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.
“Getting back to the spin of Mike,Gene and company, because they will not answer the questions that directly contradicts there argument. ”
It does no such thing, Bill. Nothing about Corzine’s defense contradicts what was said earlier. We aren’t talking about civil contempt of court and respondeat superior when talking about Corzine. We’re talking about respondeat superior and the civil charge of fraud. Two entirely different creatures.
“The judge cannot threaten the Superintendent that he will put him in jail based on the crimes committed by another UNLESS there is probable cause to believe the superintendent in someway encouraged or authorized the criminal behavior. ”
Still can’t tell the difference between criminal law and civil law, can you BIll? (That was a rhetorical question.) What we are talking about in the Schultz case is contempt of court. Actually, he can and he did. The judge was threatening to put the superintendent in jail for the violating a lawful civil order (contempt of court that would be evidenced by violating the terms of the TRO), not the crimes of others. The civil wrongs of others. It all hinges upon the probable cause to issue an arrest warrant. If there was a finding that a violation of said order occurred, that alone in itself is sufficient probable cause for issuing an arrest warrant. Biery told the superintendent that if the order was violated by “the Medina Valley Independent School District and its officials, agents, servants, and employees, as well as all persons acting in concert with them” that he as superintendent could be jailed for it. This is a factually and legally true statement by Biery. This is rightfully so by the statutory authority defining the inherent power of contempt of court and the doctrine of respondeat superior under that law of agency. He could have held the superintendent and any offending employees until compliance with the order was had. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, it was granted, and if that injunction (the TRO) was violated, he could have fined and jailed all offending parties and their supervisors until the order was complied with. That’s how civil contempt of court works. Judges tell defendants (and plaintiffs) every day what the consequences of violating a legal court order can be. “Don’t pay your child support and I’ll throw you in jail.” “Go near your ex-wife again and I’ll throw you in jail.” “Stay off the property or I’ll throw you in jail.” “Turn over the property to its rightful owner or I’ll put you in jail.” It doesn’t matter what the civil order is as long as it is legal. Judge Biery’s order was legal, the legal reasoning and precedent he based it upon was sound, and the appeals court did not overrule him based on the merits of the case, but rather on rather weak technical grounds and noting that the order had been substantially complied with. Nothing in Biery’s order was adjudicated as violating either the free speech claim made by the defense or the alternative (and doomed to fail as a prime facie admission of seeking to violate of the Separation of Church and State doctrine) free exercise claim. If the defendant’s were threatened by the prospect of going to jail for violating a lawful court order? Too bad.
Corzine is applying his defenses to respondeat superior to attempt to mitigate his civil liability under respondeat superior against a charge of fraud. Different circumstances. Different application of respondeat superior (it applies to the merits of the case at bar, not a separate and distinct charge of civil contempt of court). Different defenses.
Now, realize that the “debate” was over when your question was answered the first time and it doesn’t change the answer: Judge Bierly did nothing unconstitutional and nothing improper. And you still don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Mike, I just had this daydream where Bill is in front of a Federal District Judge who issues a TRO. Then Bill tells the FDJ he cannot have him arrested because Bill says so. Bill looks so cute as he is led out of the courtroom in Chinese-made zip cuffs.
Did you know all those zip cuffs we have been seeing used so freely to stifle speech at the OWS protests were made in China? Irony knows no bounds.
Bill, I am certain that gene and the other lawyers on this blawg who graduated from Tier 1 law schools will deeply appreciate your instruction and professorial guidance on the intricacies of the law. And where did you say you got your law degree?
I am sure that when you need a lawyer, you save a ton of money since you can so aptly represent yourself pro se.
Bill,
Keep on flailing.
OS,
Sadly Bill has learned to debate by listening to FOXNews, so what he believes to be true is really his worship of higher authority.
Getting back to the spin of Mike,Gene and company, because they will not answer the questions that directly contradicts there argument.
Corzine’s defense is that he did not know, nor did he authorize, nor did he in anyway encourage the illegal activity of his employees. Corzine believes that is a defense. His attorneys believe that is a defense. Any attorney SHOULD know that is a valid defense.
To incarcerate the superintendent for a crime committed by another, the judge would need to have a report that articulates enough facts to convince a reasonable person that the Superintendent knew employee(s) were going to violate the law and did nothing, or encouraged an employee to violate the law, or authorized the illegal act.
The judge cannot threaten the Superintendent that he will put him in jail based on the crimes committed by another UNLESS there is probable cause to believe the superintendent in someway encouraged or authorized the criminal behavior.
There Gene, Mike…I answered for you. The below video of Holder squirming is like debating with Gene and Mike…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrcqDwnOxM
Note just how difficult it is to get the AG to answer a question. Note how many times Graham has to rephrase the questions and repeat questions to get Holder to answer. And when Holder finally tries to burp up some response, he says “it depends…which is no answer at all and he knew it…just like Gene and Mike. When your debate opponent is afraid to answer, and does everything but answer, the debate is over.
Bron sez: “Arent you progressive types into diversity? Naw, you just talk that way when what you really want is conformity to your views and values.
**************************************************
I have no idea at all what you are talking about. I think I am reasonably conversant with the English language after a decade and a half of college eduction, but as far as I can tell, that is gibberish.
But why should I be surprised. Bron never disappoints in our search for the bottom of the sea of knowledge.
Flip:
I suspect you lose in court as a pro se litigant because you can’t argue a point logically or with reference to legal precedent. That’s not necessarily your fault. You’re merely ignorant of the law and its practice. Being uneducated in the law, you lash out at the only person in the courtroom who is duty-bound to be fair to both sides WHILE STILL APPLYING the law. You obviously don’t like the law and therefore it is bad. Because you lose you’ve become paranoid and cast a broad net of aspersions against every judge.
In your frustration you make categorical statements which most people know are almost never true. If you want to see a court overrule an entrenched, unconstitutional tax scheme defended by the government, I give you the cite to my 1997 case in Pennsylvania. If you want to see a decision in favor of a pro-se litigant take a look at Leftridge v Connecticut State Trooper, No. 09–2922–CV. ( May 12, 2010 2nd Cir.) where non-lawyer Vernon Leftridge took on a state trooper and a federal judge in a racial discrimination case and won.
Bottom line you ‘ve got too small a sample size and no data save your own flawed experience upon which you base your scurrilous charges. Until you acknowledge your own ignorance ( I didn’t say stupidity by the way) you’re just another frustrated litigant too cheap or too arrogant to hire someone who can give you a real shot to win your case. Remaining cheap, arrogant, and frustrated isn’t ignorance; it’s just dumb.
Bron,
The case against Objectivism has been made in this blog many times over. The point of the original comment, which you obviously missed, is that Libertarian thought such as yours has more to do with 19th Century German philosophy than progressive thought does. This was as much as stipulated when you admitted the commonality between Nietzsche and Rand. That you then go on to point out a distinction between the two does not mean it’s a distinction with a difference. Rand’s work is intimately tied to the idea of the Übermenschen and the Untermenschen – necessary and anti-egalitarian sentiments often used to justify the exploitation and/or repression of others for personal gain. Those “deserving of love” and everyone else. She was as selectively against war as she was against social programs. Even though against the Vietnam War, she was a vocal proponent of the Arab-Israeli War just as she was a vocal opponent of social programs right up to the day she took her Social Security and Medicare benefits. Her fundamental premise, selfishness as a virtue, is just as contradictory as she was personally. The natural outcome of selfishness in practice is egoism and the natural outcome of both is exploitation. Nietzsche at least thought through his beliefs to the point he realized it and addressed the issues directly by embracing them. Even Rand’s espoused economic views – lassez-faire capitalism – is underpinned by the idea of the strong exploiting the weak. Thus your beloved Austrian School of Economics, the anti-scientific economists, and their political beliefs too are rooted in the German thinkers of 19th Century, not the Age of Enlightenment. What I said about Rand is true: the differences between her and Nietzsche are superficial and cosmetic. She was a better salesman than Nietzsche, but he was inherently more honest about the psychological and sociological consequences of his beliefs. At their core, both believed in exploitation of others. Selfishness (even if you try to sugar coat it by calling it “rational self-interest”) puts you in the position to be the Übermensch – the special, the more deserving – thus necessitating an Untermensch of which you are allegedly more deserving, ergo, proper to exploit. The Founders of this country were very much egalitarians as were the French and English writers that inspired them. A trait shared by modern progressives. Your assertion that the progressive movement has its roots in 19th Century German writers is nonsense, but oddly enough, many of your espoused beliefs do. As you’ve been told before, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
OS:
It depends on the meaning of rubbish doesnt it? One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.
You think you are right, fine.
But I think I am right.
Arent you progressive types into diversity? Naw, you just talk that way when what you really want is conformity to your views and values.
OS:
he made a comment about selfishness. Personally I agree with the common meaning, it isnt very attractive and is certainly unethical.
Selfishness and egoism are 2 different things. They both certainly consider self interest to be a value but where egoism or rational self interest diverges from selfishness is that egoism/rational self interest does not desire the sacrifice of others. It postulates that individuals engaged in mutual self interest benefit all. Selfishness requires the sacrifice of others to the self.
Egoism/rational self interest neither desires the sacrifice of the self to others nor the sacrifice of others to self. Both are unethical.
Adam Smith said much the same thing in the Wealth of Nations concerning the mutual benefit of individuals engaged in personal self interest.
I am pretty sure the concept of selfishness is more in the arena of epistemology and ethics/morals and not metaphysics. I think metaphysics would cover the entire spectrum of values of which selfishness is included. For example, a metaphysical question would be: is man altruistic by nature or is he self interested?
Carie, I can let Gene speak for himself, but suffice it to say that I know where he graduated from law school. A school that is hard to get into, and even harder to graduate. Also, not all lawyers and law school graduates litigate and get their names into appellate decisions.
How about yourself?
Carie, the regulars here know who is who. I am not a lawyer but am a forensic scientist. If you put my real name in Google Scholar you will get over 600 hits. A law degree is a Juris Doctor, i.e., an earned doctorate and most lawyers here are from Tier 1 law schools. We know who we are and poor Bron and his kindred spirits are in the same situation as that famous one-legged man who entered the ass kicking contest.
How about yourself?
“When you start arguing with people who have terminal degrees in the subject matter”
Otteray Scribe,
Who has what degree(s)? I haven’t seen anyone posting here provide that kind of accreditation.
As they say -Put up or shut up.
Bron,
I don’t see that Gene has said the he or she is a lawyer. Where did Gene go to law school? Where is Gene licensed to practice law?
I looked around and could not find anything published by Gene Howington.
I think you are mistaken.
Gene is right. What do you want him to “prove” to you Bron? In just a few paragraphs, Gene summed up at least two three semester hour courses in philosophy. Bron, you don’t “prove” prove a metaphysic without doing the analytical heavy lifting. I assume from your response one of several things:
1. You do not have a clue as to how to even begin picking apart a metaphysical premise.
2. You don’t have a clue as to what Gene is talking about.
3. You are not well read enough to know more than what you are told, since you have not gone to the source documents.
4. The words do not mean what you think they mean.
And a half dozen others. None of which is very flattering to you. Just keep one thing in mind. When you start arguing with people who have terminal degrees in the subject matter, it is not going to turn out well for you unless you are willing to entertain the notion that you are not only wrong, but that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you are unwilling to learn, then there is no hope for you. As Eric Hoffer once wrote, “An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head.”
Gene H:
I will assume you are going to back up your assertion? Although I doubt you can make your case.
What is it lawyers do when they dont have a case? Oh yes, bluster and bullshit.
Bron,
The mere premise of selfishness is an assertion of power over others. “She does not believe in power over others and she does not believe that some men must sacrifice for other men, as Nietzsche clearly does.” That is pure nonsense. The primary difference between the two is Nietzsche explicitly recognized his beliefs necessitated the exploitation of others where as Rand is total denial of that fact. She’s Friedrich with a thin gloss of denial to attempt to make her views appear on the surface slightly less monstrous than they are in actuality. Lipstick on a pig.
So I would say that you really don’t have the analytical skills to have an educated opinion on much of anything. Reading, comprehension, synthesis and integration are all separate skills. You can read just fine. It’s the other areas in which you are lacking.
Gene,
Very good!
Gene H:
you pro German?
By the way, you are partially right about Rand and Nietzsche. But she had more differences with him than agreement.
Nietzsche was against altruism and believed in the greatness of man, but that is about all that Rand and Nietzsche held in agreement.
Nietzsche on human greatness:
“the concept of greatness entails being noble, wanting be by oneself, being able to be different, standing alone and having to live independently”
Beyond Good and Evil, pg 212
“believe me, the secret of the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment of existence is: to live dangerously! Build your cities under Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas!”
ibid, page 283
Nietzsche on altruism:
“the coldest of all cold monsters”
“the slow suicide of all is called life”
Thus Spake Zarathustra
So you are correct.
But Nietzsche also says this:
“One cannot fail to see at the bottom of all these noble races the beast of prey, the splendid blond beast, prowling about avidly in search of spoil and victory; this hidden core needs to erupt from time to time, the animal has to get out again and go back to the wilderness”
On the Genealogy of Morals
an aristocracy “accepts with a good conscience the sacrifice of untold human beings, who, for the its sake, must be reduced and lowered to incomplete human beings, to slaves, to instruments”
Beyond Good and Evil, pg 258
“The beginnings of everything great on earth [are] soaked in blood
thoroughly and for a long time”
On the Genealogy of Morals
Rand says the following on Slavery and War:
“The right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others). There is no such thing as “the right to enslave.” A nation can do it, just as a man can become a criminal—but neither can do it by right.”
The Virtue of Selfishness, pg 104
“A rational mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp of reality to anyone’s orders, directives, or controls; it does not sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone’s opinions, threats, wishes, plans, or “welfare.” Such a mind may be hampered by others, it may be silenced, proscribed, imprisoned, or destroyed; it cannot be forced; a gun is not an argument.”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg 17
“Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. (The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.)”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg 224
“Men who are free to produce, have no incentive to loot; they have nothing to gain from war and a great deal to lose. Ideologically, the principle of individual rights does not permit a man to seek his own livelihood at the point of a gun, inside or outside his country. Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy, where wealth is privately owned, the costs of war come out of the income of private citizens—there is no overblown public treasury to hide that fact—and a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses (such as taxes or business dislocations or property destruction) by winning the war. Thus his own economic interests are on the side of peace.”
Ibid, pg 38
Rand is no Nietzsche. She does not believe in power over others and she does not believe that some men must sacrifice for other men, as Nietzsche clearly does.
So I would say you really dont know enough about Nietzsche or Rand to be able to have an educated opinion on the subject.
Um OS, Volga was also a car manufactured in the Soviet Union:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_(automobile)
raff,
I guess some might say it’s a catastrophe.