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.
Anarco/Gene H:
” The job – like that of a doctor or an engineer or a dentist – to be done properly requires years of specialized skills and training. Licensing exists to make sure that practitioners have the training required and have demonstrated competency in that field.”
that is true but dont you think something like JD Powers or UL could be developed to provide tests for professionals? Probably harder than the state sponsered tests which wouldnt be hard to do.
Anarco:
“But the jury trial had already existed in Ireland and probably other places also.”
Take a look at the Athenian Constitution, near the end, the author talks about jury trials and that was around 300 BC or thereabouts.
They had a pretty sophisticated system and even paid the jurors a few bucks for the day. They even had different courts for different levels of offense.
Fascinating. One of the largest issues motivating the American colonists to revolt against the English government were bills of attainder and other infringements on the recognized common law right to a jury trial like taking them away to England for the trial, etc. It is true the constitution thus reduced our protection right from the start by opening the door to non-jury, kangaroo star chambers in civil cases. The anti-federalists objected but were unable to reverse all the various evils in the conjob. They got the bill of rights, a good, though very flawed, effort to mitigate the monstrosity.
Great updates. Newt is getting in deeper when he doubles down on his anti judiciary comments. That Constitution thingee keeps getting in his way.
Mike,
the link you gave me is a Reuters article, not the judge’s order.
Let me be clear, as I have stated before, if the info I have is not correct, (and so far, no one has asserted that Gingrich’s assessment of the judge’s ruling is incorrect, not even Schieffer who conducted the Gingrich interview,) then I stand humbly corrected.
If the judge’s ruling ONLY applies to those who authorized or encouraged, or actually violated his order, then the judge is within his authority to incarcerate ONLY those individuals who violated the order or authorized others to do so.
“Why is it every time I ask this question of you and gene, the answer I get refers to another standard of law or personal attacks? And in your case, you want a repsonse about the discretionary authority of police.”
Bil,
You’re not acting as a Police Officer now, so please don’t think you can order me and/or bully me. The truth is as shown in the numerous comments here that a Judge has a right to have various tools, up to and including arrest to enforce his/her rulings in civil cases. Are you so hung up on your job that you can only understand that it is not just LEO’s with the authority to order arrests? You know damn well what the Judges powers are in enforcement when his rulings are disobeyed, but you’re acting as if it is news to you and that can only be because you will do anything to protect the radical point of view expressed by Newt. Why is that?
“the link you gave me is a Reuters article, not the judge’s order.
Let me be clear, as I have stated before, if the info I have is not correct, (and so far, no one has asserted that Gingrich’s assessment of the judge’s ruling is incorrect, not even Schieffer who conducted the Gingrich interview,) then I stand humbly corrected.”
You are frankly full of it. Nothing will make you correct your view as has been shown in repeated instances here. You have never even bothered to show links at all, at least I did. By the way Reuters, unlike FOXPravda which you are apparently addicted to, is a legitimate news organization. However,
chew on this Bil: http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Judge-sees-teachable-moment-in-prayer-lawsuit-1461555.php
No one was arrested and the valedictorian said her prayers, so really Newt has used a moot point to make a point. His point is that the judiciary should be subservient to the other two branches of government. This seems to be what you also want. In my opinion Newt is trying to put a final nail in the coffin of our lost Constitutional government. Perhaps that is what you want and like A-C, you would feel better working as a private policeman. That there is little difference between that form of policing and an organized crime protection racket, maybe you should reconsider your current lie of work.
This is the deal Bil, I don’t bother myself to discuss issues with people of not only closed minds, but who are deceptive in their arguments. I would have respect for you if you just came out and said you believe all Judges who disagree with you conservatives ought to be removed. That would at least be as honest as Newt. I would have further respect for you if you got to the bottom of this issue and said Christian prayer belongs in public schools, because we both know that is what this is all about. For your own reasons though you seem embarrassed to state it, I think it is because you know better, but you see politics like you see your favorite sports team, you’re a die-hard fan. I take my responsibility as a citizen a little more strongly Bil, and I see the dangers of demagogues like Newt gaining power. Bye.
lol at final nail. Its going to get much, much worse. Authoritarianism is a virus. As the economic problems continue to grow, we will see the police state become much more aggressive. The infrastructure continues to develop. Its going to be monstrous, will eclipse tales of nazi germany and the near annihilation of the American Indians.
lol at constitution, the holy parchment of no relevance, the ever expanding cancer.
Mike Spindell said that his incorrect assertion that a judge can imprison someone who was liable in a civil judgment is but a mere “fine point of law.”
I beg to differ, and so would you, if you were the superintendent of that school in which the judge, like a King, proclaimed that the superintendent would be jailed if anyone of hundreds of students, parents and employees, did anything that the King, (I mean judge) considered in violation of is order.
It is UNconstitutional on the face, to deprive a person’s of his liberty because of the crimes of another.
How in hell can you defend such an abuse of power? How can you defend, CONSTITUTIONALLY, such an action?
I beg you, find me something in the Constitution that permits the gov’t to imprison an American citizen for a crime committed by another. I’m begging you, because my opponents in this debate, which apparently includes you, seem desperate to spin the argument away from that central issue.
In other words, a judge cannot proclaim, like a 7th century third world king, that he will imprison YOU for the crimes committed by another.
Find in the Constitution where that is authorized.
Bill,
It is you doing the spinning by misstating what I wrote and by failing to address, or refute the points I made. This seems to be a pattern with you which is to not refute the holes blown in you argument, but ignore them. You’ve done it with me repeatedly and you did it with Mespo when he nailed you on another point’. You said you would “get” back to him, but never did. All you do is rehash stale talking points and provide unattributd sources. It is a sad commentary on you that your discussion skills are about even with someone like A-C, though I’ll grant you’re less hyperbolic. If you want a discussion than respond to my points with something beyond ignoring those that give lie to your arguments.
Newt out of order
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/2011_1221newt_out_of_order/srvc=news&position=also
Excerpt:
Somewhere Massachusetts’ own John Adams is rolling over in his grave.
Yes, the Founder who is largely responsible for our current three co-equal branches of government would be appalled — as should all genuinely strict constructionists — at Newt Gingrich’s latest rant about bringing “activist” judges to heel by having them subpoenaed by Congress and made to testify about their more controversial decisions.
During last week’s Iowa debate, Gingrich doubled down on his idea that judges he believes have gone beyond the Constitution in their decisions “shouldn’t be on the court.”
He conceded during that debate that his proposal does “alter the balance, because the courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful and, I think, frankly, arrogant in their misreading of the American people.”
The fact that federal courts are supposed to be reading and interpreting the law, not “the American people,” is apparently lost on the former House speaker who is so eager to pander to Iowa voters that he would trash the very Constitution he purports to defend.
Guest columnist: Gingrich’s views on judiciary are unconstitutional, anti-conservative
Dec. 21, 2011
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
MARK KENDE is the James Madison Chair Professor in Constitutional Law at the Drake University Law School.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111222/OPINION01/312220030/-1/NEWS04/Guest-columnist-Gingrich-s-views-judiciary-unconstitutional-anti-conservative
Excerpt:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has made national headlines by attacking “activist judges.” He even advocates that U.S. marshals be empowered to force these judges to testify before Congress.
These arguments may appeal to some Iowa conservatives, especially those who are stinging from the state Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision. Putting aside the fact that his proposal would clearly violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers (no prominent conservative constitutional scholar has even endorsed it), Gingrich’s proposal is contrary to conservative political interests in numerous ways.
Look at “Obamacare.” Conservatives and others filed dozens of lawsuits all over the nation asking courts to strike it down as unconstitutional. They have now succeeded in getting the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
Taking Gingrich seriously, the only way the court could avoid being activist would be to rule in President Obama’s favor. That’s the opposite of what conservatives want.
Moreover, studies of the U.S. Supreme Court indicate that some conservative justices on the court (think of Justices Antonia Scalia and Clarence Thomas) are more activist, because they have supported overturning a greater number of federal laws than liberal members such as Justice Stephen Breyer. Often these conservative justices are activists because they are trying to contain what they believe is an ever expanding federal government.
Sorry.
I don’t take orders from you, Mr. Delusional.
I have an answer, but why bother? You’d just ignore it and make something up, so why don’t you continue to answer for me? The voices inside your head will surely come up with something.
Yes, I knew you would support fascist licenses to speak-work, as I said. And, I know the fascist argument of using force to restrict speech, in order to “protect people” that believe “they are the ones that know the law.” But I can practice law. I can represent others. And, I do not need a license. Those licenses are NOT mandatory. I have done so. 🙂
You still didn’t answer the question I asked, which is whether you support infringing on the licensed attorney’s speech for jury nullification, say in his-her closing arguments. I am say ~60% sure you do. Prove me wrong! 🙂
OS,
Yes, I did. It is but one of his seemingly many mental defects.
Can you talk without misrepresenting someone else’s statements?
“It was you who ignorantly started claiming I was ignorant because the common law jury only started with Henry II”
No, I stated the jury IN ENGLISH COMMON LAW STARTED WITH HENRY II.
The concept of “common law” and “English common law” are not the same thing.
Moron.
Gene, notice this line. “…hateful little authoritarian wannabe dictator”
I had to stifle a laugh. Projection much?
““Licenses” to practice law are a restriction on free speech.”
Actually, no, they are not nor are they a title of nobility. They are restriction on who may offer their services for sale as professional representation and appear before the bar representing the interests of others. You are perfectly free to defend yourself without a law license or even a legal education. It is in fact your Constitutional right. The purpose of law licenses is to protect the public from people (and I use the term loosely) such as yourself who think they know what they are talking about. Just like you can’t say you’re a proctologist and sell your services as a doctor simply because you happen to have your head up your ass. The job – like that of a doctor or an engineer or a dentist – to be done properly requires years of specialized skills and training. Licensing exists to make sure that practitioners have the training required and have demonstrated competency in that field.
Common law does indeed go back to the greeks and probably even further. Its certainly an interesting subject, the history of the common law and it spread across much of the world if not the majority, with some deviations with culture of course. See, that was the point I was making from the beginning if you will recall. It was you who ignorantly started claiming I was ignorant because the common law jury only started with Henry II, I believe you claimed. But the jury trial had already existed in Ireland and probably other places also. Another interesting historical question but of no importance, as none of your diversions were, to the fundamental issue of whether government is either necessary or moral. It is not. Government is legalized crime.
Now, you never stated your position on speech rights regarding jury nullification for licensed attorneys. Thats why I asked. Its obvious you will support licenses for practicing law, being a pure fascist. I expect being a wannabe dictator you would agree attorneys should not be allowed to advocate it but I asked because I don’t know. Its your choice to say or not say where you stand or not. But, you seem more interesting in name-calling and praising your genius than discussing anything. 🙂
“So you oppose any restriction on attorney’s right to speak for jury nullification then? We agree on another subject?”
I didn’t say that either, dipstick.
Can you hear any other voices except for the one inside your head?
So you oppose any restriction on attorney’s right to speak for jury nullification then? We agree on another subject? Let’s go deeper even. “Licenses” to practice law are a restriction on free speech. The right to practice law is a fundamental right, even the US injustice system ruled. They amount to “titles of nobility”, and are pure evil.
In re common law, actually the idea goes back to the Greeks, but that’s irrelevant. Our country’s laws are derived from English common law. End of story.
“So now you agree with speech restrictions against jury nullification.”
Not at all. But since you don’t know the meaning of the words coming out of your mouth, I don’t expect you to understand the words coming out of others mouths.
LMAO!!!