You sure a hateful little authoritarian wannabe dictator. I changed my mind about posting after reading more intelligent posters than you. I maintain the right to change my mind about anything at any time. So now you agree with speech restrictions against jury nullification. Hilarious. There is very little speech you seem to want to allow. The common law is not restricted to England. It existed in numerous countries including anarchistic Ireland, again for 7 CENTURIES. lol. Not only do you constantly want to talk about how intelligent you are to make you feel better for lacking intelligence I presume, but you like to talk about how everyone else is ignorant to make yourself feel better for being so ignorant!
All authoritarians believe anyone who won’t obey them is stupid. Really, I could probably pick 60 million different wannabe dictators of the street and they would all want the same power you want and usually for the same reasons. Its pretty funny. You are amusing. 🙂
“Mike,
unattributed or not, is the information wrong? If so, please explain. If I submitted a quote that noted the sky is blue, or lava is hot, would you demand attribution before you would believe it?”
“It matters NOT who said it, what matters is the information within”.
Bill, Really?
What you presented was a legal opinion and of course it matters whose opinion it was and in what context she/he was writing it.
“Allow me to counter, in fact, with what seems to me to be a plausible reading of both the Constitution and actual settled precedent. Per Article 3, section 1 of the Constitution”
These words clearly express an opinion as in “seems to me a plausible reading”. So of course you are not presenting a fact as in “the sky is blue”, nut someones opinion. It is therefore vital, since you are exhibiting this as “proof”, that we know it source. I would think that you as a LEO would be the first to understand that.
“Now a civil defendant can violate the order of the civil court judge regarding a civil judgement, but the violation is a crime and he can be arrested for a crime…but not a civil judgment”.
Well at least you admit, tough as it must be for you having wrongly asserted the contrary in defense of Newt, that judges do have the power to hold someone in contempt and imprison them. I would assert that your attempt to hide your initial error is that you would define it as a crime to be in contempt of court. That may be and I’ll let the legal experts here further inform me on this fine point of law, however, you are admitting now in the light of overwhelming evidence that someone can be arrested in a Civil Case per the order of a judge. Truthfully Bill I don’t know you, but taking your LEO credentials at face value, I have to believe you knew it all along but were being dishonest in your presentation to defend your political beliefs and that is a shame.
However, let us get to Judge Biery’s ruling which started this whole issue. The following is an explanatory report on the issues of this case:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/02/us-prayer-graduation-texas-idUSTRE75177D20110602
The issue in this case was whether of not the School Valedictorian could lead the graduation assembly in prayer, which had in the past been called either a “benediction”, or “invocation”. Judge Biery ruled that she could not, but that she ad any other speakers were free to mention their religious beliefs providing it was not done in the context of a mass prayer. Those Christians horrified at the decision felt it was a diminution of their right to pray, however, as has been the case for may years here in the U.S. they had no consideration for those among the audience who weren’t Christian. The Judge in his ruling listed jailing as but one option for violating his restraining order, so it is not quite the dire ruling it is made out to be.
Let’s look at why rulings like this have occurred during the years and why I personally feel so strongly in favor of them. I’m a Jew, brought up in an observant Jewish household. I feel a very strong connection to my ethnicity and to my religion. I’m also in my late 60’s so I went to public school in a time prior to such rulings taking place. My elementary school, for instance contained about 65% Jewish students and perhaps 15% Jewish Teachers and Administrators. Nevertheless, each Christmas and Easter students were forced to take part in Christian activities relating to these holidays including the exchange of presents, arts/crafts and singing religious Christmas Carols such as “Silent Night” and “Oh Little Town of Bethlehem”. This for me as a child presented a big problem since it directly conflicted with my beliefs. The times I refused I was castigated for not “having the Christmas Spirit” and that led to ostracism from my peers. It also no doubt impacted upon the religious beliefs of many of my co-religionist peers, who were less inclined to assert their beliefs.
As an adult I have also, in what I think are inappropriate situations given their non-sectarian locales, had to strongly assert my beliefs. Recently
I attended a Holiday Party for a large Transplant Survivors group. Many of the transplant survivors/spouses are Jewish and that was known by the organizers. Yet there was a benediction by a Minister referring to giving thanks to Jesus for the blessing of our new organs. This was wrong and by my wife and I not bowing our heads and praying, we became objects of attention. As you can tell I’m someone not afraid to
defend my beliefs, but the point is I should’t have had to. This doesn’t mean though that I never have been to celebratory Christmas festivities.
All of my parent’s closest friends were Catholic. We spent many a Christmas Eve with them and even attended masses, but of course didn’t participate. They came to our Passover Seders. The religious beliefs of others were respected and for instance it was understood that we didn’t exchange gifts. I have always loved may Christmas Carols and Gospel music, however, when I sing them it is not coerced by group pressure and in an environment that respects my own beliefs. This the is the context of Judge Biery’s ruling.
The outrage against the ruling comes from those Christians who would assert that the US is a Christian Nation and too bad for those who don’t believe. I believe that the Constitution asserts otherwise. Newt, who is a phony Christian at best, given his moral history, is nevertheless an adept politician. He has used this issue to get votes. However, I will grant that he believes in an Imperial Presidency, only not when it’s a Democrat in office. The truth is and Newt knows this well, is that in the past 40 years Conservatives have packed SCOTUS and the courts with conservative Judges, so that the alarm he sounds is hollow. Its’ only purpose is to rid the court of those liberal justices remaining and as such would pave the way for the destruction of our judicial system.
You sure talk a lot for someone who said:
“Anarcho-capitalist
1, December 21, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Pathetic. Civil libertarians, my ass. Instead of dealing with the ideas, you want surveillance. This site is anonymous on principle. Yet, I still identify myself proudly. This site is not about civil liberties. Boring. Bye.
Anarcho-capitalist
1, December 21, 2011 at 10:04 pm
My last post for freedom here on this tyranny site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AujdyPtw8QI”
Too much pot screws with your short term memory.
Also, under the common law originally (and jury trials originated long before English common law, the English got the idea from the Danes), most cases were heard simply by a Magistrate. The first official uses of a jury trial were set up by Henry II for the purposes of civil disputes involving land. In the U.S., trial by jury – in both civil and criminal cases – is at the option of the charged and a Constitutional right. While calling for a jury nullification might get a lawyer in trouble, that does not preclude arguing a case to the jury in such a way as to make nullification an appealing option for them to take. At this point, the judge cannot overrule a jury finding of innocence if doing so would violate double jeopardy (which it would in most cases). A judge can only overrule a guilty verdict as an evidentiary matter (i.e. there isn’t sufficient evidence to warrant a guilty verdict as a matter of law – evidence has its own set of rules), but a judge cannot overrule a jury verdict simply because it favors the defendant. In fact, a lot of states are starting to see more and more jury nullifications for misdemeanor possession of marijuana charges. Lucky for you.
Again, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
I guess that answered my question. Indirectly.
I haven’t been severely victimized by the injustice system though in the past I paid some of their bills of attainders out because I didn’t know I could simply refuse. So, I guess in that sense you could say its not personal. I believe injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and Amerika has more peaceful people in prison than any country in the world by far. Is that personal? To me, it is.
A-c, do you have a personal grudge against the justice system? I was wondering last evening—-here is the link in case you missed it.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/19/gingrich-i-will-arrest-federal-judges/#comment-305231
Bill, you still are not getting it. As for the CEO of the company, that is a multi-million dollar operation covering two states, with several dozen service centers and an employee count in four figures. The CEO was still hauled to court when an employee ignored subpoenas. The CEO didn’t even know the employee. But he was the one who got a dressing down in front of the open Court and barely escaped spending time in a jail cell until certified copies were produced to the Court’s satisfaction. That is the principle of respondeat superior in action.
Stop clutching at your pearls and go read the actual decision. Also, the Dred Scott decision is moot, so stop wasting yours and our time trying to force fit it into Newt’s nutty theory.
What Gene and rafflaw said.
The problem with arguing about what is legal or not in the injustice system is that they have simply legalized massive amounts of crime, many which were originally forbidden like bills of attainder. Putting people in prison without a jury trial conviction is not lawful, though it may be legal under this evil system. It is abused quite a lot, but even worse is the “judges” are committing people to mental hospitals for indefinite detention and they can do this without even stating a reason and with no superior judicial review. Originally under common law, the jury was supposed to be the highest authority in the court. The judge was there to arbitrate. The bailiff maintained order. Now the judge rides roughshod over the jury, which is basically just a neutered mouthpiece of the state now. Just calling for jury nullification would cause an attorney to lose their bar license. The courts are criminal.
Bill:
“THAT is not only common law, it is case law.”
(…)
“so the only way an American citizen can be legally deprived of his liberty is when an investigation concludes there is substantial evidence a crime was committed and there is substantial evidence that a person or persons committed that CRIME.”
****************
I thought you were a “spirit of the law” kind of guy. We don’t need these rules. We have peace officers applying their own brand of justice in charging decisions. Cheated on by your wife, call moral enforcer Officer Bill and he’ll arrest her. if he’s wrong, well, the DA will tell him so. Kid lets his dog poop on your yard, call spirit channeler Officer Bill, he’ll arrest him because kids shouldn’t do that.
Bottom line Bill, is that you’re factually wrong. Gene is right because he has the expertise to be right–your heartfelt sentiments notwithstanding. That’s the reason your attack on separation of powers won’t go anywhere: You’ll never persuade others unless you know more. Your comments prove you don’t.
By the way there esquire, case law is the common law.
Bill,
What OS said and might I add the ignorance of the law here is yours. Criminal acts may or may not fall under respondeat superior depending upon the nature of the crime – that’s where scope of employment comes into play. If the crime is within the scope of their employ, the employer can be held accountable. This doesn’t happen often, but it does happen. FOR THE 1,000,000th TIME! SCHULTZ IS NOT A CRIMINAL CASE. It’s a civil case. One of the penalties for civil contempt of court is arrest and incarceration. That’s a fact. I even showed to you your jurisdictions specific legal code that says so. Did you bother to read it? Did you just not understand it? Apparently not. So again, the ignorance of the law here is entirely yours.
There is absolutely nothing contradictory about the non-aggression principle. It is you lot who call legalized theft law that are contradicting yourselves. It is you who say we must have rulers to have equality under the law that are contradicting yourself. Rulers cannot be equal under the law. Such an assertion is utterly laughable. How am I equal in power to obama? I cannot legally murder people. I cannot pull them over on the roads for going faster than I like at the point of a gun.
The intensity of the brainwashing you, and I, went through is very powerful obviously. And, if you are still young enough to be in “school”, its very understandable you haven’t broken free from it yet. Initiating violence against peaceful people is wrong. Delegating the violence for someone else to do against peaceful people is still wrong. Honestly, to pull a Gene, I feel a lot of you are simply stupid. After all, look around you. We have martial law in the nation supposedly of “limited government.” Everything going on proves your system evil, proves the idea of “limited government” via a “constitution” is nonsense. Its a complete failure.
Blouise,
Raised my cup already! Peace, as always.
Bill,
“Well apparently in your opinion the loop ends with the judge and his catastrophic decision. So for the sake of making sure the loop ends with the court, you are satisfied with the d. Scott decision proclaiming that slavery was legal in all states despite the state laws that prohibited slavery.”
I offered no opinion in by prior post, just a hypothetical pointing out the obvious that your and Newt’s solution to judicial “mayhem” would rest ultimately in the very organs of government that produce on a regular basis laws that are struck down by courts as unconstitutional.
Your continual harping of Dred Scott v. Sandford ignores the probability that the decision was culturally accepted at the time. Have you considered this? If you have, then you should be staring directly into the fault of your logic as the “other two branches” did not step forward to declare the decision unconstitutional as your and Newt’s vaunted scheme would claim to do.
And this is the power of an independent judiciary: decisions are based on legal precedence and adherence to law. While variations of interpretation vary wildly (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) the process of courts and appealing the decisions of said is paramount to the stability of the collective of humans that claim adherence to a common existence.
Your Newt process would lead to an inability to predict legal decisions which in the long run would lead to no lawful adherence at all within the actions of a population. If lawful decisions can be overturned by popular mandate then there will be no law in the end. You should carefully consider this potential outcome.
GB K wrote: “Bill,
Your perspective is difficult to follow, let alone the logic of your position. What would it be: the legislative and executive branches sign off on a law; then the law is disputed in court whereupon the ruling is that the law is unconstitutional — and then the other two branches argue that the ruling of the court is unconstitutional and by a supermajority can call to the carpet the court’s decision? Where would this loop end?”
Well apparently in your opinion the loop ends with the judge and his catastrophic decision. So for the sake of making sure the loop ends with the court, you are satisfied with the d. Scott decision proclaiming that slavery was legal in all states despite the state laws that prohibited slavery.
How about Plessy v Ferguson in which the court ruled that state laws requiring segregation of the races was CONSTITUTIONAL. So you are satisfied with the loop ending with that decision too?
Well Lincoln, Jefferson, Jackson, FDR and Reagan, and now Obama disagree with you. In fact they held the belief that the judicial was not superior to the the other branches of gov’t and they proved it by defying the supreme Courts rulings each time…and thank God they did!
today, Obama’s administration, even after they were caught lying to the court, are in defiance of a court ruling regarding the ban on oil drilling in the Gulf coast. Obama doesn’t feel the court has authority to tell him what to do.
A president , supported by the press can get away with that, but a president not supported by the press cannot. And certainly lowly citizens like the school superintendent has no recourse to the judges Un constitutional behavior as it stands now.
Gingrich and others throughout American history have openly scoffed at the judicial branch’s opinion that they are more powerful than the other two branches. And apparently the mere suggestion by Gingrich that a more timely system is needed to correct the unconstitutional rulings of judges, to protect the small people without the political clout to simply defy the courts, is insane and Unconstitutional.
Well the aforementioned Presidents and many others Presidents did not agree with such an interpretation.
Bill, I don’t know if Gene is still up and around. You are conflating civil and criminal law and punishments for violations thereof. Of course an employer is not responsible for criminal acts of employees under some (or most) circumstances–like all things in the real world, there are exceptions. If an employee engages in criminal behavior that harms clients of a company, then the company may very well have to pay damages. You may be interested to know that if a company is sued for the criminal actions of an employee, their liability insurance company probably will not defend them or pay the damages.
If a judge issues a direct order in a civil case, the person to whom the order is given is responsible for those over whom he or she has responsibility or control. That is why the deputy sheriff showed up in the executive suite to apprehend our CEO instead of the records librarian when records were not produced in response to repeated subpoenas. End of story.
But the CEO was ultimately responsible for producing the records was he not? The CEO was held ultimately responsible for producing something. Either produce records or come to court and explain why he could not do so. Sounds like he just didn’t sow up.
The superintendent cannot be held responsible for actions of others that the court determines is criminal. The superintendent has no control over what one of hundreds of students and their parents might say or do. NONE!
The judge simply does not have the authority to threaten a man with incarceration if someone else commits a crime. In criminal law, you must have probable cause to show that the defendant committed a crime before you can make a legal arrest. The judge in his arrogance, said in his ruling that the Constitutional standards that apply to everyone else, do not apply to him.
Gene,
Once again you demonstrate an ignorance of the law, particularly the blaring differences between civil law and criminal law.
Respondeat superior refers to the “liability’ of an employer for the damages caused by his employee while the employee is working within the normal scope of his job.
It does not and has never, held that the employer will be criminally responsible for the criminal acts of his employee. The employer can be held liable for damages caused by his employee, but he cannot be arrested for a crime committed by another. THAT is not only common law, it is case law.
Would you please read the difference between civil and criminal law? I think you said you were an expert on the subject but clearly that is not the case. Every time you speak about this subject you equate the two standards and they are not even remotely the same. The burden of proof is vastly less in civil law and in civil law no one can be deprived of their liberty if the court rules in favor of the plaintiff.
Now a civil defendant can violate the order of the civil court judge regarding a civil judgement, but the violation is a crime and he can be arrested for a crime…but not a civil judgment.
so the only way an American citizen can be legally deprived of his liberty is when an investigation concludes there is substantial evidence a crime was committed and there is substantial evidence that a person or persons committed that CRIME.
A judge does not, and should not, think he is above that standard set explicitly in the Constitution. Yet when they do, what recourse do the people,..and especially the victims have?
Bill asks, “Does Congress have the Constitutional responsibility to regulate the judiciary?”
********************************
That goes directly to the heart of why your arguments and questions fail. Short answer is, No.
Congress does not have the power to “regulate” the judiciary. They have no “responsibility” to regulate the judiciary other than to have hearings as to the fitness of judges so the President can appoint them under the “advise and consent” provision of the Constitution.
Congress can impeach for crimes and misdemeanors, but that’s it. Congress has no power “over” the judicial branch. The judicial branch has no power “over” congress. The purpose of the judicial branch is to examine disputes, try them and make rulings as to the legality of the litigant’s arguments. There is an appellate process that goes all the way up to the SCOTUS, which has the final say. If a judge interprets the law and congress does not like it, then the remedy is for congress is to pass a new law correcting the situation if they are not satisfied with the result after all appeals are exhausted.
It is much like the points I made about those who dislike private gun ownership. If they don’t like the Second Amendment, then try to repeal it if you think you can, but you cannot go around it.
Newt is a bloviating windbag who does not know the law, or if he knows it does not care what it says. His sole purpose in making those statements is a demagogic appeal to the lowest common denominator of our uninformed general populace. Your impassioned, but wrong, arguments are proof he succeeded.
Homemade short bread and wassail? Blouise, Tex may have married the perfect woman.
gbk,
Thank you and may your post finals sleep be restful.
**************
Bill,
I’m going to say this once more and real slow . . .
Respondeat superior.
This is a common law nation, based on English common law, and the doctrine of respondeat superior has been in the common law since before there was an America. It is a key part of the law of agency. It is the law.
The superintendent could be jailed for the violation of the court order by any of the people under his control while in the scope of their employment.
Deal with it.