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.
Bill:
from the little bit that I know, it seems like most of the important cases ultimately end up limiting our freedoms rather than expanding them.
Government has no real interest in limiting itself. Or I should say the people attracted to government service have no vested interest in limiting their powers. Power expansion seems the order of the day for most in government service. I think it is a mindset, they dont really do much of anything so they have idle hands. Pushing paper isnt really a job per se, they dont do anything of any real substance, write a few laws, make some policy, figure out how to control this or that. The majority are just place holders until they retire, pawns of the people who like power and arent afraid to use it.
You could probably let go 50% of the people employed by government and the rest of us would never know.
Bron:
I can’t think of his name right now, but a famous Congressman once said:
“Everyday Congress meets, Americans lose a little bit of their freedom.”
lol at 50%. That would create a massive economic boom as money stops draining from the wallets of the American people to useless tyrants thus freeing them to spend it in a productive fashion. That time of radical reform could actually save this government from economic collapse that is coming, which would be terrible. It must collapse. It is evil. And, if you cut it, it will grow back anyway.
Of course there is. Restore he supremacy of the jury trial. Abolish the supreme scumbags. That would be a decent start,
“The legal system worked in the long run.”
It did but it was a very long run indeed. Lincoln actually overruled the decision with the Emancipation proclamation. Only after a Civil war did the legal system finally amend the great wrong.
All I am suggesting, all Gingrich is suggesting, is that the people should have a faster and more efficient way to correct an obviously un constitutional decision laid down by a court of flawed men.
How many years was “separate but equal” (Jim Crow laws) considered “Constitutional” when it was painfully obvious that it was not? I mean separate but equal was the law of the land for some 90 years plus. There must be a way to rectify horrible court decisions faster than that.
lol at constitutional amendment. They don’t follow any of them they don’t want. LMAO at never happen again. Martial law. Concentration camps. Indefinite detention. Torture. World War. Patriot Act. FISA. This government is pure evil. The fact it did one thing right in the past is totally irrelevant.
Bill, as I wrote earlier, Dred Scott is moot. It was a horrible decision, but not altogether unexpected given the times in which it was made. It has been remedied by Constitutional Amendment so nothing like that ever happens again. The legal system worked in the long run.
OS,
I vote simplistic and angry contrarian.
Otteray Scribe,
I am not arguing what the system is now. I am arguing, as have many now and before, that the judicial system has taken on a life of its own, far exceeding the powers granted to it under the Constitution.
You seem perfectly happy with the status quo, so how do you defend the dred scott decisions and the misery that resulted from it? Is that acceptable to you because that’s they way it has been done. Well Lincoln didn’t think so. Do you disgree with Constitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation and should Lincoln be considered a criminal instead of a national hero?
It will change with economic collapse and revolution.
Gene and Mike, I think what we are dealing with here is 1) someone who is as concrete-minded as anyone I have encountered recently; and 2) another guy who is a nothing more than a simplistic and angry contrarian.
*******************************
You guys really need to work on some abstract reasoning skills. This is getting tiresome. Same tune, over and over again.
Look, fellows. not all laws are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution sets certain boundaries. Everything within those boundaries are not necessarily spelled out, because the Constitution is a very compact document without a lot of detail. That is where the enforceable laws come in. If the Constitution does not prohibit it, and also does not say specifically it is permissible, it is probably permissible. It is up to the Courts to be the final arbiter of that. If a Federal judge rules it permissible, then it is up to the parties affected to appeal to the higher court. If it makes it to the SCOTUS, then that is the final word. If the SCOTUS refuses to grant cert and hear it, then the ruling of the lower court stands and is, in effect, the law.
That is the end of the story, and all the whining and logical gymnastics in the world will not change it.
Spindel and Mespo:
Spindel, now I know the reason you bring up the mespo response…it gets us off the issue for which you have no answer! LOL
Nice try. I will discuss the discretionary authority of police later,
but how about you tell us all —where in the Constitution does anyone, especially a so-called expert on the law such as this federal judge, have the authority to arrest an American citizen without probable cause AND for a crime someone else committed?
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. (which has nothing to do with the issue, does it Mike?)
I mean you should be able to copy and paste the information right here, don’t you think? Instead I get personal attacks…
AND—without an answer. Hmmmm, telling ain’t it?
Exactly. They have millions of books of laws. Haven’t you read them? lol.
“Where does the Constitution authorize anyone, let alone a federal judge, to incarcerate a man for a crime committed by another?”
******************************************
For the umpteenth time:
Respondeat superior
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Respondeat+superior
Also, every law is not spelled out in the Constitution. That is why we have legislative bodies in every state and municipality as well as the Federal government. Not all laws are spelled out in statutes, some are found in case law. If the courts, after testing by trial, determine a law does not violate the Constitution, then it stands. That includes the right of the Court to throw somebody in the the clink for violating a court order.
MIke Spindel replied:
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.
That was Spindels reply to my very simple question:
Where does the Constitution authorize anyone, let alone a federal judge, to incarcerate a man for a crime committed by another?
Seems like it would be easy to find if it were there. The Constitution isn’t long or difficult reading is it?
Anyone see an answer to the question in Spindel’s response?
Of course not.
So I will answer for him then…there is no Constitutional authority of any kind. NONE.
The constitution says it can do anything it fucking wants, anything it thinks is necessary and proper and-or in the general welfare or anything impacting commerce in any way (which imprisoning people most certainly does). The constitution is a totalitarian document. The bill of rights as a stated set of principles backed by public opinion delayed it for a while is all. Public opinion was steadily eroded against liberty to the pathetic display of these alleged civil libertarians for all kinds of tyranny and thus there is nothing to back the bill of rights up with anymore. The American people are contented slaves licking the boot of the thug kicking them.
On Anarchistic Ireland, on page 3: http://mises.org/journals/lf/1971/1971_04.pdf
Mike,
Well, all those famines and plagues in early Christian Ireland were “edenic” of course.
And the Vikings were more fun than a barrel of . . . Vikings.
Then there was the Norman Conquests.
And the Black Death.
And the Tudor Conquests.
And Cromwell.
And more famine.
And the Irish Rebellion.
And the sectarian violence between the Orange Order and the Ancient Order of Hibernians.
And more famine.
Although somewhere about 1759, Guinness was created, so it wasn’t all pain and war and death and starvation and misery.
A-C,
Could you provide some reference for me regarding Ireland’s 7 “edenic” centuries? I don’t remember it that way.
The point should be to make JUST laws, not hard to learn laws. 99.9% of the “laws on the books”, which no one person could ever read and which the government admits they have lost count of, are harmful, inflict violence on innocent people. Its complexity is a symptom of its evil, evidence of harmful unintended consequences (like building massive numbers of huge prisons for nonviolent people) and the ever hopeless quest, religion, that just one more law will make it all work right, just the next one, and the next one. Licensing of speaking law when someone wants you to is of course a fascist infringement of speech as well as the right to work. As long as the representation is voluntary based on signed contract, it has ultimate legitimacy, while the state, claiming authority to commit violence against peaceful people with no signed contract at all or even a pretense at it, has no moral legitimacy. Government is a totally unnecessary evil, which of course can only draw the worst evil people in society to the one place they can legally commit violence against other people and make money for it.
Bron,
“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.”
1) You’re talking about privatizing the government function of licensing and regulating professional services – a situation ripe for abuse. 2) Have you ever seen a bar exam? An MPRE? They’ll make your eyes bleed. The only professional tests that compare to the bar are medical boards and possibly the Foreign Service Exam. If you made them any harder, no one could pass them.
Call me ancap for short, please. 🙂
Absolutely, in an ancap, a free society, there would be all kinds of private reviewing agencies and other similar things that would rate all products and services in society, including security officers (police so to speak), security agencies, professional arbitrators, etc. In fact, we believe this would be a very powerful force for good combined with a truly free press, defined as no licensing, regulating, taxing or any interference whatsoever, would drastically reduce social conflict in addition to the elimination of all the violence done by government, which is of course the lion-share of it across the globe. No country inflicted with a government is nor ever could be a free country. Authoritarianism, having rulers, requires initiating aggression and coercion against peaceful people. And since violence only spreads violence, the violence will continue growing until collapse or its destruction.
“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.”
No, he’s not. His authorization has nothing to do with it. Scope and control of employee does. If they were on the clock and/or acting within the scope of their employment by the district when they violated the TRO, the superintendent – as the master in the agency relationship – could be held liable for their actions as servants in the agency relationship.
R-E-S-P-O-N-D-E-A-T S-U-P-E-R-I-O-R, Bill.
I provided links to .pdf’s of the judge’s ruling here. It applies to “the Medina Valley Independent School District and its officials, agents, servants, and employees, as well as all persons acting in concert with them”.