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.
mespo,
I was pondering the statement above….I have concluded that there are some folks that are incapable of seeing others viewpoints…they only want people that agree with them…and if you don’t agree…then you are the enemy….case in point…I was speaking to a retired judge yesterday….I engaged him in a conversation….he was so full of himself that…while on the bench….he almost came under investigation…won’t say for what…he decided that it was time to retire with full pension and doing contract work on the side…he was so hot that no one wanted to offer him a position…which should tell you something…
I mistakenly engaged him in a conversation about a presidential candidate that is now collecting his the pension….he…defended the unnamed presidential Candidate pension taker…by saying he was entitled to it..all by saying that he has repeatedly told the same that he should not speak on TV but just nod in agreement…and answer yes and no…in appropriate circumstances…He did state that he was not partisan… and that he had no pony in the race….while blaming….Clinton for the troubles that Bush had in office and for being able to take credit for the for the good things that RWR created and the first Bush created…..and that Obama is a disaster…
I suppose his non-biased non-partisanship showed through loud and clear…I did have to stir the stink pot a little…and state that SOS-Clinton is 4th in line of succession…He profusely disagreed…and stated that she was 5th…knowing this was a no brainier… I asked him if the president is still alive is there a need for succession….he admitted that I was correct….and then started blasting SOS-Clinton for thinking she was President while her husband served….At that point….I was most certain of the non-biased position…..and unwillingness to listen to anything that did not fit his party line….
OS:
“mespo, it has always been a curious thing to me that when some people are shown they are wrong, instead of saying, “I learned something today,” they double down on the wrongheaded (Buddha would probably say “stupid”) position.”
***************
I agree. It’s the arrogance of ego. Tough for some to admit they don’t know everything. For Bill, it’s likely that peace officer training that suggests to admit a vulnerability is weakness. Ignorance isn’t a weakness–it’s an opportunity to learn. Stupidity is a weakness, and that’s defined as thinking you know somethingto a moral certainty when it’s shown you don’t know.
Angryman,
As I’ve said before I like your style.
Bill,
I accept your apology, now perhaps there are others whose points you’ve also misconstrued. This. move by Newt is a political, rather than a legal matter. The legal theories expressed are real. Newt new this. was so but is trying to stir up fundamentalist Christian voters by overstating what happened by far. Everyone seems to have understood the facts but you. My father. used to say to me: I may not always. be right, but I’m never wrong. Does that sound familiar?
A-C,
Yes the English were bastards to the Irish, but before being conquered Ireland was far from the Utopia Von Mises lackey made it to be.
Gene,
Angryman and Fuiouswoman? It has a certain ring to it!
raff,
I’m with you. I like Angryman’s nick. It sounds like he’s part of a superhero duo: Angryman and Furiouswoman. He has good posts too.
Mespo,
Don’t confuse the matter with facts!
And what mespo said.
lol
I thought about mentioning Hudson River to Bill, but I figured he hasn’t read or understood any of the other case or black letter law presented to him.
Bill,
“Are you telling us a judge can order you arrested for a rape committed by your employee?”
Common law distinguishes between civil and criminal forms of respondeat superior. In the Schultz case, we are talking only about the civil form of respondeat superior. This does not change the fact that the punishment for civil contempt of court can include arrest and incarceration upon a factual finding by the court that the lawful order has be violated, said violation creating probable cause for the issue of an arrest warrant. In the criminal form of respondeat superior, the master can only be held responsible for the crimes of an agent generally if the crime is the result of omission of a specific duty, the crime is the authorized by master or management and/or the crime presents some material benefit for the master. Unless the master orders an agent to commit rape? No, the master cannot be arrested for that crime. Nor would he be.
I understand the Constitution far better than you do, in every respect. I also understand civil law and criminal law. Respondeat superior applies to any agency relationship, but differently for civil and criminal acts of the agent. Contempt of court is a statutory inherent power of the court in both civil and criminal matters. The penalties for either can include arrest and incarceration.
You can bellow to the contrary all you like. The proof you are wrong has been presented multiple times. You saying I don’t know what I’m talking about is not the same thing as you proving I don’t know what I’m talking about. I – and others – have proven you don’t know what you are talking about.
mespo, it has always been a curious thing to me that when some people are shown they are wrong, instead of saying, “I learned something today,” they double down on the wrongheaded (Buddha would probably say “stupid”) position.
I have seen this particular human foible many times over the years. Even lawyers sometimes get caught up in it. I had a case many years ago where the lawyer wanted desperately for his client to be M’Naughten insane. He kept grasping at straws, and each time I kept showing him where he had a loser of a legal theory. Guess what. He insisted on sending me a subpoena and then tried to coax me into saying something different. His client is still in prison.
Let’s lay Bill’s obstinate position of criminal vicarious liability based on respondeat superior to rest once and for all:
“Derived from agency principles in tort law, it provides that a corporation “may be held criminally liable for the acts of any of its agents [who] (1) commit a crime (2) within the scope of employment (3) with the intent to benefit the corporation.” (Note, p. 1247). This standard is quite broad, permitting organizational liability for the act of any agent, even the lowest level employee.
The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized the respondeat superior standard as appropriate for imposing corporate criminal liability for intentional crimes in New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. United States (1909). New York Central Railroad had been convicted of bribery because an assistant traffic manager gave “rebates” on railroad rates to certain railroad users. As a result of the rebates, the effective shipping rate for some users was less than mandated rates; this violated the Elkins Act, which imposed criminal sanctions. In affirming the conviction of New York Central the Supreme Court applied the respondeat superior standard, holding that since an agent of New York Central committed a crime while carrying out his duties, New York Central was liable. The Court applied this broad standard to New York Central with almost no analysis of whether respondeat superior was an appropriate standard for assessing criminal intent. The Court noted that the principle of respondeat superior was well established in civil tort law, then simply stated that “every reason in public policy” justified “go[ing] only a step farther” and applying respondeat superior to criminal law (p. 495). Other American courts have followed the lead of New York Central, stating: “There is no longer any distinction in essence between the civil and criminal liability of corporation, based upon the element of intent or wrongful purpose” (Egan v. United States, 137 F.2d 369, 379 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 788 (1943)).”
–Corporate Criminal Responsibility – American Standards Of Corporate Criminal Liability – Corporation, Agent, Intent, and Court – JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/744/Corporate-Criminal-Responsibility-American-standards-corporate-criminal-liability.html#ixzz1hKRGOSxzbstinate position aboutcriminalvicarious liability based on respondeat superior to rest:
“There is no longer any distinction in essence between the civil and criminal liability of corporation, based upon the element of intent or wrongful purpose”
so we are now comparing corporate law, (is a corporation even a person?) to criminal law?
I’ll play along if you answer these questions:
1.) If it is determined that an MF Global employee misappropriated the funds of clients in violation of law, will Corzine be charged with the crime as well?
2.) Or better yet, to make this more in line with the judges order in our discussion, will the actual perpetrator go free, while Corzine is charged and imprisoned?
Note, I am not talking about the company— I am talking about the individual man, John Corzine. (You know, the one Obama and Biden considered the smartest economic mind in the world and from whom they took much advice on how to fix our economy? Truth be told, he almost was the Treasury Secretary.)
Will Corzine the person, go to jail if one of the employees is found to have misappropriated customer funds?
“Will Corzine the person, go to jail if one of the employees is found to have misappropriated customer funds?”
ONLY if Corzine knew about it and did not take appropriate action, or if he should have known and failed to inform himself
That should be Angryman!
Angry an,
I don’t care what Bron says. I like your moniker!
Oh, for gawds sake Bill. You can be arrested for violating a court order in a civil case. Don’t believe me, just violate a TRO and see what happens.
Respondeat Superior applies to both civil and criminal cases. In a civil case if the boss allows or encourages an employee or agent to violate a court order, the boss will be held responsible. Depending on the court order, sanctions could range from a chewing out, to a fine, up to sitting in jail for contempt.
Y’know, you are really far out of your depth here. When my plumbing is broken, I call on a plumber because I know little about plumbing and call an expert. I will not argue endlessly with the plumber about how the widget should be installed. That is pretty much what you are doing here. You are trying to argue points of law with some of the best legal minds in the country. Do you have a clue that you are being humored and toyed with just for entertainment value?
Gonna tell Tiger Woods how to pick out a golf club or Joe Gibbs how to call plays from the sidelines? That is the equivalent to what you are doing on this site.
Gene, Mike, and any other Adults
Ok, Round 2…………eh 3…….eh 5..whatever will begin in a moment.
I actually see some things to agree with in this young twit’s words. he however is so belligerant and pugnascious that it is admitedly difficult to hear. More difficult to defend or agree with so I’ll just let you guys get on with the Beatdown and we can discuss a few things later ………….like adults………………….after this wild assed critter has had his ba-ba and is down for the night.
Anarcho-capitalist,
Excellent Gravatar BTW. My daughters and i all love it. very expressive and artistically balanced and subtle as well. very Cool.
try to calm down and stop antagonizing everyone. I know about anger as you might guess. Psychotic break anger.
Anger is a tool. Directed at the correct target it can be a valuable one and anexcellent weapon. Directed at ones allies it will cause doubt and distrust at the very least. Stop worrying about how far to the left you are and how far to the right these guys are and direct your anger at the real enemy.
Or not ; as you choose. Much like my children; I get the sense that when i speak to you; you choose not to hear pr pretend not to understand.
My patience wears thin as well. So; make up your mind. Do you want to make a difference or just run your mouth to no avail?
A rose by any other name is a rosaceae rosoideae rosa.
that sounds pretty good. Although if you say something stupid, you leave yourself upon to some ridicule. Angryman sort of keeps people at arms length, they dont know if you are going to climb the Texas Tower or go postal so they are polite even if they disagree.
Go read some Locke and pour yourself a stiff drink.
Yes, attorneys, politicians banksters, cops and soldiers are the most evil people in society. They have no concern for the morality of their actions. They just follow orders to the best of their interpretation. Meanwhile we have a police state and an increasingly aggressive one and an empire waging a world war of conquest. We have concentration camps. We have torture. We have murder of American citizens for speech without trial or even evidence on the say so of one man with more power than any king or ruler in world history by far. We have infringements on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendment (though I oppose anyone claiming any state or government has any rights. Only individuals have rights. States have none).
In short, they are evil.
Again; I agree with much of what you say and i won’t say you are wrong in a general sense but you must understand that while many perhaps most attourneies are as you say; there is also a goodly sized group who strive to act in accord with their morals; to defend those whose position is unpopular whether they agree or not; to force through the setting of legal precident and the insistant reasoning on and interpretation of the laws to hold off the forces of the Empire. To slow the progress of the Police State in it’s march to control us.
This group of attourneies are our necessary and welcome allies in our fight to secure freedom and stifle the Hydra that is our political leaders and their Corporate masters.
Sorry Man but if you just want to insult attournies; you would be more accurate in your attacks if you chose a nice Conservative blog. They deserve the vitriol.
Now I’m not saying that all of the attournies here are in that group of Patriots I described; but some are for sure and if you do a bit of research you will find i am correct.
So I am not asking you tpo go away but try to appreciate that alot of these attourneies probably agree with more than disagree.
You should come here seeking allies and legal opinion to assist you in furthering your goals.
ANGRYMAN:
you arent very angry.
I’ll try to work on that Bron. It’s hard when your desire to reason interferes with the natural flow of rage. But; “Thoughtfulman” just didn’t sound as purposeful; you know?
In a totaly non-legal but heavily opinionated asside to this discussion; I can see Gene’s point and I have no problem seeing the relevancy of charging the Superintendent except if the Superintendent can produce proof that he/she has provided adequate training in cultural sensitivity and political correctness as well as the legal ramifications of such a crime. if he has complyed with all of the required standards of training and supervision; then i don’t see that he/she should (I say should) be culpable.
I understand that this introduces a new variable to the scenario but…..I’m just saying………..