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.
Anarcho:
“Self-interest is not lost when people run for office.”
I used to go round and round about that one. Many think our politicians and others who just work for government are selfless individuals dedicated to the “general welfare”. Some probably are, but the large majority, at least in my opinion, are not.
And you are right about the right, get them going on patriotism and they will stumble over themselves to give their rights away.
The problem, as I see it, with anarchy in the sense you mean, is that most people do not understand individual rights and the responsibility those rights entail.
There are all kinds of definitions of fascism out there, put out by the [fake] leftists and the right. But, again, fascism in essentials is the pretense of private property with ultimate control over disposal and usage in the government. If you study the economy of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, you will see it is identical to the welfare-warfare state here, though they had even more regulations, even more taxes, even more licensing, even more registration, etc at their peak. Fascism is mercantalism on steroids. All of these people who want to steal, call it taxes, and achieve some great noble mission with the money, whether it be bringing democracy [which is completely evil and which the US was determined to overthrow there starting with their 1953 of the democratic Iranian government] to the ME, landing on the moon, buiding pyramids, ending poverty, equalizing income, making the world safe for democracy, ending terrorism, and on to infinity. However, the noble goal that best unites a society under the whip is militarism and imperialism, since it brings the right in line with increased taxation which they resist for all other schemes, usually. Therefore war and empire building do form an essential characteristic of fascism, though one secondary to the denial of private property rights.
America is the absolute proof that there cannot be limited government. Once you legalize some people stealing from others, regulating others, licensing others, registering others, conscripting others, etc, they will not stop until they achieve complete power. They will legalize more power and increase their theft out of self-interest. it is human nature. Self-interest is not lost when people run for office. Government is a cancer. It is crime, legalized. It cannot solve any social problems, but can only make them worse. All these fantasies of reforms are just that.
“… fascism in essentials is the pretense of private property with ultimate control over disposal and usage in the government.”
Somewhat disguised socialism. Nominal private ownership – your name is on the deed – with near-total control by the state’s bureaucracies.
In most industrialized nations the state is controlled by the corporations and the corporations are controlled by the state. The same cliques that control the corporations run the government. Or you can look at it that the same people who controlthe government run the corporations.
Anarcho:
I dont think they are fascists, I think Gene H truly wants limited government but he also wants people to be taken care of and thinks government can do it without becoming tyrannical.
If we got out of all foreign entanglements and quit giving foreign aid and reduced the size and increased the effectiveness of government and lowered taxes and regulation, eliminated government goodies to corporations, universities, etc. we probably could do it.
But then if we did all of that, we would have a model government.
foreign aid is “taxing poor people in rich countries and passing it on to rich people in poor countries. ”
Lord Peter Bauer
I think Gene H is a Utopian.
LMAO at “anti-government” forces working to strengthen government.
Bron, I would like to discuss these issues further with you, here, for the purposes of educating the masses and these fascists, secondarily. I would prefer you at least read-listen to one of those links first, even though it means we will be talking way over the head of the fascist scumbags that seem to dominate this site supposedly devoted to civil liberties. What a joke. The NDAA voided the entire BOR. The American dream-experiment is dead, and must be renewed with new ideas. Tyranny rules.
The ANTIgovernment forces inside the government and outside have been chipping away at the BOR since before it was ratified in 1791. Now there is nothing left but smoking ruins.
The restraints in the US CONstitution are there to govern the governors. They hate all restraints. The tyranny is no longer growling and roaring. It is chomping and soon all that is left of any restraints will be ejected out the rear end of the lion. (BU-R-R-R-R-PPPP!!)
Anarcho:
thanks for the links.
Bron,
Here are a few good books on the subject of private aggression-coercion-fraud insurance, private arbitration, and private security versus government terrorism, supposedly to protect us. Check out their descriptions and the entire Mises digital library here: http://mises.org/store/Digital-Books-C94.aspx?s=Name%20ASC&p=0 and download FREE pdf/epubs here: http://mises.org/books/
Linked you to YT audio and free ebooks for this one above already:
Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehill
Private Production of Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Economics and Ethics of Private Property by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy
Production of Security by Gustave de Molinari
“An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms. ” ~Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Anarcho:
thanks, but I really do think small effective, limited government is the way to go. Some entity has to keep the wolves from the lambs.
I have been out of town as my common-law mother-in-law had triple bypass surgery, has diabetes, and has some other health issues. I lost my grandmother, mother and father this year also. Ok, to philosophy, praxeology, economics, history, politics and more. I couldn’t read all the posts since I have been offline and busy tending to momma. It doesn’t hardly matter. I know the fascist liberal and fascist conservative arguments, obviously. I also have read historians, economists, and philosophers of all wings. Thus, no one here has anything new to say to me, at all. Its on me to present the case of freedom to a pack of fascist scumbags beholden to the status quo. Well, I don’t much care. Only Bron shows the slightest potential.
Well, I just didn’t want this thread to stop at 666 comments. I’m not superstitious as superstition brings bad luck. At any rate, the tally is now 667 so we can all breathe easier.
Bill, either you are terminally stupid or are being deliberately obtuse. What did the court order say? Your hypothetical teacher is an employee of the school district, correct? The judge had told the superintendent to get his employees and those under his control in line. Gene explained it to you in simple terms, as did Mike and so did I. You are just making yourself look like a fool. Were you a court jester in a previous incarnation? Or are you just working on your next schtick as a clown? You have demonstrated that
1. You do not know the difference between a civil case and a criminal case
2. You are unaware people go to jail all the time for violating court orders of all kinds
3. You are unwilling or unable to read a relatively simple explanation given to you by more than one lawyer as to why the judge could and did issue the order he did.
3. You seem to revel in being a contrarian jerk.
If the teacher did something like you describe, the likelihood of the superintendent being cited for contempt approaches 100%, and the teacher would be hauled up in front of the judge as well because the court order extended to all employees of the school district.
But you knew that because Gene explained it to you several times, as did other attorneys, and even gave you case law cites.
Gene said:
“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.”
Well alert the media…there has been an answer from —what did otteray call you? A lawyer from a tier 1 school? NO doubt Holder went to ta tier 1 school too.
Ok all sarcasm aside now…you don’t see anything wrong with the judges threat?
Let’s say you are the superintendent of that district and during the graduation a teacher stands up and starts leading the parents in prayer. By the time you can get close enough to tell her to stop the prayer is over.
The judge gets a report and orders you arrested.
What, if anything, is your defense?
Blouise, Thorazine will help with crazy, but will not do much for a bad case of dumbass. To paraphrase the late Flip Wilson, ignorance is only skin deep, but stupid goes clear to the bone.
MIke Spindell,
You apparently have learned to debate by avoiding the debate entirely. Can’t say that I blame you…
Chlorpromazine?
raff, it requires a strict diet of no Fox News at all and studiously avoiding RedState, Andrew Breitbart and Drudge. And Glenn Reynolds.
Furthermore, if they are caught reading Ayn Rand, it may set them back years.
OS,
what can you take to cure stupidoccus aureus??
Mike, I agree. You probably recall the report discussed on this blog a while back that showed people who got their news from Fox News were less informed on current events than people who did not watch TV news at all.
No surprises there. It never ceases to amaze me the number of laypeople who want to argue fine points of law with law professors. My take is there is more than a smidgen of grandiosity in such folks. Not to mention a bad case of dumbass, chronic undifferentiated, severe. As you know, stupidococcus aureus is terribly contagious. You can catch it simply by watching infected television channels.
Gene,
You have more patience than I do!