So Much for Checks and Balances
Apparently Newt Gingrich doesn’t believe in our system of checks and balances.
Continuing his crusade against the courts, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich railed against judges “imposing secularism” on the country on this morning’s Face The Nation. Arguing that “activist judges” who make disagreeable decisions should be held accountable before Congress, he told Bob Schieffer that he would send a U.S. Marshal or Capitol Police officer to arrest judges if that’s what it took to reign them in, and then encourage impeachment:
SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a Congressional hearing… how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?
GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal.
So would a judge who overturned Roe v Wade be considered an activist judge? What about a majority of the Supreme Court if they overturned Brown v Board of Education? Newt’s proposal sounds a lot like what the former President of Pakistan would do when he disagreed with judicial rulings. And remember, he took power in a military coup.
If you’re not scared of a Gingrich presidency, you should be.
Tags: 2012 Republican Presidential Primary, Newt Gingrich, Republican Crazy
Surely Newt doesn’t really believe in his own words. He’s no dummy; he knows that he could never have a judge arrested for doing his or her job. This is all red meat for the right-wing diehards who vote in primaries.
No, Newt believes he can do it because he’ll be prezdint.
What Newt believes he could do in the unlikely event of a Gingrich presidency is far less important than what has actually occurred under the previous two administrations.
Dubya has his own list of sins to answer for, including warrantless wiretapping and the excesses of the Patriot Act, but you can thank President Obama for …
… secret Executive Branch “death panels” that can issue “hit” orders for individuals abroad, including American citizens, with no oversight …
… the concept of “indefinite detention” of “terrorist” suspects, including those captured in America who are American citizens …
… the idea that a verdict of “not guilty” by a judge in a Gitmo trial can be ignored by the US government, which may continue to hold the accused indefinitely …
… the proposition that the US military may be used in internal security operations and may take American citizens prisoner …
… the concept that the government can not only refuse FOIA requests, but has the authority to lie outright about the non-existence of documents …
The civil rights reality of the current administration has been a larger (and unfortunately real) nightmare that the Newter could ever aspire to …
Steve, Obama is a Democrat, so your succinct list doesn’t count.
So Steve, you think the President acted illegally when he gave the go ahead to kill Bin-Laden?
Good points, Steve.
MJ: Yes.
Got to disagree with you Geezer. OBL was responsible for the murder of over 3000 Americans on American soil, many of whom were fellow government employees. I would have pulled the trigger myself. OBL declared war on us, we just got to him before he could do anything else, along with his lemmings.
That wasn’t the question. The question was whether it was legal under the Constitution. We’re talking legalities, not morality.
Then you misinterpreted my question, Geezer. The President is allowed to conduct a war against those who attack us. OBL attacked us. He was legally killed.
“The President is allowed to conduct a war against those who attack us.”
First of all, no he isn’t. War can be declared only by Congress.
Second, “war” is a word with a legal meaning, and aggression by a non-state actor does not fit that description.
The prerogatives seized by chief executives from Nixon onward have done violence to our separation of powers, and Obama, rather than rolling these back as he promised during the election, has taken them further forward.
Presidents doing extra-Constitutional things isn’t particularly new. Roosevelt had no authority to put Japanese in concentration camps, but he did it anyway.
Your argument amounts to “the end justifies the means.”
We don’t know if OBL was killed while violently resisting being taken into custody or whether he was killed in cold blood while surrendering. SInce Obama is hiding the circumstances of his death, nobody outside the government knows the legality or not.
Geezer, in Koramatsu v United State, the SCOTUS ruled that the internment of Japanese citizens was constitutional. I don’t agree with what FDR did (we had a family of internees who were neighbors of ours when I was growing up), but Koramatsu has never been overturned.
A1 – my guess is that you also believe that the attacks on 9/11 were hatched by the US government.
As for the principle of making Judges accountable, I’m for it. Not because I think that a Judge who rules against a publicly funded Christmas nativity scene should have to explain his or her reasoning to a bunch of dullard theocrats. But because I think a Justice Thomas and Scalia need to explain how they can sit in judgement on cases where they have a clear conflict of interest. When they violate principles of process, haul their butts in.
This must be from the Onion right?
Maybe Gingrich would send the Sussex County sheriff to arrest activist judges.
There is a process for that, Dana, called “impeachment,” but it upsets the villagers too much to actually use.
MJ–just got back to where I saw this thread again.
First answer: Geezer took most of my answer. It wasn’t constitutional.
You can make all the “ends justify the means” arguments you like, but either we are a nation of laws or we aren’t. Had OBL been killed while trying to escape or resisting capture I’ve got no trouble with that. But for a Star Chamber accountable only to the President to be able to issue “death warrants” on individuals around the world is not constitutional.
But my point (which you dodge by simply picking out a single element that you think you can score emotional points on) remains: Nothing that Newt Gingrich suggested he might do as President with respect to the Constitution, checks and balances, or civil liberties is as scarey as the things that Barack Obama has already done.
In terms of civil liberties, if the election is between Newt and Barack, we have a choice between two neo-cons, and trying to paper over that fact is to be an apologist for the growing irrelevancy of Constitutional guarantees in the name of partisan politics.
Wow, such big words from a no-name book owl. Got to love the purists when they decide to come over and rail against all of us who don’t toe the line.
Steve, please provide some sort of proof that what the President did has been held illegal by the courts.
MJ, have you ever responded to someone disagreeing with you without calling them names? Just wondering, because you don’t seem to be able to handle different opinions real well.
If being concerned with basic civil liberties and due process makes me a “purist,” I’m ok with that.
Almost every point I made above is being challenged in the courts as we speak.
I notice you don’t deny that the President has done any of those things, you just fall back on the fact that courts have not yet ruled that they were illegal or unconstitutional.
That must mean that you were just fine with Jim Crow segregationism between 1896-1954 because, after all, the courts held it was legal after Plessy v. Ferguson.
Actually, I have, Steve, but I also make it a point to call out asshats who come on here and pontificate. And stop trying to make me out to be some redneck bigot who supported segregation. Your drawing a line between my comment about court decisions and supposedly supporting Jim Crow laws is about as strong as Rick Perry’s screed equating DADT and kids not being able to observe Christmas in school. It’s bullshit and you know it. Makes you look even more asinine than you are.
Being challenged in the courts is much different from an actual court ruling. I agree that the President acted legally when he ordered OBL’s death and that of the other Al Qaeda leadership.
Steve – Let me ask you this, would a Gingrich Presidency roll back any of the measures that you list above? Or would Gingrich likely keep all of those measures and add on his own (including judicial arrests)?
I don’t disagree with Geezer, Steve, A1 or Dana on the assassination doctrine that Obama has embarked upon. It is wrong.
MJ, you are to DL what an enforcer is to a hockey team. Everybody can see that you can’t play very well and all you know how to do is throw punches. And you’re not particularly good or clever at that.
MJ: I disagree with your assessment of Steve’s example. He was not trying to make you look like you supported Jim Crow. He was trying to show you that the standard you are applying to these specific circumstances would lead to conclusions with which you obviously disagree.
You again contradict yourself when you cite the authority of the courts, but then voice your support for positions the courts have not yet ruled on. You’re trying to have it both ways there.
Gingrich is never going to be the president. He is already going full teanutbag to sell those last few books before the GOP electorate is told to vote for Romney. (btw, republicans here, how does it feel to not have any power or say in your party’s nominating process? you have told the establishment for the past 6 years that you don’t like Romney, but that is who you are getting)
I’ve kind of been of the opinion that there wasn’t a kill Bin Laden order. Perhaps a stray bullet, or an over emotional second for one of the members of team 6. Perhaps he killed himself to avoid capture… he was quite the coward. No one wants to say “oops, we killed him by mistake” Knowing our courts and government don’t take the constitution or rules very seriously when it comes to brown people, the WhiteHouse just decided to say “we wanted that the whole time”
I also question the “game” on this one. Here is a nice scenario.. Obama begrudgingly sings this bill. if he doesn’t “millions and millions of troops will die instantly” He also pledges to take it to SCOTUS about the “throw americans into camps for questioning Speaker Boehner” law. THAT is a much bigger blow to the GOP…. and senator Coons, who voted for the “execute americans who aren’t republicans”
A1 – you talk a lot but you say nothing, your words are meaningless.
Geezer/Steve – you’ve both said that we are a nation of laws. Well, every 5th grader knows that the courts interpret the laws that the legislature enacts and the chief executive signs and enforces. So without the highest court ruling something illegal or unconstitutional, then we must obey the law. We might disagree with it (there are many that I disagree with), but I also understand that I have to obey the law.
LG of course Newt isn’t going to roll back anything. Neither is Obama. That’s why I said that from a civil liberties viewpoint they are both neo-cons. You can call it no difference on that issue and then vote based on other issues, but posturing–as MJ is doing–on the basis of Newt’s nutiness is simply partisanship over principle.
MJ, when you pontificate about Newt being nuts, that’s enlightened commentary. When I point out that you are ignoring what Obama has actually done in the same arena that is far worse, you start whining and hiding behind … well, there’s not really anything you can hide behind, is there?
Geezer, thanks for explaining the example to MJ. Any number of things can be “legal” in the sense that they haven’t been repealed or overturned, including DADT, prohibition, warrantless wiretapping, forced sterilization of Native Americans, etc. etc., without being either right or constitutional.
Following your example, MJ, there is no room to criticize huge contributions to political campaigns by mega-corporations because Citizens United made it legal.
Or, sorry, cor-por-a-tions. A big word. I will try to remember that you have trouble with them.
I’m very uncomfortable with the assassination doctrine. It is wrong. Bin Laden being gone is fine with me. I’m conflicted, and realize that I’m relying on (wrongly) an ends justify the means things. Shoot me, I’m human. Isn’t there something about erring and being human? 😉
So without the highest court ruling something illegal or unconstitutional, then we must obey the law. We might disagree with it (there are many that I disagree with), but I also understand that I have to obey the law.
So much for the civil rights movement–you wouldn’t have supported civil disobedience by Martin Luther King and others because the SCOTUS hadn’t ruled segregation unconstitutional. Throw out Thoreau as part of the American tradition–MJ says to obey all laws and criticize nothing until the Supreme Court tells us that corporations are people.
Do you actually get your convoluted positions from a pretzel factory, or do you just enjoy defending really bad positions.
sshhhhh pandora. in blog land, you cant have conflicted feelings or complex views in shades of gray. didnt you know that?
Steve, there is a huge difference between obeying the law and protesting against it. You can do both, or didn’t that enter into your pea-size professorial brain of yours? Where is it again you teach at – St. Elmo’s College for the Truly Asinine?
I didn’t say not to criticize, far from that. But then again, if it doesn’t meet your litmus test, then it’s wrong and one needs to turn in their progressive membership card. You’re a fraud, Steve. Either that or Mr. Spock performed a mind meld on you.
“Geezer/Steve – you’ve both said that we are a nation of laws.”
I’ve said no such thing. You asked, “[Do] you think the President acted illegally when he gave the go ahead to kill Bin-Laden?” I answered no. Your response indicated that you didn’t really care what Steve or I answered, you thought it was legal and that’s the end of that.
In fact, I agree with Glen Greenwald that we are NOT a nation of laws when it comes to our political leaders.
Pandora: I think just about everyone feels the same way about OBL. But if we were a nation of laws, those special forces could have taken him while alive and flown him back to the United States for trial. But because our leaders have no faith in our Constitution’s ability to guide a government through the modern world, that option was never on the table.
“Steve, there is a huge difference between obeying the law and protesting against it.”
Not in the civil rights movement, there wasn’t. You protested by getting arrested.
I could forgive many of Obama’s transgressions, but not his institutionalization of lawless dictatorial powers. This was where I had the most hope for change when he was elected, but he has been every bit as bad and dishonest as Dick Cheney when it comes to Civil Liberties.
Civil liberties and respect for freedom, justice, and human rights had been what ostensibly separated America from more totalitarian countries. America can no longer even have the pretense of being the land of freedom and justice for all, and we have Obama to thank for that.
I will never vote for him again (not that it matters since we don’t have free and fair elections, either).
The 9-11 attacks changed this country in many ways. That’s why Bush allowed them to happen.
Let’s suppose that all of the civil liberties denying laws that Obama either signed off on or continued are constitutional. What possible difference could that make to an ethical and justice-loving person? Wouldn’t such a person say.something like “So much the worse for the constitutional”? Such a person wouldn’t flee from the obvious principled position they should take by taking refuge in the cop out “Have the Courts declared them unconstitutional?” That’s irrelevance on grand display. If a person isn’t a purist about fundamental civil liberties, then what principles are they purists about?
Our commitment to civil liberties was always a ruse. How many dictators did we prop up? How many did we install in power? We have always talked a big civil liberties game, but a lot of it was just talk aimed at making the claim that capitalism was better then communism.
No more communism, means that we are no longer required to pretend that we have the moral high ground.
Sorry Geezer, I thought you had.
None of this is anything new. It took all of 1.5 presidents to suspend free speech (alien and sedition acts) Lincoln threw people in jail with no trial for questioning him. (there is a lot more, but i dont need to tell all you smart folks about it) The government is going to do this. We can live in denial and cry about it each time as if it has never been done before, or we can really try and do something to change what type of people are elected to office…. from dog catcher to president.
“We can live in denial and cry about it each time as if it has never been done before, or we can really try and do something to change what type of people are elected to office…. from dog catcher to president.”
Or we can do all of that. As we do.
Aren’t the courts conservative-compliant enough already? What are the courts stopping conservatives from doing that they really want to do? I can’t recall a recent court decision that was decided in favor of the People.
I say this knowing the 1% don’t give a damn whether you are gay or get an abortion, unless making a fuss about it can get them more votes for tax cuts for the rich (always a dubious and mysterious connection).
I mean, Republicans now have Democrats in their pockets; what do they need the courts for?