Arresting Judges: It Just Makes Sense

Newt Gingrich hits a double with jailed-justice proposal

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is finding, again, that people don’t really trust him to be our country’s king. But with his flair for saying what nobody knew they were thinking, Gingrich shows why he’s eminently qualified to be America’s deformed court jester. 

In a chat with CBS' Bob Schieffer a few days ago, the blustery former Speaker of the House happily called for the arrest of judges whose decisions fall foul of a president and Congress. Gingrich wants Congress to issue subpoenas to bring judges in for congressional interrogations. 

“How would you enforce that?” Schieffer asked. “Would you send the Capitol Police down there to arrest him?”

“If you had to,” Gingrich replied. “Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal. Let’s take the case of [U.S. District Judge Fred] Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical.”

The answer was classic Gingrich – stupid, but with a lot of thought put into it. He made sure to redirect Schieffer's proposal of using the legislative branch's police force in favor of a force that answers to the unitary executive. And rather than deal with the implications of his creepy idea, he waved the bloody shirt: In June Biery ruled in favor of a family seeking to restrict religious speech at a high school graduation ceremony at Medina Valley Independent School District in Texas.  The ruling was overturned by a federal appeals court. 

It’s hard to say what is most appealing about Gingrich’s proposal – maybe the prospect of using show trials to cure the lamentable camera-shyness of the federal judiciary – but the key is that it is an appealing proposal. Freddie Mac consultant Gingrich is a master of dorm-room brio, citing his credentials as a historian to draw in Montesquieu – that’s Baron de Montesquieu to you – in defense of the principle that our nation’s checks-and-balances ruling system really amounts to a best-of-three series. 

On more sure footing, Gingrich notes that the framers of the U.S. Constitution, once they were in power, behaved with the kind of wooly machismo he has in mind. “Jefferson,” Gingrich said, “abolishes 18 out of 35 federal judges.” 

At this point in the consciousness-raising session, a constitutional originalist would argue that in their more disinterested comments the framers – who appeal to us more because of the ideas they enshrined than because of the consistency with which they applied those ideas – wanted to give courts authority to void unconstitutional laws, and they wanted to do so long before the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison established the habit of judicial review. When listing the arguments in favor of a bill of rights, Thomas Jefferson in a 1789 letter to James Madison singled out one: “the legal check which it puts into the hands of the judiciary.”

But it wouldn’t be fair to expect Gingrich to follow a discipline as strict as originalism. He’s the last of the Aquarians, an impulsive sprite, enchanted with the flow of ideas and uncommitted to square, joyless principle. Gingrich’s insights are ideas for a nation that is all stomach. 

In this case, his skylarking has led him to a place of real popular value. Forget for a moment that the judicial activism decried by both the left and the right is in reality a review process so deferential to legislative and executive will that courts overturn a mere three out of every 5,000 laws passed by Congress and state legislatures. Never mind that the decision Gingrich uses as his example of judicial overreach was itself thrown out under the current system. 

What matters is that judges think they’re smarter than you. Why should you have to settle for that? Gingrich may have the physical appearance of a superannuated fanboy, but his appeal here is heroic and Jacksonian. It’s hard to argue that judges – who act as sovereigns in the courtroom, are generally shielded from subpoena and rarely if ever face truly tough public questioning – couldn’t stand to be cut down a notch or two. There could be peaceful means to that end: more open, televised reporting on judicial arguments, say, or maybe having the Senate use confirmation hearings to pressure judicial candidates to agree to some regular process of public questioning once they're seated. 

Gingrich, characteristically, hasn’t got time for Fabian dillydallying. He wants to solve the non-problem of judicial activism baby-boomer-style: through a twilight struggle. And Americans are a pretty apocalyptic people. The notion of cops arresting judges is on its face offensive to an open society. But the scarier part may be that some portion of the electorate thinks it’s a swell idea. One of those people is running for president. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Gingrich’s insights are ideas for a nation that is all stomach.

    He's gonna have to do better to compete for space with liquor and food.

  • Newt, droppin' the bass...||

    ...with Kim Jong Il

    Kim Jong Newt is in the muthafukin' house!
    http://kimjongildroppingthebass.tumblr.com/

  • FOUR MORE YEARS||

    FOUR MORE YEARS
    FOUR MORE YEARS
    FOUR MORE YEARS

  • juris imprudent||

    Newt should've gone all the way - bring them in before the Select Tribunal of Administrative Reform. They could have a special room too - their own chamber.

  • V. Poutine||

    I like your way of thinking. Where can I buy your book?

  • ||

    Subpoenas are not arrests. I've been subpoenaed to testify several times but have a clean arrest record.

    I know it's bad for our livers to say this, but a magazine called "reason" shouldn't be as melodramatically sloppy with their language as you guys have been recently. Riggs and Dalmia have always been the main offenders but it seems their habits are spreading.

  • Realist||

    If you ignore a subpoena you will be arrested.

  • ||

    Then don't ignore the subpoena! Why should judges have special rights?

    If a priest doesn't pay his income taxes, they come and arrest him. Does that mean the government is out to "arrest priests"?

  • The first thing we do...||

    ...let's kill all the lawyers.

    ~Shakespeare

  • Seperation of Powers||

    Co Equal Branches of Government.

    New concepts to you, or something?

  • Maxxx||

    You mean above the law?

  • Funny||

    That the argument comes from a rabid jury nullification denier.

    Same rules apply for Federal judges as for the presidency. Neither answers to congress except through impeachment.

  • Funny||

    Not you, but Tulpa.

  • ||

    Maxxx's analysis is correct. This isn't about separation of powers, this is about the rule of law.

    Can a congressman ignore a federal court's subpoena?

  • Funny||

    Ever wondered what the special in special prosecutor stands for? Extra constitutional. There was no constitutional basis for Clinton to have been forced to answer to Ken Star. Likewise, for congressmen, weakened constitutional restraints may allow your scenario to occur. It is still not permitted for the judiciary to interfere with a congressman's duties while congress is in session for what that is worth.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    It is still not permitted for the judiciary to interfere with a congressman's duties while congress is in session for what that is worth.


    Ummm, not completely.

    "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses,".

  • ||

    ""Then don't ignore the subpoena! Why should judges have special rights?""

    I didn't RTFA but my understanding is that Newt would like to subpoena them to explain their ruling. As if the court doesn't already issue an explanation of their ruling.

    I also find it funny Newt seems to take the position that SCOTUS can be accountable to the other branches but not vice versa.

  • Hank||

    What Realist said. Bob asked Newt how he would enforce the subpoenas.

    Otherwise, though, I second your sentiment. Especially re: Riggs.

  • rsi||

    “How would you enforce that?” Schieffer asked. “Would you send the Capitol Police down there to arrest him?”

    “If you had to,” Gingrich replied

  • Ice Nine||

    This is not significantly different in either substance or tenor from Andrew Jackson’s admonition to the Supreme Court: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” Jackson was admired for that.

  • Realist||

    Andrew Jackson was an asshole as were many US Presidents.

  • Redefiler||

    Assholes balance budgets, pay off national debts and leave a surplus after their term as President. They also beat the living shit out of invading and vastly superior forces to save American cities.

    Jackson had actual balls and brains, and if you can't handle reality, you shouldn't be self applying the handle. Maybe try 'ignorant pussy'?

  • Gojira||

    Ignoring the Supreme Court because you think genocide is funnier certainly takes balls, but not much brains. Jackson did a lot of great things...and he was also a monster. The world, and esp. human beings, are not black and white.

  • Realist||

    Start with the personel attack...dickwad! What is your basis for declaring Jackson's intelligence?
    "They also beat the living shit out of invading and vastly superior forces to save American cities." You must be referring to his treatment of natives in North America.

  • Loki||

    Ask some of the Native American businesses that to this day won't accept $20 bills how they feel about Andrew Jackson and why.

  • ||

    I have to say, Tulpa makes a good point.

  • ||

    Tulpa is correct.

  • ||

    Goddammit, Boss, it's already the holiday season and you're piling this on me?

  • JohnD||

    Most of the writers for this mag are pathetic.
    "The answer was classic Gingrich – stupid, but with a lot of thought put into it". Unlike yuor article Cavenaugh - stupid but with little thought put into it.

  • Realist||

    Newt is always the dumbest fuck in the room....even when he is alone.

  • Windypundit||

    Technically, we are each the dumbest fuck in the room if we're there alone.

  • Realist||

    ...and also the smartest....except in Newts case.

  • JohnD||

    Maybe you would like to debate Newt? Idiot.

  • ||

    Does Gingrich even know what country he's running for president in?

  • Gojira||

    Of course he does - Israel.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    JOOOOOZZZZ!!!!

  • first||

    Fragile skinny with milky white skin and tons of attitude, Olena is the kind of girl who always gets noticed. A truly cosmopolitan girl, this young firecracker is well traveled, funny, stylish and if we are honest, a little bit crazy!

    Tomboy Olena loves her US truck caps and converse shoes but also has an appreciation for ultra sexy lingerie! In line with her anarchic attitude she loves punk music and lots of sex. And throughout the shoot she chomped on protein rich crabsticks to help maintain that lean and mean body of hers!

    Oozing sex appeal and a little bit wild, Olena is the kind of girl your mother warned you about – you have been warned!

    http://www.hegre-art.com/models#action=show&id=159

  • Gojira||

    Yes yes that's all well and good, but what we all want to know is: how does she feel about Ron Paul's newsletters?

  • Ice Nine||

    Yes yes that's all well and good, but what we all want to know is: how does she feel about Ron Paul's newsletters?

    FIFY

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A truly cosmopolitan girl

    She's a Cosmo, what doyou think?

  • Gojira||

    You're absolutely right, I missed that entirely. Another hot hot hot cosmotarian only caring about cocktail parties.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    *Czech* out Stefan Martinek, a true bohemian - a wild and crazy guy! He is looking sexy in his disco outfit, seventies pants wide in the ankles, and platform shoes. The foxes will swoon at his sexiness as he invites them back to his "pad." He has done an exclusive photo shoot where his sexy body is available for all to see. Be still, my heart!

  • Bingo||

    So apparently both Russia and the Czech Republic have an over-abundance of women eager to get naked...

  • Hiram G||

    They are sold into sex slavery. Look it up.

  • Chubby Chasin' Joe||

    Put a sock in it! Seriously, I'll pay you twenty bucks to put a sock in it.

  • Chubby Chasin' Joe||

    Rats. You talked dirty there. I'm already spent!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    This coming from rather, the queen of crazy cat ladies?

  • Chubby Chasin' Joe||

    I have to admit rather|12.22.11 @ 10:41PM|# would have made for a great line in a sit com. Love you, rather. Never change.

  • ||

    Finally, a personal casus belli against rather. Thanks for the nice xmas gift.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: rather,

    send me an Amazon gift card right now


    Coming to you wrapped in a librarian.

  • first||

    Yeah, I caused a flame war!

  • ||

    I don't have to look it up I live here!!! And you are totally correct, amazing how much insight you have into Central Europe.

  • Sevo||

    Not to mention a penchant for replying to its own posts.

  • juris imprudent||

    Fragile skinny with milky white skin and tons of attitude

    For a minute there I thought you were describing Bradley Manning.

  • Almanian||

    Not gonna lie, I thought he/she was describing Newcular Titties.

  • first||

    WTF?

  • first||

    Who says I'm not.

  • ||

    I am interested in what you are offering. A free year will convince me.

  • first||

    Fuck off, freeloader.

  • *||

    I have this vague - probably imaginary - notion that whenever the shit hits the fan, revolution-wise, in crap Latin American or other third and second world countries, its always the judges that get car bombed and slit-throated first.

    If you're going to do some superstupid extra-legal shit, and need someone to rubber stamp it, seems like a good way to make sure future rulings go your way - having judges living in terror and fear of arbitrary arrest.

    No ever said Newt wasn't forward looking.

  • Ice Nine||

    need someone to rubber stamp it, seems like a good way to make sure future rulings go your way - having judges living in terror and fear of arbitrary arrest.

    Yeah, because there is really no appreciable difference between a round-trip ride to Capitol Hill and a one way ride to the end of some jungle road.

  • *||

    Baby steps.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Gingrich, characteristically, hasn’t got time for Fabian dillydallying.

    Gingrich is about out of time, period.

  • jasno||

    Yep. He had his surge but then people realized who he was.

    Get ready for the endorsements to pick up in favor of Romney.

  • size 8 hat||

    I refuse to believe the country would elect a man with such a ridiculously large head.

  • Vanna White||

    Excuse me!

  • Hiram G||

    What about his racist Newtletters?

  • J_L_B||

    ...the framers... ...wanted to give courts authority to void unconstitutional laws, and they wanted to do so long before the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison established the habit of judicial review. When listing the arguments in favor of a bill of rights, Thomas Jefferson in a 1789 letter to James Madison singled out one: “the legal check which it puts into the hands of the judiciary.”

    Thomas Jefferson would also say the opposite:

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu.....18s16.html

  • Almanian||

    So Jefferson's a Founding Flip Flopper.

  • ||

    Jefferson wasn't a framer. In fact, if I recall, he was opposed to the Constitution.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He conditioned his support on explicit recognition of basic rights.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The Bill of Rights satisfied his objections.

    And Jefferson was a founder of the 12th Amendment - this is how Presidential elections are conducted to this day.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    That quote is from long after Marbury and after Jefferson's presidency, during which time his views "evolved."

  • Newt||

    I don't care how badly I wound the Republic, so long as that meat I throw out there is dripping red.

  • Arduin Grimoire||

    wound?

  • Newt||

    I am but one man. I would need a nation of peers to actually kill it.

  • Hypocrisy much?||

    And this is somehow worse than Ron Paul, who tried to make it an impeachable offense for federal judges to cite Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and any case dealing with abortion, birth control, equal protection for gays, and anything to do with the free exercise of religion?

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    He did?

    When?

  • ||

    Cite or it never happened.

  • ||

    Was this before or after he walked on the moon?

  • Manfred||

    Danke für Ihre Mitteilung.

    Guenstige Brautkleider online bestellen.
    Brautmode billig
    Günstige Abendkleider

  • Some Hun||

    du bist ein arschgeficktneteweinachtsmann.

  • Old Mexican||

    Yo no hablo Aleman.

  • Some Hun||

    99 Kriegsminister -
    Streichholz und Benzinkanister -
    Hielten sich für schlaue Leute
    Witterten schon fette Beute
    Riefen Krieg und wollten Macht
    Mann, wer hätte das gedacht
    Dass es einmal soweit kommt
    Wegen 99 Luftballons

    99 Jahre Krieg
    Ließen keinen Platz für Sieger
    Kriegsminister gibt's nicht mehr
    Und auch keine Düsenflieger
    Heute zieh' ich meine Runden
    Seh' die Welt in Trümmern liegen
    Hab' 'nen Luftballon gefunden
    Denk' an dich und lass' ihn fliegen

  • ||

  • PantsFan||

    Tomorrow is Festivus. I hope hope hope we have an airing of grievance thread.
    Some time around 2pm.

  • Mr. Kruger||

    I find your belief system fascinating.

  • George C||

    I have made a donation in your name to "The Human Fund."

  • Maxxx||

    How dare Newt question the judicial overlords of liberty!

    The fact that the judge he cited threatened to have people arrested for not stopping 3rd parties from excercising free speech proves the essential role of an unaccountable judiciary.

    Besides, the judge's douchebaggery was overturned on appeal, so it is safe to say that he has never before and never again will act as a petty tyrant.

  • Naivete ||

    Is believing Newt is capable of any thought process that isn't a personal power play.

  • Maxxx||

    So what.

    Judges are petty fucking tyrants. You think that ruling was the only outrageous one that Biery ever made or will make. Odds are the guys a cocksucker day in - day out and gets overturned on appeal once a decade.

  • Naivete ||

    When President Newt does something stupid that effects you personally (as Bush and Congress creating the TSA effects me personally, and he will be worse than Bush if elected), you'll realize how petty Biery is in comparison to a Newt.

  • ||

    Newt is a poor candidate, and goes too far on this issue, but his basic point is valid. There are essentially no checks on the judiciary the way the modern system works, so whining about co-equal branches is quite misplaced.

  • Naivete ||

    Whining? No popular rhetorical technique is beneath your notice or usage, eh?
    As, TC noted, why are you making a mountain out of a mole hill? It is obvious why Newt does it, but why would you?

    In this case, his skylarking has led him to a place of real popular value. Forget for a moment that the judicial activism decried by both the left and the right is in reality a review process so deferential to legislative and executive will that courts overturn a mere three out of every 5,000 laws passed by Congress and state legislatures. Never mind that the decision Gingrich uses as his example of judicial overreach was itself thrown out under the current system.

    Seriously, What problem is so great here, that you would spit on the Constitution? Thug hugging is just your thing?

  • Maxxx||

    as Bush and Congress creating the TSA effects me personally, and he will be worse than Bush if elected

    Bush's major role in that was failing to veto the bill creating the TSA. Which I admit is a huge fuck up on his part, but it's not realistic at all to put primary blame for it on him.

    The Newt hate around here is pretty bizarre because Mitt is the 3rd or 4th coming of Bush. He'll keep the crony crapitalist system running, he'll let the neo-cons run foreign policy, he'll go along to get along at let the dems pull him to the left overtime. And then his failures will be blamed on deregulation or some other socialist lies to discredit liberty.

    Newt is seriously flawed and suffers from verbal diarrhea, but he has a record of cutting the size of government when in power. And it should be remembered that the republicans that forced him out of the HoR went onto a decade of scandal and corruption.

    Besides, the republican establishment hates him, which means he can't be all bad. I can see a president Gingrich getting in pissing matches with an R Congress using his veto extensively. Romney will most likely follow the trend of the last twelve years of not vetoing shit.

  • Naivete ||

    Newt is more Mitt Romney than Mitt Romney. Take it way Julie:

    http://www.economicpolicyjourn.....d-418.html

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I acknowledge that I watched this with the sound off, since I found the speaker more interesting than her topic.

  • Naivete ||

    Speaking of petty tyrants --

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=margeret carlson newt foley 2001&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFIQFjAH&url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152038,00.html&ei=HPrzTqzxIaLy0gHk8823Ag&usg=AFQjCNHaVCS8dQqQ5MQdZ9nUMBHhcvFxsg&cad=rja

    Yes, it really does matter that Newt is the messenger and why he is bringing the matter up.

  • Naivete ||

  • Maxxx||

    Noted socialist media whore whines about Tom Foley, sitting speaker of the house losing re election race.

    That's the best indictment of Newt that you got?

    Maybe he should have worked a shady deal to get a sealed out of state divorce agreement released. Would that be acceptable?

  • Naivete ||

    Newt's dirty little gossip campaign is totally legit since a democratic hack wrote about it, and dirty democrat president Obama uses dirty techniques to destroy his opponents, too. How could I not see that before.

    As for, 'is that all I got.' Take a good look at your fat fuck candidate, bitch, before you fucking EVER say 'is that all you got.' When it comes to Newt, you have to smoking a crack pipe while swigging the jim jones Kool-Aid before you ever came to a formulation that retarded.

  • Maxxx||

    First of all, he's not my candidate.

    I just think he would be preferable to an establishmentarian like Romney.

    That is unless you think Bush's 4th term sounds like a good idea to you.

    Secondly, you can't win American politics by taking the high road. The socialists have been able to advance their agenda for decades because the care about winning first and foremost. Unfortunately, taking the high road means losing. And don't give me any bullshit about "we'll be the same as them if we win that way".Face it, the American public has been indoctrinated for too long and the beneficiaries of cronyism have too much to lose for a frontal assault to be successful. The situation sucks, but there it is.

  • Naivete ||

    Sorry for calling you 'bitch.' Unnecessary, and didn't help my argument.

  • juris imprudent||

    Hey, somebody check this guy's credentials. Since when does anyone apologize around here - no matter how grievous the transgression. We're libertarians - we don't give a shit if we hurt your feelings.

  • Marshal Shareef||

    He apologized to himself for stepping on his own argument, so it sounded pretty libertarian to me.

  • Gojira||

    Secondly, you can't win American politics by taking the high road. The socialists have been able to advance their agenda for decades because the care about winning first and foremost. Unfortunately, taking the high road means losing. And don't give me any bullshit about "we'll be the same as them if we win that way".

    Then it's better if we lose. If we can't win by doing it the non-scummy way, then we don't deserve to win, period.

    You can't get around the argument of us becomming just like them by just saying, "don't tell me that". Why shouldn't we tell you that? It's the truth, and it has to be said.

    1994 (as detailed by Naivete below) is an example of what happens when we sell out to win. In the end, all you have is...at best nothing, at worst something worse than what you started with.

    And the idea that you think Gingrich is anything but the very definition of "establishment" bewilders me.

  • Maxxx||

    Then it's better if we lose. If we can't win by doing it the non-scummy way, then we don't deserve to win, period.

    You can't get around the argument of us becomming just like them by just saying, "don't tell me that". Why shouldn't we tell you that? It's the truth, and it has to be said.

    Bullshit.

    I'm in politics to prove what a great guy I am.

    I'm in it to reduce the size and scope of government. Accomplishing that requires using the tactics that have worked for the socialists for the last four decades. Pretending otherwise is playing into their hands.

    And it will be a long hard slog, with false starts and tactical retreats along the way.

  • Gojira||

    It's not bullshit just because you declare it so. If you act like a socialist, then what you get is socialism. You're ignorning the last 30 years if you think that supporting the "kinda sorta more conservative guy" is going to move the party to the right. I mean, we went from Reagan to G. W. Bush for christs sake. That's one hell of a "tactical retreat".

    You seem to think we can act like them, without becoming them. We can't. You cannot get smaller gov't by backing a big-gov't conservative and hoping for the best.

  • Maxxx||

    I mean, we went from Reagan to G. W. Bush for christs sake. That's one hell of a "tactical retreat".

    And Romney is a more articulate version of GWB. In the real world you often have to chose the least bad alternative. And all things considered I believe that Newt would be less bad that Mitt. Partially because his flakiness would lead to gridlock while Mitt will keep the whole corrupt show running smoothly.

  • Maxxx||

    It's not bullshit just because you declare it so. If you act like a socialist, then what you get is socialism.

    No,

    I'm saying that you have to get elected to effect change and the type of tactics that the socialists use to get elected have been proven to be effective, whether you like that or not.

    Running a cerebral, high road campaign won't work because it doesn't resonate with a majority of people and especially because the opposition will lie and smear without the slightest remorse.

  • Naivete ||

    One last thing cannot be overlooked. Newt did NOT decrease the size of government. That hasn't occurred in my lifetime. He helped the democrats squash any attempt to investigate Waco. He supported the expansion of policing power of the FBI after the Oklahoma City bombings. He supported Clinton's payouts to police forces that began the process of militarizing them. He supported Clinton on child support harassment, turning that into a national policy.

    Most importantly, he took the '94 movement that saw a turn over in the House and gift wrapped it to the ghost of FDR. He destroyed the momentum of a libertarian leaning movement, and concentrated on his own personal agenda of making Newt Gingrich very rich as soon as he touched the gavel.

  • Maxxx||

    Most importantly, he took the '94 movement that saw a turn over in the House and gift wrapped it to the ghost of FDR. He destroyed the momentum of a libertarian leaning movement, and concentrated on his own personal agenda of making Newt Gingrich very rich as soon as he touched the gavel.

    Any non biased reading of history says that the problem was the majority of republican members of the house, not Newt. And that they had a better record with him as speaker than they did after he left. Based on their actual record in the eight years immediately following Newt's ouster.

    Yes Newt was and is a grandiose pompous dick. He also has the best record of any republican in the last twenty years or more.

    Maybe our difference is that I'm not looking for a Messiah.

  • Gojira||

    I'm not either, as I'm sure you're well aware I would vote for RP or Gary Johnson in a heart-beat. But Newt is beyond the pale, another big-ideas gov't man. You can't whitewash his support for the individual mandate and cap-and-trade just because he thinks it's convenient to repudiate it now.

  • Maxxx||

    Mitt has more reliably supported both to a much greater extent than Newt has.
    Part of the confusion over that stems from Newt's habit of thinking out loud and the fact that Mitt is a pathological liar that will say anything to get elected.

  • ||

    They are both fucksticks and I seriously can't believe anyone here is putting one over the other.

  • ||

    I agree, the amount of thought going into either of these people is amazing. Don't even waste a single brain cell on either of them.

  • Maxxx||

    I agree that they are both shitheads and unfortunately there is a 90% chance that one of them will be the next president. I've donated money to Paul and will vote for him in the primary and spread the message to everyone that I can but the country is still not ready to elect a libertarian president. I'm hoping that we are building a base of support that can be grown over the next several elections. That's also why I say that Gary Johnson should not run on the LP ticket, but rather run for the senate where he will be another voice for change.

  • El Newto||

    I'm winning this thing.
    #tigerblood

  • ||

    Have the mental health police throw a net over him and drag him off to a place where he can't hurt anyone or himself.

  • Old Mexican||

    See all 69 comments


    Woo-hoo!!! Yeah!!!

  • Old Mexican||

    The answer was classic Gingrich – stupid, but with a lot of thought put into it.


    Love that line, Cavanaugh!!!

    Can I use it? Please?

  • juris imprudent||

    You know the really truly perfect Presidential ticket would be Gingrich/Biden.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    My bons mots belong to all humanity.

  • the Newtrino||

    My ancestors implemented a strict royal inbreeding regime.

  • Old Mexican||

    Please let me stroke your penis. I will pay you 100 pesos.

  • Almanian||

    And again, thank you for reason #1,365,772,346,431 for me to hate Newt Gangrene. I didn't need another, but there it is!

  • ||

    Couldn't Ron Paul say that Newt wrote the newsletters?

  • William F. Buckley, Jr||

    Where Mandela belongs . . . is precisely where he is: in jail.

    it rankles that we should be asked to take the day off (MLK Day) to remember a man whose career was built on leisure. (The GNP, after all, is not produced by people marching in the streets).

    Perhaps MLK Day should be celebrated only by the gainfully employed, and all those on welfare should be required to collect their checks as usual.

    But let’s hang in there and contribute to the disposal of the historical Dr. King down the memory hole.

    The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is entitled because . . . it is the advanced race.

    in the Deep South the Negroes are retarded

    Just as we like to think Gorbachev has truly renounced the evil doctrines he was so recently associated with so has David Duke.

    Take it away Lowry, my hand picked successor. Tell those people why Paul is beyond the pale. Thank Kirchick for that lovely obit for me.

  • ||

    Six feet of dirt makes your message somewhat garbled.

  • MrGuy||

    The problem here is that he's gone full-blown retard.

  • Loki||

    You never go full retard...

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So long as we're talking about treating judges like everyone else:

    The purpose of investigating judges is to link them to criminal or impeachable behavior - and impeachment is at the very least a quasi-criminal procedure. Asking these judges for incriminating information violates the Fifth Amendment by pressuring them to be witnesses against themselves. Forcing them to appear in nationally-televised hearings and choose between incriminating themselves or taking the Fifth and getting smeared in the media - how is this *not* a violation of the Fifth Amendment?

  • ||

    Indeed. If a judge is flagrantly derelecting his duty, prosecution is te appropriate course. Congressional subpoenas are circus trials.

  • illini||

    So much for "checks and balances", eh?

  • Maxxx||

    So the judiciary is above being checked and balanced?

    That seem to be the thrust of the main stream sentiment expressed here and elsewhere.

  • ||

    Congress can't just haul the justices in because they don't like their decisions. Now if they want to say their decisions go against the constitution, or they commit some kind of crime, hell even if they want to say they have forsaken their oat of office (as trickyvic notes below, prolly not such a good idea) then they have some clout.

  • Len||

    Please don't this as an endorsement of Newt, but the congress does have the power of Grand Inquest. They may call judges to answer for their decisions. I also agree that the president is obligated under his oath of office to uphold the US constitution. He may be in error, SCOTUS may be in error, but nonetheless to say a president must abide by what he sees as unconstitutional decisions is wrong. Technically the congress could then impeach him.

    Something of a meaningless discussion as the US constitution is a dead instrument anyway.

  • ||

    ""but the congress does have the power of Grand Inquest. """

    Isn't that for crimes?

    Congress doesn't have the moral ground to claim it's wrong to not uphold one's oath. I don't think they would really want to go there.

  • mbt||

    thanks ,is very good !

  • توقعات الابراج||

  • cheap corsets||

    Although it is not brand name,wholesale lingerie can be very sexy. Most companies offer a variety of lingerie including bridal lingerie, chemise, thongs, bras, garters, corsets, panties, and others. Wholesale lingerie companies generally provide products for resale businesses. Some companies will not sell to you unless you give them proof that you have a business.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement