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.
Bron:
Klugman et als are not disputing manifest facts but theory. Theories can be wrong or right or some combination of the two. One is not stupid to advocate a system that is not yet disproven. Bill’s assertion as to the current state of the law in regards to vicarious criminal culpability is factually disproven. Klugman may be either right, wrong, or partially both. In that state of knowledge, it’s not ego that motivates the argument, merely a difference of opinion which reasonable men (and women) may have.
rafflaw:
“Take money away from government, but let corporations spend wildly to buy the elections of their choice.”
you do understand that there are some very large S-corps owned by one or a few individuals. What about those people? That money is direct pass through if it isnt spent.
Individuals have the right to give money to whomever they wish. The problem is government, not private individuals. A shop owner paying protection money to the Mafia is not exercising his free speech rights just as a corporation lobbying congress is paying protection money.
Government has the force, lobbyists are nothing but bag men for government. And all this time I bet you thought they worked for corporations. Lobbyists need big government to exist and the bigger and more intrusive the better, it increases profits for them.
I bet lobbyists give congressmen and senators money to pass more laws that just jam up the works, not of their clients but other potential clients in the hopes that they could increase their client base when those companies have been screwed by some new government regulation. And the senators and congressmen are probably very good at shaking down lobbyists for money.
Make it illegal for politicians to be able take more than $100.00 from any one person, institution, org., pac, corp, union, etc. and get rid of bundling. And include political advertisements specifically geared toward a particular candidate as well.
Dont limit free speech, limit the ability of politicians to accept money. You take the bottle away from the alcoholic you dont shut down the distillery.
raff,
I can’t take credit for that. I borrowed it from Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne.
From “Into the Great Wide Open”:
“Into the great wide open
Under them skies of blue
Out in the great wide open
A rebel without a clue”
Gene,
I like the Rebel without a Clue line. James Dean would be proud!
Bron,
Like most things, you assume wrong.
****************
“Empty personal attacks against anyone who opposes you putting peaceful people in jail.”
Straw man. I, like many others here, are against jail time for non-violent drug offenses.
“Not submitting to theievary does not infringe other people’s rights.”
False equivalence. Taxes are not theft.
“No one has the right to force other people to work for them, to be their slaves.”
Slavery is illegal.
“There is no right to commit violence against other people.”
Kant defines a republic as violence with law and order. Violence should be minimized, but it is necessary to force compliance with the law from those who would choose to ignore the Rule of Law. Laws without enforcement are meaningless. They are suggestions.
“I think you mentioned the TSA. Good job. Another proof this government is totally evil. But, give it more money to wage war and put cameras on us, and kill us ”
Apparently you don’t know what “disbanding” means either.
“You are a totally evil right wing authoritarian fascist monster, who thinks your authoritarian shit doesn’t stink.”
And you’re a smoked out half-wit who thinks he knows what he’s talking about but doesn’t have any idea what most of the words he uses means let alone how to apply them properly and in context.
You go, Rebel Without A Clue, you go.
And of course there is no essential difference between requiring a license to drive, or to speak about law without hiring a government licensed agent or overthrowing this evil government or searching people at the airport. Both infringe the common law right to travel, right to privacy, and right against warrant-less searches. All enforcement of tax law also requires warrantless searches and could justify the creation of the tsa to prevent “unlawful money laundering.” Business is life. All human activity impacts commerce.
Empty personal attacks against anyone who opposes you putting peaceful people in jail. Not submitting to theievary does not infringe other people’s rights. No one has the right to force other people to work for them, to be their slaves. There is no right to commit violence against other people. I think you mentioned the TSA. Good job. Another proof this government is totally evil. But, give it more money to wage war and put cameras on us, and kill us with. You are a totally evil right wing authoritarian fascist monster, who thinks your authoritarian shit doesn’t stink.
Interesting theory Bron. Take money away from government, but let corporations spend wildly to buy the elections of their choice.
“But your rights are always going to balanced against the rights of others.”
What exactly does that mean?
Based on your many posts, I assume it to mean that if someone has 2 loaves of bread and someone else has none the person with 2 loaves of bread is violating the other persons “right” to not be hungry.
“Nonsense. Bribery is a problem that can be reduced to near zero by disallowing political spending of any sort.”
Isnt political spending free speech? What about political advertisements in print and on television and the internet? What about lobbying in newspaper ads? What about making the case for some project your company wants with government on MSNBC or Fox News?
The best way to control lobbying is to take the money away from government so they do not have goodies to hand out in the first place. Government will always grow unless restrained.
Mespo:
“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 something to a moral certainty when it’s shown you don’t know.”
Is that the problem with Krugman and the left concerning economics?
Gene,
I knew real Anarchists back in the 60’s and businesses were never mentioned. This twit is at best a libertarian fascist, if that’s even possible. As far as the Left Wing goes he wouldn’t get it if it bit him in the ass. My guess is he’s 16 and as you say smokes too much pot. Back then I could get high and write Grad School papers. This kid lacks the discipline to even think clearly. I thought at first he was SG, under a new name, but unless SG has gone off his meds, even he makes more sense.
blah blah blah
“As long as guns, government, has power over business, life, then people will bribe, intimidate, extort, and even murder to get special privileges from the state.”
Nonsense. Bribery is a problem that can be reduced to near zero by disallowing political spending of any sort. The power to regulate business comes from the Commerce Clause and is necessary to restrain abusive business practices. Business is not life. The role of the Bill of Rights is a check on the laws ability to restrain your rights. That Bush and Obama both violate the rights of citizens doesn’t mean the system is broken. It means the system is full of corrupted and bad actors. Corrupted and bad actors that can be traced to anti-democratic and monopolistic business interest’s political spending.
“Private property means private ownership. You oppose private ownership. You want ultimate control of all use of property determined by the state.”
There you go again, speaking for me. You’re quite the jackass about doing that. I do not oppose private property. I’m all for it, however, the rights to private property are not absolute. That’s an Objectivist/Libertarian/von Mises myth. Your rights to property end where they interfere with the rights of others. Unlimited rights do not exist in society nor is that the goal of the American system as envisioned by the Founders. MAXIMIZED individual rights was their vision. But your rights are always going to balanced against the rights of others. To think otherwise is simply childish and simplistic.
“You support 99.9%. You are an evil authoritarian wannabe dictator, a very dangerous demagogue.”
Support of the majority, the 99.9%?
Is the support of democracy.
Support of the 1%?
Is the support of authoritarian oligarchy – whether it be plutocracy or fascist dictatorship or some other form of oligarchy.
You’re an annoying half-wit who uses words he doesn’t know the meaning of and can’t do basic math. You claim to be for one thing and then turn around and say you’re for something that is the exact opposite. An anarchist for the equal treatment under the law. A defender of individual rights yet opposed to the rights of 99.9% of society to be free from the tyranny of the strong few over the weak many. You don’t even know what you believe, yet you persist in telling everyone else what they believe, going so far as to speaking for them.
You’re not just an oxymoron, although you are that.
You’re simply a moron.
You should consider quit smoking so much pot and moving out of your parent’s basement.
lol. You are of the far right. You are a far-right fascist. So are the conservatives. I’m all the way to your left- anarchy. Your policy desires do favor the corporations. They always write the regulations you desire for their own benefit. As long as guns, government, has power over business, life, then people will bribe, intimidate, extort, and even murder to get special privileges from the state. Private property means private ownership. You oppose private ownership. You want ultimate control of all use of property determined by the state. You are a PURE right-wing fascist. It doesn’t matter if you may oppose one particular fascist rule. You support 99.9%. You are an evil authoritarian wannabe dictator, a very dangerous demagogue.
“A fee examples of “Nonviolent “crimes” discussed here that need to be abolished and its victims freed from our bloated prison system:
1) Don’t pay taxes”
Nonsense. Prison is reserved for serious and conscious tax evaders. Everyone else gets fines and penalties. Most of the contributors to this blog have a problem with the tax burden being unfair and disproportionately burdening the middle class and poor while the wealthy and corporations exploit loopholes that allow them to pay little or no taxes at all.
“2) Don’t pay for permission to travel your own roads (license, registration, tag- fascist travel restrictions)”
The only fascist travel restrictions in this country are the TSA checkpoints that violate your 4th Amendment rights. If you actually read this blog, you’d see that there is a consistent record of criticizing – even calls for disbanding – the TSA.
“3) Contract to speak for someone in the injustice system without being indoctrinated in how to support government tyranny and licensed, and thus muzzled. Its okay to have them speak for you anywhere else though. lol”
Begs the question of indoctrination and support of tyranny are related to licensing. They aren’t. The neoconservatives that back Newt are indoctrinated in the support of tyranny (in the form of their support for a unitary executive), yet a great many of them are not in the legal profession. I good number of them can’t even read.
“4) Speak for overthrow of this evil system, “sedition””
Encouraging others to overthrow the system is sedition. You are quite free to express your opinion that the system should be overthrown. It’s a fine line.
“5) Smoke pot or put something else in your body some clown doesn’t like”
False. If you’d actually read this blog, you’d know that a great many of the contributors here are against the war on drugs and quite a few favor the legalization of marijuana.
“6) All the enormous gun right infringements that are soooo dangerous that any gun owner can be arrested at any time”
Utter nonsense. Both the owner of this blog and a great number of the contributors are supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
Liberals, by definition, cannot be fascists as fascism – in all its forms – is inherently anti-liberal. Fascism is a syncretic political model that is far right in practice. It plays to the interests of corporations and seeks to create an authoritarian state such as one where there is no checks or balances restraining the executive like courts.
The rest of what you say is gibberish not worthy of addressing.
Besides, Gingrich is simply correct. The president can arrest anyone he wants, even before obama signs the ndaa. That just puts policy on paper. This includes judges. He doesn’t even have to give a reason, though that would be very, very easy. Anyone can be taken. This is always the case with government, to the extent public opinion makes it possible. The bill of rights is totally irrelevant. None of you fascists want to interpret to mean anything. You want total economic control of every individual and want to put the blinders on to the reality that this means total control of every individual.
Amerika has more nonviolent people in prison than the rest of the world by far, maybe combined. Yet, all I see here is calling for more people to be put in prison, to be put in prison more easily, and defense of the power to imprison all those already kidnapped.
A fee examples of “Nonviolent “crimes” discussed here that need to be abolished and its victims freed from our bloated prison system:
1) Don’t pay taxes
2) Don’t pay for permission to travel your own roads (license, registration, tag- fascist travel restrictions)
3) Contract to speak for someone in the injustice system without being indoctrinated in how to support government tyranny and licensed, and thus muzzled. Its okay to have them speak for you anywhere else though. lol
4) Speak for overthrow of this evil system, “sedition”
5) Smoke pot or put something else in your body some clown doesn’t like
6) All the enormous gun right infringements that are soooo dangerous that any gun owner can be arrested at any time
On and on. Liberals used to complain about too many peaceful people being in prison. But, they only want to increase the numbers. They aren’t liberal. They are fascist.
Yes….and unfortunately….the unnamed pretty boy presidential candidate that blasts congress for there retirement package….got to appoint another donor to the court….funny how that works…
AY:
Quite the impartial arbiter of justice you met up with. I’d say that was one aborted judicial investigation that I would have given the “right to life.”
angrymanspeaks, I already said some of these evil authoritarians mean well. Hell, I might say most of them. Who can give percentages. Regardless, this system is evil. Going to a conservative site is no different than a liberal site from my view. They are both right-wing fascists for authoritarian empire, just want slightly different flavors and personal power. The fact is the legal system has been made enormously complex, so complex that no one can possibly agree on what it all means. No one can possibly read all the rules, let alone remember and understand them or let alone find consensus about it. When cops, attorneys and judges make errors and put peaceful people in jail (which is the vast majority of what they do), they claim ignorance is an excuse for their crime in addition to their bade or “authority.” When a peaceful citizen violates some insane law against peaceful actions, they say ignorance is no excuse. Why are their so many laws, so many that no one can possibly obey them all, no one at all? Because the real powers at the top want it that way. There is no profit in law abiding citizens. Better to keep them in constant fear and to have the ability to get anyone at any time for something, as long as you can come up with a couple well constructed sentences to justify it.
Working within this evil system is hopeless. It did slow the police state down and it still is, but its losing regardless. Arguing details about unjust laws is never going to get rid of unjust laws. It reinforces their legitimacy, as does the constitution with every new tyranny being declared “constitutional.”