When pressed as to whether a president could ignore any court decision he didn’t like, such as if President Obama ignored a ruling overturning his healthcare law, Gingrich said the standard should be “the rule of two of three,” in which the outcome would be determined by whichever side two of the three branches of government were on.My Republican friends? This is why you are a laughing-stock: because a wack-job like this is a serious candidate for your presidential nomination.
That's fascinating, isn't it? Unless I'm misremembering my lessons from Schoolhouse Rock, just about every law ever passed was approved by two out of three branches of the government. So this means the Supreme Court would never be allowed to overturn a law. Surely even Gingrich doesn't believe such a thing?
Apparently not. In fact, he wants the judiciary to be independent 99% of the time — which brings to mind all the usual jokes about being a little bit pregnant — and defines the 1% this way:
Another branch would step in, Gingrich said, when a judge or a court makes a decision that is “strikingly at variance with America.”
Judicial review was sketched out by Alexander Hamilton and established by a unanimous Supreme Court in Marbury over 200 years ago. It has been part of America a helluva lot longer than Newton Leroy Gingrich, who thus is exposed as strikingly at variance with America.
... Perhaps this deranged bluster is a sign of a fading candidate?