Sunday, December 18, 2011

Newt Gingrich is strikingly at variance with America

God bless the Kevin Drums of the world for keeping up to date on sick little fucks like Newt Gingrich:
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.

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.”
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.

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?

5 comments:

  1. This post ought to be required reading for every potential voter in a Republican primary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think this should be edifying to GOP primary voters--though I suspect that the Joe the Plumber types that will choose the nominee will not care.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/newt-gingrichs-assault-on-activist-judges-draws-criticism-even-from-right/2011/12/17/gIQAoYa80O_story.html

    I really like the part about how he would order either Capitol Police (which he can't do,since they work for Congress) or federal agents to arrest judges to compel them to testify about controversial decisions. I'm not sure Robert Mugabe has ever even gone so far as to have officers arrest judges for "controversial decisions." I know the GOP faithful want batshit, but come on...

    ReplyDelete
  3. First, I don't think Gingrich said he would "arrest" the judges, but I could be wrong. I think he said he would support the issuing of subpoenas to compel their testimony before Congress, and if necessary he would compel that testimony with the force of a federal marshal or the capitol police. I believe it is right and proper for the Congress to question any citizen, including judges. I'm not sure why Gingrich thinks the president should have this power, however. I think he is reliving olden days.

    The members of the Supreme Court have no higher obligation to enforce the provisions of the Constitution than does the president or the members of Congress. All swear the same oath. As a general rule, the American people want the executive and the legislature to defer to the rulings of the judiciary, but this causes natural overreach by the latter. On those rare instances where the Supreme Court gets it totally wrong or attempts to usurp the authority of the executive or the legislature, the executive is free to say, "No, you've got it wrong, that's not the law, I shall obey the Constitution." At that point the legislature can impeach the president, or not. Within a relatively short time, the American people can ratify the president's position, or not. After a relatively short period of time the Supreme Court's purportedly unconstitutional order will stand, or not.

    Oh, and I don't think Robert Mugabe ever compelled judges to testify either. He just killed them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. >>
    On those rare instances where the Supreme Court gets it totally wrong or attempts to usurp the authority of the executive or the legislature, the executive is free to say, "No, you've got it wrong, that's not the law, I shall obey the Constitution."
    <<

    That's not what the Supreme Court has believed at least since Marbury v. Madison.

    ReplyDelete
  5. NMC, You are right, and I really know of no case where the executive has done as I've outlined. But that is the option the executive has to judicial overreach. And as I said, such an executive would then be looking at the possibility of impeachment.

    ReplyDelete