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.
The non-aggression principle can be, has been, and is even currently enforced in many cases without any government involvement. This can be done through a variety of tools, including private aggression-coercion-fraud insurance, a free unregulated, unlicensed untaxed press, private reviewing agencies akin to Angie List or consumer reports, private arbitration and security-defense, etc. The book I linked earlier describes the entire system. None of it is really new though the theory has only been developed largely since the 1970. ALL commodities and services have been private and are currently private somewhere.
Like I kinda of said earlier…How hard can a rock think…
The accumulation and concentration of wealth then an today have the same components, lack of government regulation and (now) low taxes on the wealth class. Unfettered capitalism then and now, capitalism and investment being coming unfettered. How can it be said that the government controls wealth creation (with the implication that it is being suppressed) when the wealth class has amassed more money in the past 30 years than at any time since the Gilded Age?
The last 30 years corresponds to increasingly less regulation and the last 11 to the wealthiest among us (individuals and corporations) having their tax rates (which are higher than the effective rate of taxes paid) lowered to levels not seen since 1916.
In fact, some of the largest corporations pay no taxes, just like 1890 except some of them, like Exxon, are now receiving government (taxpayer) subsidies. Same mechanisms at work, virtually unregulated capitalism and no (or historically low) taxes.
BTW, small business is being played off against big business in that big business is privy to breaks that small business is not but small business is deluded into defending big business by way of protesting constraints that are being said apply to all business. But small business is actually being conned into voting against its own best interest by calling for and defending a system that does not benefit them equally with large business.
That a worm like Gingrich (not to whimsically denigrate worms) wants to intimidate or destroy the judiciary now that the Executive and Legislative have been reduced to corporate appurtenances does not surprise me in the least; 1880 here we come.
We see things very differently.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
lottakatz:
Economic and political freedom is what caused that massive creation of wealth. Today the government controls wealth creation through taxation and regulation. So I would say the original Gilded Age could look to Adam Smith and John Locke and todays Gilded age can look to Marx and proponents of statism.
What do you think it is?
“ONLY if Corzine knew about it and did not take appropriate action, or if he should have known and failed to inform himself”
“Failed to inform himself?” What does that mean?
But you are correct! And the evidence gathered to make a reasonable person believe that Corzine did know and did nothing to stop it would expose him to criminal charges.
That evidence is what we call Probable Cause….Gene
It should be noted that Gene once again, did not respond. Maybe I missed it…so let’s try again…
Tell us Gene —under your ever changing theory of probable cause and definition of respondeat superior, will Corzine go to jail if one or more of the MF Global employees misappropriated customer funds?
OK Bron, for the sake of argument and straightening out the genealogy just color me as dumb as a stump and tell me which philosophy was the metaphorical farther of the Gilded Age? Because from where I’m sitting, have observed over the last 50 years and recall from various books and history class we are in a new Gilded Age, filled with all of the evil, repression and misery of the original. What political or philosophical movement then is our daddy?
anarcho:
you just violated your oath.
anarcho:
how do you get satisfaction if you have been harmed in body or property? I can see no recourse except you hiring a private army and physically forcing the other person to pay restitution.
anarcho:
But the courts are private and there are more than one set of laws.
anarcho:
what will you do then? call the local private police? the other guy has a private police fore as well.
anrcho:
OK but what if they tell you to go screw yourself?
anarcho:
“Anarchy is man’s destiny, the highest level of evolution he can reach- absolute freedom as long as you commit no aggression, coercion or fraud.”
what happens when someone does do one of those things against you?
Gene H:
I honestly dont care if I have not won an argument. I actually think I learn more when I lose. You and others have provided many hours of opportunity for learning something new.
Merry Christmas to you and your family, may 2012 bring you great joy and happiness.
The silly idea of prohibiting corporations from influencing government can never, ever happen. It would never be allowed. Corporations, if they exist, have more money to bribe politicians with. They will not allow the law to prohibit their influence. They have far too much to lose. Regulations and licensing and mandates and all the rest of the fascism is what gives them their power and wealth. They increase the cost of competing in an industry enormously, thus making it impossible for new competitors to enter the industry since they are not as well established. Further the corporations write the regulations to punish their competitors and steal from them. Even if it was made illegal, it would just create black markets for lobbying and increase the violence level of the process enormously, as it does in the drug industry. Also, politicians would never allow it. They get massive campaign donations from it which brings them their power, perks and wealth through corruption, kickbacks, cronyism, insider trading, etc to infinity. Congress = aristocrats, same with the supreme scumbags and the entire political class. Fascism is feudalism-mercantalism-corporatism-Nazism. All the same shit.
Corporations must be abolished to get rid of fascism. They are evil, socialized losses and capitalist profits, no responsibility for the damage they do to people.But as long as government exists, so will corporations. Corporations are granted their monopolies via regulations, licensing taxation and government defense of their limited liability in courts, no matter how much evil it is like bp contaminating people’s property and not paying for all the damages. Governments themselves are corporations and are indeed incorporated, all of them- municipal, county- state and national. They have limited liability, meaning they are not fully responsible for their actions. They are above the law. Both corporations and governments must be abolished. They are obsolete. Their are soon going to be too many people in the world to regulate to death and information technology is spreading the message of liberty. Anarchy is man’s destiny, the highest level of evolution he can reach- absolute freedom as long as you commit no aggression, coercion or fraud.
Gene H:
We each hold on to our life as best we can, my life is no less important nor more important than anyone else’s in the broad scheme of things. But we each value our lives or at least we should.
I am an autodidactic polymath, but that doesn’t mean I know everything. That would mean I was omniscient. I may be many things but omniscient isn’t one of them. Thanks for making my mission in life, to learn something new every day, easier today. My experience with snipes is the phrase “snipe hunt”; a fictional bird. Or as the Urban Dictionary says:
“A North-American prank and rite of passage wherein older adolescents take younger boys into the wilderness for the supposed purpose of “snipe hunting.” Snipes are an imaginary game bird purported to resemble quails or pheasants or what have you (the fictional snipe is not to be confused with the extant North American shorebird of that same name). Snipe hunts take place on moonless nights; the victims are provided burlap bags with which to catch the birds, while the conspirators spot them with flashlights. The conspirators make birdcalls, through rocks in the bushes, and urgently cry out “snipe” to make the victims believe that there are actually birds in the area. The victims don’t want to be the only one who can’t see the imaginary birds, so they claim to have seen them also. Pretty soon the victims have convinced each other they are surrounded by snipes and proceed to run about foolishly in search of the non-existent birds. ‘Dude right there didn’t you see it?’ The conspirators will often agree that they have just seen a snipe in that cactus patch or lake or thorny bush and order then the victims to dive in and catch it with his respective sack. The victims are then often abandoned by their guides, thus completing the joke. The cycle repeats when this year’s dupes become privy to the joke and then take their younger brothers out the following year, in search of the ever-illusive snipe.
‘You’ve never heard of snipe hunting? Dude we should go this weekend.'”
Having never lived in an area with actual snipes, I did not know there was a real one.
See how easy it is to take being wrong and turning it into a learning experience?
None of my criticism of your intelligence are invalidated.
The fact that you have not won an argument here – against anyone, not just me – is still the fact.
That could change if you’d just learn to free your mind from the rigid and dogmatic.
That you free your mind is my Christmas wish for you.
Merry Christmas.
Gene H:
“Well, the evidence for yours is more like evidence for a snipe.”
http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Wilsons_Snipe/lifehistory/ac
And here I thought you were an autodidactic polymath? Maybe you change the poly to di or maybe tri but no more than tri.
In fact trimath is perfect, you tried math and you cant do it so you are a lawyer.
Bron,
I have a healthy ego, but unlike you, I don’t worship mine. More importantly, I don’t allow mine to delude me that I’m special or more important than anyone else. I may not be equally created, but I am created equal. Selfishness is the ultimate expression of ego. And as you so love to point out, I’m an altruist.
Same to you Bron!
Bron,
To be fair, raff is on to something. You have the potential to be very intelligent. You just waste it on binary thought and dogmatic repetition of schools of thought for which you haven’t really applied any critical analysis. And it is precisely your ego that prevents you from being able to perform the requisite critical analysis. Learning stops when your mindset calcifies. Critical analysis requires understanding new data, comparing and/or incorporating it into existing models or destroying old models to replace with new models. You want certainty so badly, to feel right even when evidence says you are wrong, your ego has put your intellect in chains. Free your mind.
rafflaw:
“Your intelligence is immense, but much smaller than your ego.”
I think you are confusing me with Gene H.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and Holidays.
May 2012 be exceptionally kind to you and your family.