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.
“Al” wrote……..
Oh, never mind. Thorazine only works if you actually take it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/27/jed-s-rakoff-federal-dist_n_1171227.html
Anarcho-capitalist, I am curious as to what you plan to replace the current system with and how you intend to get people to cooperate with you.
“OS” wrote:
“I’ll bet you won’t be surprised to learn that these days she is a rabid birther.”
Why? This is nonsense. What is the basis for this veiled accusation? People who don’t understand why Obama refuses to show his real birth certificate are not nutty on that account and are distributed across the political spectrum: left-right, east-west, north-south, up-down, whatever you see.
If he doesn’t have a BC available, he should produce the documents that he would have to present to get a delayed BC. Birth affidavits, hospital and medical records (he can get them; others cannot), passports, a long list of possibly acceptable documents.
Even a DNA test might work. There is his half sister Maya who is living. Not as good as mother’s DNA but supportive.
Unfortunately none of his mother’s remains are available as they were cremated and Barack Obama threw them into the Pacific.
I’d never accept any of you authoritarian tyrants as a friend. You are pure evil. You desire power to control the lives of others. Go get a life and maybe you won’t have to spend time advocating theft, slavery, kidnapping, torture, war, empire and mass murder. I no more want to influence you fascist scumbags than I would try to influence hitler. Just be aware. Keep up your tyranny and eventually your government is going to get a rainstorm of lead and you will suffer while I am fully prepared and eager for the collapse of your utopian totalitarian state.
A-C,
Have you ever heard of BuenaVista Mall? You write the same stuff he/she does and maybe you should get to know each other. Google it to find a
comrade in arms.
Flip:
“Well, lets start with what we know. I personally have never met a “judge” who has obeyed the law and facts.”
*****************
If that’s what you know, you really need to meet more judges. Just for clarity’s sake, I’ve never met a judge who “obeyed” facts, either. Judges don’t obey facts; they obey law. With respect to facts, they either find them from the evidence or make rulings of law based on the factual findings of the jury, if one is empaneled. In doing so they apply reason and not raw emotion manifested by categorical statements based on nothing more than supposition, heresay, or conclusions born of ignorance. The latter, my friend, sounds a lot llike you.
A-C:
“What a sick pack of pathetic power-lusting authoritarian scumbags you all are …. I hope you all suffer indefinite detention and murder from this government you support.”
*****************
Where do I sign up for your “How To Win Friends and Influence People” class? You are funny. You really are!
What a sick pack of pathetic power-lusting authoritarian scumbags you all are, arguing about trivia in unjust law books while the US empire runs rampant putting peaceful people in prison and bombing people all over the world with the money they steal from you enthusiastic slaves. I will not submit and the US empire will collapse soon. I hope you all suffer indefinite detention and murder from this government you support.
Bron asks: “….is it the owner of the company or the CEO if a public corporation or the top person in a government org.”
******************************************
That is what many conversations on this and other blogs have been about for the past half dozen years. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk, “The Buck Stops Here.”
Unfortunately, those at the top have not only not been punished, but have gotten off without even being investigated to date. If justice had been done, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and most of the Bush family would be in prison. How high can it go? As high as needed for somebody to have been made an example of. How many Colonels and Generals end up in front of a judge? It is the guys with an “E” on their pay grade, not the brass.
In the private sector, the number sent to prison have been miniscule compared to the number of actual criminals. This is a pattern originally established by the late unlamented J. Edgar Hoover who found more “safe” publicity going after bootleggers and gangsters than bankers.
Bill:
From Cornell Law school:
“A legal doctrine, most commonly used in tort, that holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency.
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
(ruh-spon-dee-at soo-peer-ee-or) Latin for “let the master answer.” A legal doctrine that holds the employer or principal responsible for the acts of its employees or agents committed within the scope of employment.
Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.”
If the person was an agent, apparently paid, the judge could. The question is who pays. Or is it who has responsibility? How far up the chain can you go? Is the direct supervisor responsible or is it the owner of the company or the CEO if a public corporation or the top person in a government org.?
Maybe Gene H or one of the other lawyers could answer those questions?
Gingrich’s comment was off the wall. But judge Bierly’s ruling is dangerous in that the only way for the school superintendent to be sure of staying out of jail is to deny the student a chance to speak
That’s the point Bill, your question. has been answered, your arguments have been shredded. Just becaus you can’t accept it gracefully doesn’t mean we have to keep playing your silly game. You lose, bye.
Bill, if your question has been answered, how come you are hectoring Gene and Mike? They both know the answer, obviously, and you do too. So what is your problem? Other than just to continue to be obnoxious, which you are doing with increasingly great thoroughness.
I have a suggestion. Move on. I know any number of judges who would have fined a lawyer or thrown the lawyer in jail if he or she behaved toward a witness as you are behaving. As the judge would say, “Asked and answered. Move along.”
I won’t speak for Mike, but I won’t answer your question because I already have, Bill. You simply have no grasp on how contempt of court or respondeat superior works (or any other facet of the law, occifer). There’s nothing unconstitutional about what Judge Biery did. Talking to you is like talking to a learning disabled child. I can tell you that the process of burning hydrogen yields hydrogen dioxide, I can prove it to the satisfaction of a competent adult, and your reaction is still to stomp up and down and scream, “It’s Jell-o!” So why bother? Make up your own incompetent answer. That’s what you’re going to do anyway, Bill. You’re a troll. It’s your job.
Otteray Scribe:
Odd coming from you since you are the only one to answer my question…and correctly too.
But Gene and Mike cannot answer correctly without undermining their own positions on the judge’s Unconstitutional threats of arresting an American citizen for a crime committed by another.
Mike and Gene, have you guys noticed that as this thread goes on, Bill is sounding more and more like one of those sovereign citizen types.
And as I said earlier, a perfect example of callithumpian behavior.
SPINDELL then said:
“Bill,
both Gene, OS and I have rhetorically destroyed your arguments,”
Hey MIke, I think Gene can speak for himself, he doesn’t need you does he?
Just because you say you answered, clearly does not mean yo have.
Another did answer my question…and correctly too, but both you and Gene fully understand that your carelessly applied “respondeat superior” is irrelevant when it comes to a judge threatening to arrest an American citizen for crimes committed by another.
How silly your argument is…and a good explanation to avoid the answer. You know you boxed yourself into a corner and you are out on your feet…both you and Gene know what is coming if you answer.
Be careful, I might answer for you! LOL
Corporations are “persons” and natural people are “human resources.”
Your birth certificate is put up as collateral for the national debt. You are therefore mortgaged.
I was once falsely accused and found guilty of running a red light. This was in violation of the Received Common Law, which is acknowledged as law in Tennessee. Magna Charta, the Great Charter of our Liberties, states that “No bailiff is henceforth to put any man on his open law or on oath simply by virtue of his spoken word, without reliable witnesses being produced for the same,” and;
“No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice.”
The former clause means that a “bailiff” (law enforcement officer) cannot be the sole witness against an accused in court. The fake “judge,” an impersonator and usurper, holding a fake court in a secret hidden place, refused to give heed to the law.
In doing that he violated the latter clause, which today we call “due process of law.”
Just criminals running a protection racket that protects us mostly from itself, like La Cosa Nostra.
Beat them in their own courts again on the same shit and they just do it again. A friend has beat the local mafia seven times in their own courts and their protection racket collectors just keep coming back.
Flip,
Well, lets start with what we know. I personally have never met a “judge” who has obeyed the law and facts. It rampant. I hear only that it is rampant from everyone I speak with. Does our Constitution provide a remedy?
It is certainly constitutional to impeach judges for high crimes and misdemeanors. The self protecting powers have ‘swayed’ that toward only high crimes outside of, and not including, acts of criminality (lawbreaking) of the judges on the bench. This sway is not an absolute concept of law. Moreover, the added concept of immunity is made up out of thin air.
The Fed govt is not a legal sovereign except over itself and otherwise strict enumerated powers. Pres. Andrew Jackson ‘got it’ when he said: “The good justice has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” That’s the public record original intent. You give ‘any’ one or group absolute power and they quickly misuse it…duh. everyone, by law, have checks and balances against abuse of the law and rights of others.
Although the investigation can take place without the judge by the record;nevertheless, any judge can be called in for a probable cause hearing for impeachment if it is suspected that he just simply violated the law on the bench. If he can explain it, then fine. If he is concerned, let him plead the 5th. No one is allowed to violate the law in this country as a matter of law. Lots of em are doing it outside the law and by clever fraud.
Flip,
I notice only one off point comment to my answer to the question of the legality of Newt’s campaign promise.
My comment proffers the constitutional cure for judges violating the law exists….that’s the end of discussion is it not?
Notice how no comments are hardly ever on the “answer”…… No fun or propaganda in that I guess.
The off point response comment of course contains personal insults or name calling… typical. It means you’re beat.
The handbook is: ignore; stay off point; insult and call names; yell; and then run away.
The response’s off point portions consist of the following:
1. Word play on the word “obey” facts which is a meaningless point. Yes, judges are to obey the facts. Same thing as saying they are to be bound by the truth….duh. Choose any word you want.
And, a jury rarely sees the facts of a biased judge due to summary judgments. They are not going t take that chance.
Juries (The People) have the final say to apply the law or not, but are made to swear they will not do so or they are tossed out of the pool. They are not going to take that chance either.
2. The response asserts that something is wrong with me if I claim I have yet to see any judge obey the law. It is what it is. I have spent over 20 continuous years in courts. nuff said.
It has gone from bad to worse in these years. Now its gotten very very very bad. Warning warning.
What constitutes a criminal is when the law is violated one time. One time and your a common criminal. There’s no partial credit for doing right every other day.
Between equal parties, I have seen very good rulings.
But, I have yet to see any judge who will allow any non-attorney to prevail on anything of any consequence regardless of how right that party is and regardless of how many laws must be violated and how many facts distorted and ignored. IF, a party does such a good job so as to still stop the biased bulldozier, they just refuse you any due process of law and throw you out of the court. Go ahead.. give it a try.
It appears to be a private club. It appears justice means “just us”.
Moreover, I have yet to see any judge go against the already entrenched law breaking scams of the government (such as tax liabilities upon our rights for which no law exists (chew on our real vote). I could care less therefor, about any other lawful rulings they make when they “feel” like it.
Go ahead, try something for our liberty.
Again, there is a remedy is in the law. I wish it to be implemented.
Impeach for any and even one and the first high crime and misdemeanor (lawbreaking) committed on the bench. And haul em in to plead the 5th.
The 5th is the only right I see that has not been usurped……Lets all guess why?
Bron,
You Right thinking solution has cost this country more than anyone can imagine….Just saying…. Let me ask you this….where in the Constitution is the Right Inherit….Oh yeah…some left thinking judge gave us the nonenumerated rights….damn him….Jackson I think…..
Mike Spindell…How is the Corzine case different? (Third attempt to get spindell to answer a question. Hell it’s been so long maybe he forgot what he said.
I will remind him: In SPINDELL’S response to my question…which neither he nor Gene has yet to answer….(for an obvious reason)
“As for anyone answering your Corzinee question it is not only a different set of facts,” ad then he goes on to identify Corzine as democrat..as if political parties have anything at all to do with respondeat superior.
WILL CORZINE GO TO JAIL IF AN EMPLOYEE(S) MISAPPROPRIATED CLIENT FUNDS?
BY the way Mike SPINDELL,…you argue that the rich don’t pay as much as I said they do—but you forgot that Americans pay more than just federal income taxes.
For example, (THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I HAVE ASED MIKE SPINDELL TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION)
do you know how wealthy you have to be to fall into the 2nd highest income tax rate in CA?
You do live in state with their own income tax correct? You see the state income tax ….That would be in ADDITION to a federal income tax…and an estate tax, and property tax, and county taxes…and investment taxes…and business taxes, and city taxes…damn the list goes on and on…(The list of the taxes SPINDELL doesn’t know the successful pay.)
Lottakatz:
I agree that large corporations, not all but some, abuse the system. I am personally against corporate subsidies. Too big to fail is a myth.
But anyway as far as taxes go, there were many deductions we dont have today. The majority of people typically paid a very small percentage of their income to taxes because of the amount of money they made. With the inflation we have had since the early 1900’s, far more people pay taxes and more than people did back then.
Most countries in Europe also have a 15-25% VAT tax and property taxes. So even if you pay 30% plus of your income you are also paying 20% on most everything you purchase.
Taxation doesnt hurt the rich, it only hurts the middle class and keeps them from getting rich or just plain makes their lives miserable because they are just over broke most of the time. All those union guys you support, welders, machinists, machine operators, those guy make decent money, 50K plus. Skilled machinist probably make 100k plus. And I know if you are a welder working for yourself you can easily make 100k. Our current tax rate hurts those people and also the single shop professionals, the country doctors and veterinarians, and the family practice doctors, the guys who make a little bit more than 100k.
How much is enough? Some of our tax money is wasted, a small amount goes to the legitimate functions of government and the rest goes to social programs and defense. I think both of them combined are around 70% of our budget, 50% social programs and around 20% for defense.
We have medicare, social security, aid for this, aid for that, public transportation, public schooling, public infrastructure, public housing, a large number of people employed by government. What more is there to do?
Lets just confiscate all the money from everyone who is worth more than $250,000 dollars. How much is enough? When will it end?
There isnt enough money in the world to satisfy the demand for cash of people who think government is the solution [left and right].