Gingrich: I Will Arrest Federal Judges

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.

747 thoughts on “Gingrich: I Will Arrest Federal Judges”

  1. Free epub:

    I have already described several societies without government, including Ireland for 7 centuries. They were not anarcho-capitalist societies as the philosophy didn’t exist, but they prove its possible to handle all these issues without legalizing crime. Some other examples were in the American colonies under salutary neglect, where they were outside the reach and interest of the British empire and thus free. In fact, these are some of the best examples. There are others. And of course, one can point to all the various things in one form or another in various places at various times. Right now, there exists private forms of ALL these things, to the extent government allows them to be private. You are correct. There is no true private property in this society since government can take anything it wants anytime it wants it, kill anyone it wants for any reason any time it wants and anywhere it wants, etc. Private property, and thus freedom, is only possible in anarchy, where there is equality under the law and all initiation of aggression, coercion and fraud are considered and treated as criminal through private aggression-coercion-fraud insurance, private arbitration and private security. An utterly fantastic book on the history of America from the founding of the colonies until about the passing of the conjob.

    Continues for more links…

  2. Free epub:

    Anarcho-capitalism solved those common-law issues, errors, already, for instance airspace rights, airwaves rights, etc, through extension of the homesteading theory via voluntary contract. Government is unnecessary and in fact makes a contractual society impossible, will inevitably restrict and interfere with contracts on a massive basis, as they do now. A great read on the subject:

    Continues for more links…

  3. You are simply speaking from ignorance, attacking straw man arguments. First, you have to understand the anarcho-capitalist system in order to make intelligent criticism of it. The fact government exists does not mean it is necessary for it to exist. Government is crime. Crime is not necessary. What is necessary is a society that forbids all crime, not legalize it for the special people. What we have now is a situation where the most powerful man in the world is starting wars and murdering people on his say so alone. The Amerikan empire is absolute proof that govenrment is chaos, crime and murder.

    The technological state of the Afghans is irrelevant. They will win; Amerika will leave. I said I was exaggerating. The point is they have no government military fighting the Amerikans whatsoever and yet they are and will win anyway. In fact, the government never offered any substantial resistance; the people did and are.

    Road services were offered via voluntary contract. There were even systems of “voluntary eminent domain” in place, through contract. Generally, these private roads and turnpikes operated through subscription. They were far more efficient that government roads, which are inevitably over-developed in areas that are not worth the investment and in areas where powerful politicians and the other oligarchs reside. Government is not only unnecessary for roads; they waste enormous amounts of money on them, stifle innovation, overbuild some areas and under build others, and cannot ever maintain them properly due to the lack of a free market and thus competition and the supremacy of the consumer. A very good book on the subject:

    Free pdf:

    Continues in next post so I can add more links….

  4. A-C wrote:

    “The greatest military in world history can’t pacify and conquer primitive cave-dwellers …”

    The Afghans are not primitives. Most live in cities, towns and villages, not in caves. They have access to and use modern weapons. They have sophisticated electronics just like we do. They hide in caves only when attacked.
    As far as living in caves, many people do today in regions where dry, airy caves are available or can be dug. They have modern conveniences. Electricity. TVs. Internet. Telephones.

    “Private roads and turnpikes were the norm before the socialist counter-revolution to the American revolution.”

    These roads take up land. To go across other people’s land requires eithr their permission or the power of eminent domain. Privately owned roads, bridges and ferries are heavily regulated (meaning by … government) and have been from the beginning.
    Local town streets and county roads were never toll roads.
    Watercourses? The owners of the surrounding or contiguous land own the watercourse or by common law to the center of a stream. Without government regulation anyone passing through my watercourse is a trespasser and may be resisted with all necessary force. Sink his boat.
    Air travel might seen to avoid all these problems. But though airports can be privately owned, the air over people’s land is theirs. At common law (tradition; custom) one’s land included not only the surface but the soil and rock underneat the surface and the air above it. Without government regulation of the airspace, Aircraft could fly right over my house, over my livestock, if I did not own the airspace. Without government regulation any aircraft occupants are trespassers. If there is no government regulation I would have a common right to shoot them down.

    “… stable societies have been already demonstrated to have operated without a government and in fact a much less sophisticated society far less prepared for it.”

    Name one. I’m curious.

    “You are simply in error.

    “Nonsense. You have no clue. Just repeating public indoctrination center propaganda.”

    The sum total of your arguments. No reason. No substance. Nothing but baseless insults. No solutions offered. Are you by any chance a university professor? If not, perhaps you should be.
    Next time a mugger attacks you, call an armed robber for assistance.
    If a cop attacks without just cause, you have an avenue for recourse. Bad cops go to prison fairly regularly.
    Even the local mafia protection racket provides protection not only from itself but from rival gangs and independent bandits. Private law, I suppose?

  5. You are just suffering from brainwashing by public indoctrination, the state media, and normalcy bias. Anarchy is inevitable as long as global population is soaring and information freely flowing. Already the hyperinflation of the fiat dollar standard is destabilizing governments all over the world and the collapse hasn’t even begun yet. It will become increasingly more difficult to form new governments when the old ones collapse. Its simply not as easy for a small group of oligarchs to declare themselves in charge anymore and getting harder all the time. As government entities increasingly destabilize, collapse and fight among themselves for power, the market will move in to fill the forbidden areas. There are already a ton of examples of this, bitcoin being a wonderful (if flawed) example. The government monopoly on money, counterfeiting and the embezzling thereof in the banking system are near their end.

  6. Newt appears to be taking as his example Major-General Andy Jackson’s conduct during the Wah of 1812:

    Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law, by Matthew Warshauer.

    The United States versus Major General Andrew Jackson, by Eberhard P. Deutsch. ABA Journal, Sept. 1960. Vol. 46, pp. 966-72.

    For this unconstitutional and unlawful conduct Jackson’s reputation was enlarged, contributing to his election to the presidency. Perhaps the people, the electorate, are so ignorant still or careless of the principles expressed in the constitution that Newt thinks it will get him the supreme magistracy. Judge doesn’t rule as the president would like: don’t bother with the cumbersome, expensive impeachment process. Just toss him(her) in the clink.

    See both Jackson’s argument in his defense on p. 970 of the ABAJ article, and Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall) 2, 75-6 (1866).
    Also see A. Lincoln’s justifications for violating both the US constitution and the solemn pledges he had made in his campaign speeches and in his first inaugural address.

    The arguments of A-C are academic as his dreamed-of societal “reform” will never happen. As fast as one civil government is overthrown, a fresh one takes its place. This has been going on since Cain established the first city and since Nimrod renewed civil government. Civil government is inherent in human nature. We are not tigers who live independently. Tigers are powerful, dangerous beasts, armed with deadly weapons in the form of fangs, claws and strong muscles. But like all beasts they are limited to their built-in weaponry. (I know that some apes and monkeys will throw missiles: sticks and fruit. Apes and monkeys live in troops. Squirrels will toss nuts. A mere annoyance.). Our physical weakness and the extreme vulnerability of females especially when gravid necessitate banding together for mutual benefit. Humans are some of the weakest animals for our size. Any 150 pound predator (and most non-predator) animal can easily take a 150 pound man who has no access to any weapon of any kind. A tae kwon do master would have at best a marginal chance against a predator of his size if he could not obtain any weapon. Our erect stance, our gripping hands, our ability to make and use weapons, and our intelligence gives us the overwhelming advantage if not caught by surprise.
    Once a female chimp that had been in captivity since infancy, which was quite sedentary, was tested by getting her to pull on two handles to each side of her. She easily pulled with over 2,000 pounds. And she was probably around 70 pounds (55-110# weight range), half the size of a small man.

  7. Nonsense. You have no clue. Just repeating public indoctrination center propaganda.

  8. There have been many private law systems operating outside of the range of government authority, including in the American colonies during the period of “salutary neglect.” You are simply in error. Contract law cannot exist if there is government authority over them. Government is the negation of contracts, for instance when they forbid use of “gold clauses” in contracts when they stole the American people’s gold or TRILLIONS of other examples where they interfere with the right to drug war, like say in the drug war, or with trade sanctions, tariffs, and on and on and on. Government is the negation of law. It is the legalization of crime. You cannot have law, let alone equality of law, when certain “special” people can go around pointing guns and stealing from people legally.

    1. What you are talking about is what might be called “group anarchy.” That is, instead of each anarchist acting totally independently, the anarchists band into groups. When forced by necessity such groups are called by the name of “vigilance committees.” They act under generally recognized principles of law and act only to suppress unlawful activity in the absence, impotence or unwillingness of duly constituted civil power to act.
      If such a group does not act solely to suppress crime and, if possible, to take perpetrators of crime alive to duly constituted authority “posthaste,” it is called “banditry.”
      What you describe swifty becomes civil war. If I am “arrested” by private law, such as a security guard on private property, he must turn me over to duly constituted authority “posthaste,” that is, as soon as reasonably possible. He has no authority to impose any penalty or to imprison me beyond that minimum encompassed by “posthaste.”
      If I have family and friends, neighbors and other interested persons, who become aware of “private law” going beyond its lawful authority, and they are able and willing, they will come and demand my release to either the “sheriff” or to them. If I am not released “posthaste,” we have a little war on hand. My friends will then use, if they have the courage and ability, whatever force is reasonably required to secure my release, up to and including shooting the self-appointed “private law” down.
      No civil society can tolerate this disorderliness and remain a civil society. It would degenerate to tribalism. Each tribe (extended family) would be as a mini-state much as the Tutsis and the Hutus, each acting to what is in their respective opinions defending the interests of their tribes respectively.
      Tribalism can be better than no semblance of order at all. At least within the tribe there is order so people can go about their daily activities of earning a living and so on. When there is no constitutionally ordered system of civil order, people have to make do for the time being.
      Now, a basically nice person like me doesn’t need to be threatened with force, or violence if you wish to get me to behave decently. Once I learned that it was not acceptable for me to grab my neighbor’s wife, mother or daughter any time I had a sexual urge that needed (in my opinion) relief, I declined such behavior. Fortunately I learned this as a child before I began to have such urges and did not have to be instructed by the criminal justice system or by the neighbor or his womenfolk. I might not have survived, which somehow offends the instinct to keep on living that I inherited from a long line of forebears who apparently were possessed of such instinct.

      When does a tribe or vigilance committee become a civil government? When it goes beyond a basic level of defense from disorder to having a system of due process of law. Private law in the absence of an overriding civil power has no way to discern between the suspected but innocent and the guilty other than by those who have immediate personal knowledge of the offense. A personally disinterested (“impartial”) judge (whether judge of a bench trial or a jury), a sheriff who is personally disinterested in the outcome. Established rules of conduct imposed on all by ultimate majority opinion. Executioners of judgment of the court who act strictly as ministers without imposing their pesonal biases – wardens.

      “… when they forb[ade] use of “gold clauses” in contracts when they stole the American people’s gold …”

      Giving examples of unconstitutional, criminal behavior on the part of officers and agents of the people does not weigh against civil government. It points up the need for governing (restraining or discouraging) such criminal conduct.
      The US constitution and most if not all state constitutions forbid impairment of contracts. That is, if a contract was lawful at the time it was entered into, subsequent legislation has to “grandfather” it. That officers and citizens treated “Saint” Franklin Deus Rex’s (bow, bow, genuflect, genuflect) executive order as superior to the constitution does not mean that the constitution was defective; it means that crime was committed by unlawfully enforcing the EO as if it was a general statute passed by congress.

  9. LMAO at “law enforcement.” Pig, tyrant scum enforcing billions of unconstitutional rules by brute force for a government that has abolished the bill of rights, barging in to people’s house without warrants. Look at the Nazi pig scum all over youtube abusing peaceful people. Look how many peaceful people these psychopaths have in prison. So much for their oath to defend the conjob or to protect and serve. Pure evil scum, aside from maybe some of the oathkeepers. Certainly the “police” do not exist to protect people from criminals. They are simply tax collectors, handing out bills of attainder to poor people while we watch them break the same rules with impunity and get their friends off, oppressing peaceful people, and generally getting off on bullying people.

    June 27, 2005, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales’ husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales’ family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one’s individual protection.

    the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is “You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980’s when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole.”

    “It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.”


    (2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

    (3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

    (4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

    (5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

    (6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). “…a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen…”

    (7) Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958). “What makes the City’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her.”

    (8) Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989) “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public.”

    (9) New York Times, Washington DC, “Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone” by LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005, “The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.”

  10. Society, and by extension law enforcement, has another name for anarchists. We call them ‘criminals.’ They keep getting arrested for things like vandalism and malicious mischief. More extreme anarchist cases like the so-called ‘sovereign citizens’ end up dead in their houses or on the side of the road after shoot-outs with the law. So much for all those powerful anarchists.

  11. Simply repeating over and over that its necessary to commit aggression and coercion against the entire “country” doesn’t make it so. Again, history proves you wrong. ALL services and commodities have been and are currently offered privately, to the extent there is such a thing as private business (none, its not allowed.). Further, stable societies have been already demonstrated to have operated without a government and in fact a much less sophisticated society far less prepared for it. Government is a huge threat to “national” defense. It certainly isn’t necessary for it. Its expensive. Its unresponsive to the will of the consumer. An F-16 costs, say to pick a random number, 50 million a piece. Because there is no free market in f-16s there is no way to know, or to prove rather, that this figure is absolutely ridiculous, whatever the figure happens to be. It builds “national” debt, which strips sovereignty from the people and creates the feudal state of “debt-slavery.” It is extremely inefficient and clumsy in battle. The anarchist tactics of assassination, sabotage, militia fighting, etc is far more powerful in the long run, accomplishes the goals without building the debt, killing far less people on both sides, and achieving victory far faster. The American revolution, if you can get past the nonsense they “teach” in the indoctrination centers is a great example of this fact. George Washington was a terrible general and had just about absolutely nothing to do with the defeat of the British. In fact, he made victory far more difficult through his gigantic blunders and incompetence. It was the anarchistic militia tactics which could not be defeated practiced very well by general Charles Lee and several others, and the fact that there was no central government with the power to tax and thus nothing to conquer, no one spot that could make the fighting stop you could just occupy. Even if Washington had “lost” and had his whole army captured, it would have meant nothing strategically. The American people would have kept fighting, kept resisting, though if they could have seen the present they likely would have given up and supported the British or moved to an understanding that anarchy is the only solution, that crime cannot be safely legalized and then limited. Afghanistan is another great example. The greatest military in world history can’t pacify and conquer primitive cave-dwellers, to exaggerate, and they NEVER will. They will leave eventually, and the Afghan people will rule their own fate. Anarchy is more powerful and efficient than statist militaries. In the long run, they cannot be defeated. The free market is superior in EVERY regard.

  12. Gene, you know what is going on. Short man syndrome and all that. Short women don’t seem to get all in a wad about stuff and are often really bright. Strange.

    You are right about the drivel.

  13. anarcho:

    I still think you need some government. No other way to do national defense. You could do roads, in fact there are private toll roads today, you could do fire departments and maybe even private police departments. You dont need government to give out drivers licenses nor for education, those could definitely be done privately, trash service could be private no problem at all and is in many areas. Building permits and review? Definitely could do privately, zoning may need some government control. The court system, I think you need a standardized objective set of laws and the ability to enforce judgements so I go with government on that one.

    Going back to roads, I think for local roads you probably need to have those under the umbrella of a local government just for efficiency although with a smart tag you could conceivably have multiple road owners in a local jurisdiction. Airports, definitely could be private and also air traffic control but there might be some problems with private air traffic control. I dont know anything about aviation but I would think all that would have to be standardized.

    Sewage treatment and storm-water control, I’d say probably more efficient to have local government take care of that.

    All in all I think we can dramatically reduce the scope of government but when all is said and done, you need some government to protect you from people who think they know what is good for you. The problem is that government has been co-opted by busybodies who want to run other people’s lives.

  14. Also, I neglected to mention I completely reject your definition of government. It is a definition based in non-essentials. The essential and distinguishing characteristic of government is the fact it is an entity which grants to itself the “legal” power to commit aggression and coercion against anyone within the territory it controls [has conquered], for example via taxation, licensing, regulation, registration, eminent domain, conscription and now officially outright kidnapping, torture and murder. No other entity can write up a piece of paper, have 40 or so aristocrats sign it, get a bunch of dead people to vote for it and then steal from everyone within reach endlessly, from their children and so on, legally. Everything you people fear from anarchy, one strongman and all that is impossible in a free market where crime is always recognized as crime and thus resisted by the people, where the real power ultimately lies, through their choices in spending, their consent or lack thereof, the dependence on their production, and the incredible power of ostracism. It is this system which has put a [few] strongman over us and are not only oppressing us and the entire world but are kidnapping and murdering millions of peaceful people by the year [or so]. Even the chaos people ignorantly think anarchy means, when it just means no rulers, would be superior to the threat of the US government, which is now moving to strip citizenship from people who speak for their overthrow or give “aid and comfort to the enemy”, a vague and easily used charge against almost anyone, and which certainly spells my coming secret detention and-or murder and probably many millions of others. There is the seditious speech your fascist colleague hear loves to have criminalized. A contractual society, a voluntary society cannot exist in a government society. A government society is an authoritarian, top-down hierarchical structure. A contractual society requires equality under the law- no rulers, no one allowed to steal, kidnap, torture, and murder.

  15. Gene, you are wasting perfectly good photons, not to mention your time, on the mouth breathers. It is really hard to convey facts and logic to turnips.

    Never mind, I think I just insulted the entire Brassicaceae family of plants.

Comments are closed.