Supreme Court

Gingrich's Court-Sacking Plan: When Two Out of Three Is Bad

|

Yesterday on Face the Nation, Newt Gingrich said judges who reach decisions he does not like should be arrested and forcibly hauled before Congress to answer for their misdeeds if they refuse to come on their own:

Bob Schieffer: One of things you say is 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 Capitol police down to arrest him?

Gingrich: If you had to, or you'd instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. marshal. 

This is all part of Gingrich's scheme to rein in "radical judges" by impeaching them, abolishing their courts, or simply declaring acts of Congress unreviewable. At Thursday's Republican presidential debate, Ron Paul called Gingrich's proposals "a real affront to the separation of powers." Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a former federal judge, deems them "dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, [and] off the wall," saying they would "reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle."

Gingrich's plan to beat the judicial branch into submission seems especially disproportionate compared to the provocations he commonly cites as justification. On Face the Nation he once again criticized U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, who last June ordered a Texas school district to keep prayer and references to it out of its graduation ceremony, including speeches by students. Another favorite Gingrich target is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, a three-judge panel of which ruled in 2002 that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is "an impermissible government endorsement of religion," especially in the public school context. Gingrich has said that decision is "one of the major reasons that I am running for president," which makes it regrettable regardless of whether you agree with the 9th Circuit's interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

What do these two decisions have in common, aside from exemplifying the godlessness that Gingrich says is transforming America into "a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists"? They were both overturned by the same judicial system he says is so hopelessly corrupt that its decisions must be pre-empted or nullified by Congress.

In an October column, I argued that Gingrich's assault on the judiciary would leave it ill-equipped to uphold the Constitution against legislative trespasses, even in cases where he himself wants the courts to intervene. Yesterday Bob Schieffer raised the same point, asking Gingrich whether President Obama could simply ignore a Supreme Court decision overturning the federal requirement that everyone obtain government-approved medical coverage, a mandate Gingrich says is "clearly unconstitutional." Here is Gingrich's reply:

He could try to do that. And the Congress would then cut him off. Here's the key: It's always two out of three. If the president and the Congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. If the Congress and the court say the president is wrong, in the end the president would lose. And if the president and the court agreed, the Congress loses. 

Congress and the president, of course, enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act together. Since that is always true for acts of Congress, Gingrich is essentially saying there is no judicial solution to unconstitutional laws. The only hope is that elections will either put someone new in the White House or (as in this case) change the makeup of Congress so that it might stop the president from implementing a law approved by an earlier Congress. In effect, the Constitution prevails only when an electoral majority allows it to prevail, which radically undermines its strength as a check on the popular will.

[Thanks to Leeann Kline for the tip.]

NEXT: Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Government's Unconstitutional Assault on Our Freedom to Travel

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.

  1. Arresting judges isn’t just an affront to the separation of powers, it’s the next logical step in setting up tyrannical rule. Doesn’t anyone study history anymore?

    1. But its *OUR* tyrannical rule, so it’s okay.

    2. Gingrich is a historian the way Obama is a constitutional scholar.

      1. If we say Gingrich is a historian, then he’s an historian
        -we never make mistakes and we put your money where are mouth is

  2. Bob Schieffer: Some people say that’s unconstitutional, but I’ll let that go for a minute.

    Seems like that’s what everyone’s been doing lately.

  3. “Some people say that’s unconstitutional, but I’ll let that go for a minute…”

    Heh. Why offer principled inquiry when The People want pragmatism?

    1. I’m not even sure it’s pragmatism. Conjuring the image of a black-roped octogenarian cuffed and led by a pack of DC gendarmes is just so much more exciting than contemplating the dissolution of the republic.

      1. I was referring to Schieffer’s line of questioning. I saw the interview. The whole time Schieffer danced around or outright avoided explicit Constitutional issues in favor of pragmatic (“But what would happen if…” and “But how would you implement this”?) hypotheticals. Not that this technique is not archetypical of Sunday morning “news” shows.

        1. Gregroy was doing the same yesterday on Meet the Press, at least in the three minutes I listened to him questioning Boehner on why shouldn’t the republicans be worried about the significant reductions in unemployment.

          1. People who can’t think interviewing people who can’t think. Why is America in steady decline, a ship without a rudder? I have no idea.

  4. I don’t see how hauling judges before congress and making the rat bastards explain themselves is such a bad idea. And Gingrich is as usual talking out of his ass here. You could never get the 2/3rd’s majority necessary to impeach a judge. But making them actually go before the public and explain themselves might give them pause in the future and it would at least be fun.

    Who here wouldn’t love to send the federal marshals out of police up the majority in Kelo and haul them before some Congressional committee to account for themselves? I would.

    1. I think you’ve jumped the shark.

      1. Why? Where does it say the judges shall never be called to account for their decisions?

        1. They are called the “Supreme” court for a reason, John. And they are a separate branch of government for a reason. They (as well as elected representatives) are protected by law from petulant mobs who get their philosophy from talk radio and cartoons.

          1. Sure. And they are subject to impeachment as well as advise and consent by the Senate for a reason too. And that reason is for the people through Congress to have the ultimate say on what the Constitution means. It is called representative democracy.

            1. The process of impeachment is quite different from that of having federal marshals “haul” (your word) judges before a committee to “account for” themselves. That’s why judges write opinions.

              1. If Congress can impeach, it can call you before the body to explain why it shouldn’t.

                  1. How can they impeach Adam if they can’t call you before them to explain yourself? Congress also has the subpoena power. Where does it say judges are immune from this power?

            2. Funny, I thought the USSC had the job of determining Constitutionality.

        2. Its your sides attempt to rid the Constitution of the Establishment Clause – the conservative wet dream.

          Newt even said so – citing your sides desire for mandatory prayer in public schools and the Pledge of Allegiance.

          You need to pound that theology into the soft heads of children to avoid becoming “Secular Europe”.

        3. Who watches the Watchemen?

          1. I bought it on Blu-Ray, but haven’t watched it yet.

            1. The book was better but the film is still good.

    2. I thought their opinions were where appellate judges explained themselves.

      I’ll go along with this kind of accountability for judges when judges can haul legislators into court and force them to explain their votes for unconstitutional laws. And, perhaps, remove them from office if they voted for an unconstitutional law.

      I mean, c’mon, if the three branches are coequal, then its goose/gander, right?

      1. The branches are not co-equal. The idea that they are is just more hoseshit they taught you at Harvard. Read the Constitutions. Congress is in Article I. All power flows from the legislature. Congress has the power to impeach both the executive and the judicial branch. The executive and the judicial don’t have that power over Congress. Therefore, since they have the power to impeach, Congress has the power to call the other two to account as it sees fit.

        1. If we decided to govern this way, the Constitutional order would be even more of a failure than it currently is and there would be nothing left to do but engage in open violence.

          If the Congress is the ultimate judge of the constitutionality of a law and not the courts, then we don’t need a constitution and should get rid of it.

          1. Why shouldn’t Congress be the ultimate judge? It is not like we are talking a majority here. We are talking 2/3rds of the Senate. Judges are not elected kings. In the end we are a representative Republic. That means the people get to decide what the Constitution means. They don’t get to do that directly. But they sure as hell do get to decide that through a 2/3rds majority of their elected representatives.

            If that isn’t the system, why does Congress have the power to impeach?

            1. To remove criminals from office.

              Why do you think that Congress is given the ability to override a Presidential veto, AND the power to impeach?

              These are clearly separate powers when the Congress is dealing with the President.

              The Congress is given one mechanism for dealing with a recalcitrant President on policy matters, and another for dealing with a President who commits criminal acts.

              That leads me to conclude that impeachment is supposed to be a tool for removing officials who commit crimes.

              Making it into a catch-all tool for changing judicial rulings means:

              1. We don’t actually need a judiciary. We can just use the Congress.

              2. We don’t need a mechanism for amending the Constitution. We can just let the Congress declare all its laws constitutional.

              It really boggles my mind sometimes exactly how much of the republic conservative dopes are willing to surrender to protect the Pledge of Allegiance, a particularly insipid and lame piece of bad 50’s Americana poetry with no value to anyone anywhere.

              1. If what you were saying is true, the Constitution would have been more specific about what “high crimes and misdemeanors” are instead of letting the Congress decide.

                It boggles my mind that you are so fucking stupid that you think the Constitution must say the best thing all of the time or that I am endorsing this as a good thing. I am not. I am just telling you what the document says. And what it says is the Congress can impeach any member of the judiciary branch for anything it deems a “high crime and misdemeanor”. You don’t like it, change the Constitution. But don’t preach to me about how the Constitution says something it doesn’t because you like it that way. As I said “unconstitutional” is not a synonym for “I don’t like it”.

                1. Yes, those silly framers, thinking that we would read “crime” and think it meant “crime” and not “issuing a ruling that an act of the legislature was unconstitutional.”

                  1. Those silly framers. They could have said “crime under the common law”. They could have said “crime such as …” but they didn’t. They left it up to Congress. It is a political question what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor. And the founders intended it that way.

      2. The Constitution give Congress the following power:

        To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

        and

        The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

        That’s it.

        I don’t see any authority there to dismiss a judge for anything other than “bad behavior”, and thus no implied authority to haul them before Congress for anything other than an inquiry into their good or bad behavior.

        And I don’t really think Congress has the authority to remove a judge, or “call them to account” with subpoenas and handcuffs, for the content of the judge’s opinions.

        As I read this, Congress can (1) establish (or disestablish) a federal court system and (2) remove judges for bad behavior. I don’t think that it authorizes Congress to micromanage the federal courts, though.

        1. Tell me where in the document it says that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” are anything other than a political question RC?

          God RC, you really bought the law school kool aide didn’t you?

          1. Tell me where in the document it says that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” are anything other than a political question RC?

            Well, there’s the meaning of the words themselves (both for executive and judicial impeachment), for starters.

            Neither “high crimes and misdemeanors” nor “bad behavior” encompasses policy differences. These Constitutional provisions are obviously not intended to allow Congress to ashcan Presidents and judges over policy.

    3. This has to be a John spoof.

      Judicial decisions already contain written explanations of the reasoning supporting those decisions.

      I am not interested in letting Newt Gingrich have any “fun”. If he wants to have some fun let him go out and rustle up wife #4.

      1. It is not a spoof and I am serious. Why can’t and shouldn’t Congress be able to call judges to account? They can impeach them can’t they? Ultimately, judges are accountable to the electorate through the Congress. They are not a Praetorian Guard or Counsels.

        1. It’s “Consul”, John. Get it right.

        2. I agree with the comment above that John has finally jumped the shark.

        3. This is hilarious. I spoof John late last night, and then he turns up here, and spoofs himself. I couldn’t have come up with more ridiculous bullshit if I tried.

          Thanks John!

          1. Fuck off, asshole. If you are going to spoof, at least use a fake email.

            1. Hmm. After careful consideration, I’m going to have to go with, “Fuck you” and “no” as my responses.

              1. Wow. Get some help.

        4. I agree in principle. But I don’t know how much good it’d really do, since as you point out, getting a 2/3 majority to impeach a judge when you don’t like his decision would be pretty hard to get. Anything else would just be show boating. Not that I have a problem with that kind of show boating, I just don’t know what’itd accomplish.

          Although, maybe on Kelo they could have got 2/3’rds. I’d be fine with that. Actually, it’s 2/3rd’s of the House of Lords, not the House of Commons, so even on Kelo, I doubt it would have been doable.

        5. Congress can ask judges to explain themselves. And judges can tell congress to go fuck itself. And if congress doesn’t like it, they can impeach the judge.
          What further account do you think that judges will give to congress that is not in the decisions that they wrote?

          1. Fine. Impeach the first one who doesn’t show up for contempt of Congress. I am fine with that.

          2. And judges owe whatever account the people through their representatives decide they owe. Judges work for the electorate.

            1. No, they don’t. They work the constitution, period. All the popular will in the world can’t override that.

              1. How do you work for the Constitution? That is nonsense. That assumes that there is one meaning of the document everyone can agree on. And there isn’t.

                And stop spoofing me. Either have the courage to have the debate or shut the fuck up.

                1. You’re right John.

                  This thread demonstrates that libertarians don’t like democracy at all and think dictatorship would be just dandy if the right people were in charge.

    4. Just like you were wrong with pigs and truffles you’re wrong on this too. Multitudes of nebulously written and often contradictory laws, legislating every action in life are the problem. If anything the Executive branch is not liberal enough with it’s veto and the legislative branch doesn’t invalidate enough laws. Having congress double check the people who are checking them, really just means that they shouldn’t be checked at all. Save us all the farce and the money.

      1. You are just saying “if only we had the right people in charge”. Sorry Chef, but a dictatorship is still a dictatorship even if I like the guy in charge.

        1. Sorry but checks only work in the negative. Having very few laws because 3 branches can’t agree on anything or one can’t get 2/3 or it’s members to agree is a function not a flaw. You’re the only person espousing “if only we had the right people in charge”.

          1. “If only we had the right people Christians in charge.”

            1. Go fuck yourself. It amazes me how a bunch of self described libertarians will suck any authorities cock so long as said authority is wearing a black robe and called a “judge”.

    5. Are you high? The judicial branch is the only one of the three branches that does consistently explain the reasoning for each of its decisions publicly. You want to know the reasoning behind Kelo? Here it is: http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup…..8.ZS.html. Now you go find me Nancy Pelosi’s explanation for her vote on PPACA.

      1. Pelosi stands for re-election. Judges don’t. And judges work for the people and thus are accountable to such.

        1. No, their job is to determine if what the hare-brained idiots the people elected have done jives with the Constitution. The Court’s job is to check the actions of the legislative and executive branches. None of the branches is more powerful than the other and Newt is wrong that it is 2 out of 3. Each branch can tell the other two to fuck off.

          Executive branch can veto Legislative bills and appoint judges.

          Legislative can override veto and stall judicial appointments in the Senate. Can impeach both.

          Judicial can tell both Legislative and Executive branches their work is unconstitutional nullifying their laws.

          They really do have dissimilar yet equal power.

          1. Sure they can tell them that. And the Congress can say, get out of office. IT says so right in the Constitution.

            1. If Congress can impeach a USSC judge for an improper decision on Constitutionality of a law and the USSC determines whether or not a law is Constitutional, there isn’t a situation where Congress can impeach a USSC judge for an improper decision.

      2. That’s easy. If she didn’t vote for it to pass we’d never know what was in it! But I bet plastic surgery IS in it.

        1. Oh, I bet she’ll be sorry when the death panel denies her next face lift.

          You just wait.

    6. Have you ever read a judicial opinion? Do they not “explain” themselves there? Give me a break.

      1. They explain themselves as much as they are going to if they get hauled before congress.

    7. First off it’s not Congress that has impeachment power, it’s the Senate. Second, as has been stated before, their written opinions ARE their account of their decisions.

      Second, the branches ARE co-equal, hence separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. Just because each side has whittled away at those checks and balances for the last hundred years doesn’t mean the constitution doesn’t still provide for them.

      Third, you are advocating a “living constitution” that congress has complete control over because they were elected. Hello MNG and New Mex, I didn’t realize the three of you were the same fucking person.

      And finally, Fuck off statist!!!

      1. You are arguing that judges are never accountable to the elected body. But I am the statist. Right. You are fucking enormous statist. Rule by unaccountable unelected judge is real libertarian.

        I would call you a statist. But you are too stupid to know the meaning of what you are saying.

        1. Rule by unaccountable unelected judge is real libertarian.

          Actually, John, it kinda is.

          In Libertopia all policy questions are settled and there is nothing for a legislature to DO, really. Except occasionally decide questions of war and peace. Don’t get me wrong, that’s a big deal, but it wouldn’t take up much of their time.

          In such a circumstance we are “ruled” by the principle that says, “Hey, legislature – don’t bother voting for anything, because we’ve already settled just about every issue and there’s no need for any changes in the future. And if you don’t get the message and still vote for shit even though we don’t need you to, we’ll strike down everything you vote for.”

          It would be nice if we could just accomplish this using an impersonal principle, but we can’t. The infrastructure of an “unaccountable” judiciary is the closest we can get to that impersonal principle.

          It’s wildly imperfect, because people are fallible. Maybe someday we can turn that function over to an AI.

          1. And when that rule by judges includes rule by people who have no respect for yours or anyone else’s rights what then? You sound just like a liberal here. “Yeah it will be great John, we just have the get the right judges in charge”. No thinks. I will take popular sovereignty.

            1. Then, revolution.

              You’re basically asking me, “What if Congress says it wants a state church, the President says it wants a state church, and the courts betray us all and say a state church is just awesome”?

              Well, in that circumstance constitutional government will have failed and it will be time to blow shit up.

              I never said it would be perfect and we couldn’t fail.

              But in my scenario for us to fail we need all three branches to go bad.

              In yours, as soon as the Congress goes, it’s all over. Because the Congress gets to dominate the judiciary and eliminate it at will.

              1. Why have a revolution when you can just take Congress? The Constitution creates a remedy less drastic than revolution. You only deny that remedy and talk revolution because you have talked yourself into a corner.

                1. Please elucidate how exactly we can take congress given our current state of affairs.

            2. What if popular soverignty says everyone but John lives? Your only hope is a SCOTUS that says “whoa, wait a minute. He’s done nothing illegal even if he’s wrong all the time.”

              1. If 2/3rds of the country decides to kill me, no judge will be able to save me.

              2. What if popular soverignty says everyone but John lives? Your only hope is a SCOTUS that says “whoa, wait a minute.

                It worked for us.

                1. Us too!

                  1. The Supremes saved us.

                    Oh, wait a minute.

        2. “You are arguing that judges are never accountable to the elected body.”

          Judges also don’t presume to rule the electorate, they just overrule the the elected. Judges don’t tell private citizens what to do, on Constitutional issues. At worst, they let another branch get away with violating the Constitution. Weakening them further would be giving Congress free reign to take away all our liberties.

          You’ve jumped the shark, John. Not having MNG to counterbalance has driven you over the edge.

          1. “Judges don’t tell private citizens what to do, on Constitutional issues.”

            That is exactly what they do. Judges rule our lives today more than bureaucrats. Judges for years until the McDonald decision told us if we could own a gun. Judges are petty tyrants.

            I guess the next time I want a blowjob, I will just wear a judicial robe to a libertarian event.

            1. No, judges let congress and state legislatures get away with telling people they couldn’t own a gun. I think there is an important distinction there (which cynical acknowledged). The bad gun laws stood because courts did their job badly, true. But judges never told us whether we could own a gun. That was legislatures. And it seems to me that making judges more accountable to legislatures could only make such problems worse.

            2. Are you actually this stupid? Judges are bad because they told us if we could own a gun until the McDonald decision? Let’s go through this logically.
              1. Lots of fucktards in state legislatures and Congress pass laws regulating gun ownership.
              2. Fucktard presidents and governors sign them.
              3. Courts follow the laws that are passed.
              4. Supreme Court decides laws are unconstitutional, gives us back some of our right to bear arms.
              5. John says its the courts’ fault that we lost the gun rights in the first place?

        3. Who are you and what have you done with John? I know John leaned a little more republican than most here, but I really can’t imagine he would be so vehemently supporting Newt Gingrich of all people.

          Just because the people in Congress were elected doesn’t make them any more accountable or smaller petty tyrants than any “unelected judges”.

          I know the Constitution grants impeachment power to the Senate. So judges ARE in fact accountable. However; they are not accountable based solely on disagreeing with the majorities policies. The impeachment power was never meant to be used as such and you know it. It is not a cudgel to beat everyone who disagrees into submission, it is a scalpel to remove a criminal cyst from office.

          Nevermind that everything you have described in this thread is actually “the will of the people” being the tyrants, not the judiciary. Yes the judiciary upheld some crap laws, but that doesn’t make them the Big Bad. If congress hadn’t passed and the president hadn’t signed said shitty laws in the first place, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

          And I apologize for the statist thing, I was hasty in posting it and said it out of frustration.

          1. It was absolutely intended to control judges. That is why “crime” is not defined. Further, see Eduard Van Halen’s post below about Congress’ power to restrict jurisdiction. Congress can turn these issues over to state judges who are subject elections.

            And I am not supporting Gingrich. I am supporting the idea of Congressional oversight and supremacy over the courts. Just because I don’t like Gingrich doesn’t mean he isn’t right about this.

    8. I don’t see how hauling judges before congress and making the rat bastards explain themselves is such a bad idea.

      Because it means that every time we elect a new congress, judges would have to revise what is and is not consitutional based on their projections of how the political wind might be blowing. You might get called before the current congress to account for a position that the last congress would have wholeheartedly endorsed; forget stare decis, Gingrich’s position throws the whole concept of a judiciary system at all under the bus.

  5. It’s not like Congress critters could avoid judicial “radicalism” by writing as few laws as possible and making those that are written crystal fucking clear. Oh wait, they could.

    1. Where is the penumbra in the constitution?

  6. BTW, if Congress decided to tommorow, it would be totally constitutional for them to impeach every sitting judge and give the replacements a warning that if they didn’t tow the lion they would be next to go. It might not be right or advisable. But it would be Constitutional. Unconstitutional is not a synonym for “wrong” or “I don’t like that”.

    1. This is true, of course.

      Sadly, the Constiution is not an impermeable barrier to tyranny. Its more of a speed bump, and the judiciary has done its fair share operating the bulldozer that has just about flattened it entirely.

    2. If there’s already a mechanism for Congress to deal with judges, then why did Gingrich need to declare that he would simply ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court if he didn’t like them?

      Why did he decide to embrace Andrew Jackson as a model?

      “Hi, I’m Newt Gingrich, and I have decided that ignoring the Supreme Court and dictatorially slaughtering Indians is the kind of Presidency I’d like to have. Yay me!”

      Newt Gingrich now gives a thumb’s up to the Trail of Tears.

      1. I don’t think he should ignore the decisions. But I don’t see a problem with judges being called before Congress to defend themselves. And I don’t see a problem at all with Congress impeaching a judge if his decision offended 2/3rds of the body. That is how the system is supposed to work.

        1. Only if you believe that impeachment was meant to be a policy tool, and not reserved to be a mechanism for removing criminals from high office.

          I don’t think impeachment was intended to be a different kind of veto override.

          1. I think that is exactly what it was intended to be. It was intended to be a check on both the executive and the judiciary. If either one of them got out so out of control that 2/3rds of the Senate thought they had to be stopped, Congress could impeach them.

            It is the only ultimate check on the judicial branch and the only one on the President that doesn’t have to wait for the next election.

            1. I think that is exactly what it was intended to be.

              You lost me at “I think”.

          2. They way they interpret the Constitution is criminal. Boom. Problem solved.

        2. I see a problem with the first part. Impeaching a judge and ignoring decisions by the judicial branch are separate issues. Congress can “circumvent” the issue of constitutionality through amendment just as they can remove a judge through impeachment. Both are hard to accomplish and for good reason.

          1. Hard to accomplish. But legal and perhaps in some cases necessary.

            1. I don’t disagree with your intent. My point is that both processes are hard so that the power is not abused for political reasons.

              1. I think “John” is actually Bill O’Reilly.

                War on Christmas?!

  7. What a turd. The SCOTUS needs to be far more activist in striking down legislation.

    1. Yes he is appalling. Just a vile person. If it is a choice between him and Obama I could not force my self to vote for Gingrich. I think I’d just stay home and watch everything burn to the ground.

  8. Here’s the key: It’s always two out of three. If the president and the Congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. If the Congress and the court say the president is wrong, in the end the president would lose. And if the president and the court agreed, the Congress loses.

    What about the Constitution?

    And what about that whole, “preserve and protect” oath? Too antiquarian, I suppose.

    1. Well what about it? What does it mean? You say it means X. Someone else makes a reasonable argument that it means Y. Who is right? How do we resolve that short of going to the oracle at Delphi? Sorry but I don’t consider the Supreme Court to be the oracle. At some level these questions are and should be settled by the political process not just which side happens to own a majority of the court at the time.

      1. Arguing that the second amendment does not apply to convicted felons is not a reasonable argument.

        The text does not so provide.

        Nor does it provide that one’s RTKBA is subject to licensing and registration schemes.

        The primary reason why the amendment was enacted was to make sure that the foot of the individual was placed upon the throat of the state.

        At. All. Times.

      2. It’s good to know you think our rights can be violated and destroyed through the political process and that the Constitution doesn’t really mean anything. And here I was thinking you were a rational person, but you are really just MNG in red rather than blue.

        1. Of course it can. But I at least have a fighting chance in the political process. If a judges fucks me, where do I go? I say I can got to Congress and have that judge held accountable. What is your position? You guys really seem to be saying that judges, not the voters have the final word on what rights we have. That is nuts.

          1. You heard it here first, folks. Rights are not pre-existant, they are determined by voters.

            Lets get right on with impeaching any judges that allow a mosque to be built on ground zero. Polls show a majority disagree with allowing it, and voters get to decide who has what rights!

            1. If you want to have a debate. Lets have one. But stop with the spoofing dipshit. It is not helpful and it just makes you look like a stupid douche.

              1. It’s not exactly spoofing when I’m not trying to be mistaken for you.

                But if it makes your vagina feel better, I’ll change the email address. Happy?

                1. Yes you are. And for God sakes just finish jerking off and get to the down cycle of your manic stage so the rest of us can have a conversation.

                  Quit trying to ruin the board rather. I am sorry no one likes you. It is not my fault.

          2. I would ask the executive for a pardon. I sure as hell wouldn’t count on the legislature to set me free. What authority do they have to even do that if they wanted to? Without the executive or judicial branches freeing me, I’m fucked anyway.

            Aren’t you a lawyer? How the fuck…?

            1. Yes I am a lawyer. And I have dealt with more judges than you I bet. I know full well what petty, politically driven, incompetent tyrants they are. They are the last people I would give unchecked power over my rights.

              1. Judges powers aren’t unchecked and obviously your time in the legal profession has jaded you quite a bit.

                Sorry if I’m more jaded that a majority of the country elect people who couldn’t give two shits and a fuck about me and wouldn’t defend my rights anymore than the 9 wizards of the Supreme Court.

                1. Who checks judges’ powers? At the federal appellate level they are virtually dictatorial. And they certainly are that at the Supreme Court.

              2. Then we are good and truly fucked because of the congrasswipes I’ve met, I trust them no farther than I can throw them and most of them are fat shit lowlifes I probably can’t throw at all. But every single one of them tells me they’re my friend. I’d rather go with the asshole who makes no bones about being an asshole than the one who rubs my dick with one hand and shoves a hot poker up my ass with the other.

  9. I hear there’s an opening for supreme leader in North Korea. Perhaps Gingrich should emigrate there, where his attitudes would be more in keeping with local traditions.

    no hugs for thugs,
    Shirley Knott

  10. If the Congress is the ultimate judge of the constitutionality of a law and not the courts, then we don’t need a constitution and should get rid of it.

    Judging by recent history, they are, and we did.

    1. You guys automatically assume the rule by judge is better than rule by Congress. What are we supposed to do if judges rape the Constitution and interpret it beyond all reasonable meaning? I say the Constitution gives us a remedy; win elections and impeach the judges. You clowns are convinced all judges are beyond account. Sorry, but I don’t buy that.

      1. None of us are advocating that judges are better than congress. What we ARE saying is that congress can’t just willy nilly call in every fucking judge it doesn’t like based on fucking policy. I can’t believe you are advocating for Newt Mother Fucking Gingrich.

        1. I am not advocating for anyone. But I am telling you that if the Senate decided tomorrow to haul Scalia or the wise Latina before the body to explain to the American people just what the fuck they are doing up there, they could. Where does it say the Supreme Court should never be held to any standard of accountability by the body politic? They are public servants not high priests.

          1. John, did you walk in on your wife while she was getting nailed by a guy in a black robe or something? You seem to have an irrational hatred for judges. Yes, they fuck up, but I would rather there be some kind of check on the tyranny of the majority than just assume that Congress is always right.

      2. John, I agree that the judiciary has played a profound role in raping the constitution.

        It was not Congress that invented all of the balancing tests under which the exercise of one’s liberty must be measured against the “publci interest”.

        It was not Congress that invented the commercial speech doctrine.

        It was not Oongress that invented the political question doctrine.

        It was not Congress that invented the warrantless exception for automobiles.

        It was not Congress that invented the state action exemption in Sherman cases.

        It was not Congress that invented the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity.

        It was not Congress that invented the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity.

        It was not Congress that invented the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial discretion.

        The courts have recoiled from their duty to act as an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power by the other branches.

        Speedbump? Yeah, in some instances, some courts have acted as a teeny, tiny speed bump upon an otherwise unmolested open road upon which the legislative and executive branches have tread in trampling our liberties.

      3. “You guys automatically assume the rule by judge is better than rule by Congress.”

        Occasionally I approve of SCOTUS’s decisions, so…

  11. Jacob I can’t believe you didn’t include a picture of Meat Loaf with this article.

  12. While Gingrich’s suggestions are over-the-top loony (though the left is hardly in a position to say anything, considering that their all-time hero FDR tried to subvert the Supreme Court), I agree with the idea that the judiciary has too little balance and accountability.

    Frankly, I’m not sure why Anthony Kennedy deserves to be the man who has the final say on almost every federal law. Who the hell is this guy anyway? The people never elected him to anything, and nobody really knows anything about him.

    I think the Founders made a big mistake in giving USSC justices lifetime tenure. Nobody deserves to have lifetime tenure in their job.

    1. I think their thinking was that people didn’t live THAT long, so everything would be okay. Jokes on them.

    2. I think that electing judges is a terrible idea. But I could get behind a single 10 year term, or something like that for appointed judges/justices.

      1. Agree fully. It should be a fixed term, something like 10 or 12 years, at which point they can be reappointed, but they have to be reconfirmed by the Senate again, so there is at least some accountability there.

    3. I think the Founders made a big mistake in giving USSC justices lifetime tenure.

      Lifetime tenure is another thing that Congress can and should change.

  13. The game was over as soon as we invested a political body with so much power that we had to separate that power to protect ourselves from it. Everything since then has been a long march towards one of those branches consolidating the power…

  14. I like how the picture is tilted out of plane, like an old Batman episode.

    1. Nucular Titties is Twoface!

  15. I don’t pretend that the SCOTUS (or any of its state equivalents) is the Oracle of Delphi, but let’s not commit the perfect-solution fallacy. In another publication, I pointed out Republicants’ declaration of love for Constitutional limitations on government power and asked what enforcement mechanism for those limitations would be equally effective. I’m still waiting for an answer.

    1. The enforcement mechanism is the people themselves. We own the damn rights not the government and not the courts. You guys have been fucking brainwashed to think otherwise. Fuck the judges. If they do something that the people as a group consider unconstitutional, it is totally right and proper that the people through their representatives impeach that judge.

      1. So the enforcement mechanism for individual rights against the tyranny of the majority is “the people themselves”? Do you genuinely not see the issue there?

        1. Don’t you genuinely see the issue of a bunch of unelected unaccountable judges running our government? Yes, at some level the people own the rights. If the people don’t value their freedom and their rights they will lose them. No amount of enlightened dictatorship by our robed overlords will change that.

          You guys are as bad as liberals. You think you will be free if only you just get the right people in charge through the courts. No you won’t. You will always have the wrong people in charge. And at some point there has to be a way to hold them accountable. And that is called impeachment.

          1. And at some point there has to be a way to hold them accountable. And that is called impeachment.

            And that depends on getting the right people into the legislatures.

            Good luck with that.

            The final word is jury nullification: The people telling both the judges and the legislators to go fuck themselves by refusing to enforce unjust laws.

            Except that if you try it you’ll likely end up locked in a cage with murderers and rapists.

          2. You haven’t addressed my point about the tyranny of the majority or my point about the perfect-solution fallacy. In fact, by referring to “the people as a group” and by citing decisions that you don’t like, you’ve implicitly conceded both of these points.

            1. You assume that anything 2/3rds of the people want will be bad and anything judges want will automatically be good.

              We are a huge diverse country. It is much more likely that a small group of elite judges will destroy our liberty than 2/3rds of the people will decide to do it.

              You are so deferential to judges, you take away any way to ever reign them in. As you view it Dr. Whom, I don’t see how the Constitution means or says anything other than what our robed over lords tells us. No thanks.

              1. John, it’s congress and the executive that destroy our liberty. Courts just fail to do their job of standing up to them. How is making the courts more accountable to congress not going to make that situation worse?

                1. Zeb,

                  If the country goes crazy and elects a truly depraved Congress, we are doomed no matter what. We only have rights to the extent we as a people are willing to defend them.

                  1. If the country goes crazy and elects a truly depraved Congress

                    If? Or haven’t you been paying attentiuon?

                    1. I never said we were not already doomed T.

          3. You make an excellent case for anarchy, since the only two positions you believe exist are tyranny by judges or tyranny by the mob.

            I’ll take freedom from both, thank you.

            1. Change your handle numb nuts.

              1. I’m with you, John (the DC lawyer). I think this spoofer should get banned.

          4. John, you’re not much for long-term thinking, are you?

            Most of the cases that come before SCOTUS are controversial, popularly divisive.

            Picking out fine threads in Constitutional law, and formulating educated opinions about those threads, is not something I want to trust to the “people,” quite frankly. “The People” can’t even figure out birth control, believe Justin Bieber is a musician, think we’re defending America’s freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan, and think Olive Garden is a nice restaurant that serves authentic Italian food.

            Subjecting judicial decisions to the mob, or to the hypocritical obsessions of the Christo-Taliban with certain buzzphrases (“In GAWD we trust!!!Prayer in teh skoolz!!) would bring about daily repetitions of the trial scene from “Idiocracy.” Half of the country would think no crime has been committed, and the other would be jumping up and down, screaming for judges’ heads to roll. And probably 90% of the entire lot would not understand the legal issues in question.

            Half of the people will always think that the “wrong” judges are sitting on the bench.

            Adulterous old lech Newt is upset that teh prairz and teh Gawd is being taken out of teh skoolz. Irony, you’re delicious.

            1. That is why it takes 2/3rds of the Senate to actually do it. More than half.

              And you are not thinking long term. You really think judges are incapable of doing outrageous things? I would say that it is much more likely that a few judges in key positions will take away our rights than 2/3rd of the Senate agree to do so.

              And I have the entire history of the last sixty years where judges have consistently ignored and eroded our rights to support my assumption.

          5. I still don’t see how you think that judges are running the government. What government policies are created by judges and not congress or the executive?

  16. If anything the Executive branch is not liberal enough with it’s veto and the legislative branch doesn’t invalidate enough laws.

    No

    fucking

    shit.

    If we somehow or other managed to back into a situation in which our President actually had balls, the first time the Congress rolled one of its 10,000 page omnibus monstrosities down Pennsylvania Avenue, he’d say, “Fuck you, I’m not reading this. I’m DEFINITELY not signing it. Go back and break it into discrete coherent pieces. In other words, do your fucking jobs. By all means, go ahead and override this, and see what happens.”

    1. Ron Paul said on Leno that Grover Cleveland was a great president because he loved to veto bills. I’m trying to think of a way to put the sentiment on a bumper sticker.

  17. Crazy-uncle Gingrich. Cannot possibly win. What kind of crank would support such a loser?

  18. It seems what G-dog is saying is that interpretation of the constitution is not *really* the sole mandate of an independent judiciary, but rather that Elected Officials should have equal say in how they choose to interpret or apply constitional principal to laws… basically – that given enough popular appeal for a given interpretation of the constitution (We’re a Christian Country! Its in there!!), Politicians should have the Authoritah(!) to override the Courts if such is the will of the people.

    And Newt is understood to be the only “Real Conservative” by people like Rush Limbaugh. Conservative my ass = he wants to establish a radical populist despotism, albeit one that wears the mantle of “Conservative” (God, Guns, anti-Gay), while simutaneously demanding a radical populist Big Government.

  19. Here is a question for you people. We all know Kelo was wildly unconstitutional right? If we won that argument with the public to such a degree that a majority of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate agreed with it, why shouldn’t Congress impeach the majority who voted for that decision and replace them with judges who respect the Constitution? Suppose the majority in McDonald switches and we lose our 2nd Amendment rights? You are telling me that it wouldn’t be just and proper for the Congress, if we could ever win that big of a majority, to impeach that bastards who did that?

    We own the rights. They come from us and natural law. Not from the whims of judges. And when judges ignore our rights, it is our right through Congress to impeach them.

    1. Kelo was an example of the judicial branch kowtowing to the other branches instead of declaring their acts unconstitutional (it was a local government case, but implicates the federal powers as well). In your world of impeachment of judges that issue decisions Congress doesn’t like, it is far more likely that judges would defer to the other branches even more than they already do, for fear that they might get impeached. Your argument is one for more government overreach, not less.

      1. You assume that a judge not deferring to a branch is the only way they can take our rights. Reality is just the opposite. Judges have done more damage going against elected officials. Think about forced busing and negative rights. That is where the judges have done damage. Those decisions can’t be undone. An act of Congress can be.

    2. John, this is just silly.

      I realize that “bad” decisions can get your panties in a twist.

      But the checks on Congressional power that the courts employ are sentences that say things like “Congress shall make no law…”

      How can you possibly think that the way for us to check Congress’ ability to make unconstitutional laws is…to have the Congress make and unmake judges at will, and declare the Constitution to be whatever the Congress wants?

      Seriously.

      That’s like saying we’re going to have a system where we decide whether or not you have to give Tony head…by asking Tony.

      Frankly, if the Constitution were properly written it would have almost impossible to write and pass a new constitutional law, once we got past the obvious. All of our governance would consist of the Congress passing laws and the courts striking them down. That’s how we’d spend all our time and energy – in the pointless quest for new legislation that wasn’t immediately struck down.

      1. “How can you possibly think that the way for us to check Congress’ ability to make unconstitutional laws is…to have the Congress make and unmake judges at will, and declare the Constitution to be whatever the Congress wants?”

        They are called ELECTIONS. Maybe you haven’t heard of them. They happen every two years.

        You are being incredibly silly. If a Supreme Court told you anything, I guess you would just go along with it. They get the final word. You don’t have a right to question it. It amazes me how you people are so in love with judicial power.

        1. What’s so great about elections?

          The entire reason to have a constitution is to remove as many matters as possible from the vagaries of elections.

          1. In the short term, yes. But in the long term no. Elections and elected representatives decide everything in the Constitution. Via elections we can amend the whole document.

            You guys have lost sight of the point and the genius of our Constitution. The point is not to just get your guy in the right judge role and shove your idea of utopia down everyone’s throat. The idea is for there to be a process whereby the people hold the ultimate if hard to use power. I wouldn’t agree with a system where a majority of Congress could impeach judges. But if the judges manage to get so crossways with the American people that 2/3rds of the Senate says they need to go, I am fine with that.

            1. John naively believes that elections are valid and express “the will of the people”, whatever the fuck that means.

              If anything, they express the will of the minority fraction of the elderly and unemployed who show up on election day, which is always a workday. And gerrymandering doesn’t exist in John’s world. Elections solve everything! Just like the recent elections in Egypt! People will NEVER vote for tyranny!

            2. The House has impeached 16 federal officials, of those the Senate removed 7 — all judges.

              The process is already in place and already works.

              1. Sure it does. I am just saying it should be used more often.

                1. You have way too much faith in the competence of congress.

            3. You guys have lost sight of the point and the genius of our Constitution. The point is not to just get your guy in the right judge role and shove your idea of utopia down everyone’s throat. The idea is for there to be a process whereby the people hold the ultimate if hard to use power.

              I actually have always thought that the amendment process was too easy.

              I believe that the amendment process was supposed to be nearly impossible. We actually haven’t had all that many amendments passed, and three of them were passed in an extraordinary post-insurrection environment.

              But I’d still like to see it a little bit harder.

              But you’re advocating to take the (highly difficult) process of amending the constitution and to simplify it: if you have two-third’s of the Senate and a majority in the House, Poof! The Constitution is what you say it is. Forget the state legislatures, forget the courts.

              1. Yes, Fluffy. That is true. And if you take the document as written and don’t read anything into it, Congress could do just that. Of course, Congress comes up for election every two years. And the next congress would be free to either put in new judges or at least end the threat of impeaching them allowing judges to go away from the new interpretation. SO it would not be as simple or as long lasting as an amendment.

                In reality, actually impeaching a judge would take tremendous political will. And doing it would put the fear of God into the other judges. Congress wouldn’t really want to do it unless they had to and judges would know not to abuse their power so much that Congress got really angry. That strikes me as a pretty good balance.

                I am not a Gingrich fan. But I fail to see how some more active oversight by Congress over the courts would be a bad thing.

                1. See above. They have gotten the will up 7 times.

                  I dont want it to be too easy to do. What you are describing sounds very parliamentary, where the majority gets ALL the power until they lose an election.

                  Fuck that shit, I prefer gridlock.

      2. All of our governance would consist of the Congress passing laws and the courts striking them down.

        If the courts did their job and judged legislation against the constitution, that’s what would happen.

        Instead the courts defend legislation from those who would judge it against the constitution.

        Separation of Powers was a dismal failure.

    3. And also, Congress doesn’t need to muster a two-thirds majority to make significant strike against the holding Kelo. All they need to do is pass a law by a simple majority that restricts the use of eminent domain. They could probably even impose similar controls on state and local governments by conditioning federal funding. It’s pretty telling that this didn’t happen after Kelo. Even at the state level, most of the new legislation was smoke and mirrors.

      I’m hard pressed to think of a case where the judiciary has declared an act of Congress unconstitutional and the judiciary’s actions were against individual liberty. It’s almost always the opposite. If you can think of a case, I’d like to see it.

      1. I can think of a whole line of cases involving desegregation in the 1970s. A federal judge ran the Kansas City School district for a decade and without any consent of the legislature imposed billions of dollars in taxes on the taxpayers of Missouri.

        1. As did one by the name of Garrity in Boston.

          But John, the point is that they rarely strike down legislation which is what they are supposed to do.

          What do you think Madison meant when he expected the judiciary to act as an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power by the legislative branch?

          1. It was never intended to be impenetrable. Otherwise, why the power to impeach?

            1. Don’t be obtuse. Obviously impenetrable was meaning it should not be able to be penetrated by the legislative every time they tried to grant themselves more power.

              Also, didn’t what you are saying basically happen under FDR allowing him to appoint enough judges that his New Deal bullshit was upheld?

        2. You mean where the courts said that legally segregated schools were unconstiutional? Yeah, that sucked for individual liberty. You’re totally right.

          1. It totally sucked for individual liberty. Millions of kids were bussed off to schools against their will. Billions of dollars were stolen from the tax payers without any consent of the governed. We are not talking about Brown where they said any kid can go to their local school. This is where they said, this school is too black so go force those white kids to come over here and those black kids to go over there.

            It was a total infringement upon liberty.

            1. I’m pretty sure all kids are sent to school against their will. Not sure what your point is.

              I’m not going to defend every action of the judiciary in the desegregation cases, but it’s not as if the legislatures and executives were standing up for individual rights. They were on the side of racism and maintaining segregated schools.

      2. Ummm, have you ever heard of this little case commonly known as the Dred Scott Decision?

        1. That’s one. I’ll put one on John’s side of the ledger. I still get a couple thousand on my side though.

  20. To be honest, there are worse things imagineable than a legislature which devotes the entirety of its time and energy to impeachment hearings.

  21. The enforcement mechanism is the people themselves.

    Mobs, tarring and feathering federal judges.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Jury nullification is the final enforcement mechanism.

      1. You guys love jury nullification. But you think it is all wrong for a poor judge to have to explain himself to Congress. Yeah, that makes sense.

        1. He already fucking did it in his decision. Can congressmen not read?

          Okay, based on evidence, no they cant, but they can have someone read it to them.

        2. Judges are to judge legislation.
          That means that Congress answers to them, not the other way around.

        3. “You guys love jury nullification. But you think it is all wrong for a poor judge to have to explain himself to Congress. Yeah, that makes sense.”

          What on EARTH does holding the former position have anything to do with the latter?

          1. Change your name back to what it should be and I will explain it to you you nasty little Aspy.

            1. Why should I when I derive so much enjoyment from your frustration/anger?

              1. Then don’t and advertise to the world that you are too stupid to engage in the conversation.

      2. Agreed, but try standing outside of a federal court in New York passing out FIJA pamplets.

        1. Judges know that the jury has the real power, and they will do everything that they can to make sure that the jury does not know this.

  22. When the cops arrest anybody who talks about jury nullification (and prosecutors kick out any potential jurors who might know about it), nullification is not much of a threat. Plus, nullification is more of a swipe at stupid laws than at stupid judges.

    1. More of?

      Its only a swipe at stupid laws.

    2. It is a swipe at both. But more importantly, if the people via a jury can tell a judge “fuck you, this law is unconstitutional and we are not enforcing” why can they also not tell a judge through Congress “fuck you you have violated our rights once too often get off the bench”?

      1. What’s to stop Congress from saying to judges “fuck you you’ve ruled too much of our hard work as a violation of the Constitution (because it is, but that’s beside the point) and we’re going to impeach you”?

        1. Nothing. But what is to stop there being a revolution and a military dictatorship? The only thing that stops either is our respect for our institutions.

          1. Respect? Yeah. OK.

            I think far fewer people have respect for our institutions than you think.

            1. Well saying that judges are never accountable to anyone no matter how offensive their rulings, doesn’t help that respect much.

              1. Well saying that judges are never accountable to anyone no matter how offensive their rulings

                The only one saying that is the straw man you’re arguing with.

                1. If they can’t be impeached sarcasmic, how are they ever to be held accountable? They have lifetime appointments.

                  1. Who said they can’t be impeached, other than the straw man you’re arguing against?

                    1. I say they can and should be impeached if they ignore the constitution. Do you disagree? If not, then we agree with each other.

                    2. Judges should be impeached for not striking down legislation that violates the Constitution.

                      Let’s see. A majority of Congress passes legislation that violates the Constitution, then that same Congress impeaches a judge who does not strike the legislation down.

                      Sure John, whatever you say.

                    3. It is a new Congress every two years Sarcasmic. Are you saying that a new Congress can never undo the damage of an out of control court?

                    4. John, as I see it judges are derelict in their duty to strike down legislation that is in clear violation of state and federal constitutions.
                      However this is inaction, not action.
                      How the heck do you impeach for inaction, and what Congress will vote to impeach a judge who commits the crime of giving legislation a pass?

                    5. It is a new Congress every two years Sarcasmic.

                      Yeah. A new Congress that’s mostly incumbents.

                  2. But they are impeachable. You want to have them read their decisions in front of Congress, made up of people who always do what’s best for themselves and rarely, if ever, anyone else.

                    1. As if judges are any better Bones.

                    2. They may not be better people, but they don’t have to campaign for reelection. I think that counts for a lot.

                    3. In the negative Zeb. That just means that they don’t have to care about anything but their petty schemes.

                    4. It goes both ways. And it is a hard call to make. I happen to think that their petty schemes, such as they are, are less damaging than political pandering would be.

  23. I am telling you that if the Senate decided tomorrow to haul Scalia or the wise Latina before the body to explain to the American people just what the fuck they are doing up there, they could.

    Of course, by doing this, they would be explicitly admitting they had fucked up by confirming the appointment to begin with. The time to “demand” the judges justify their decisions is in the confirmation process. If the Senate cannot be relied upon to perform *that* function properly, what possible justification can you provide to convince us they could come back later and fix it?

    1. All true Brooks. But allow me the fantasy of imaging we actually elected a competent Senate.

      1. Here is your problem John – you actually believe it is possible to get the right people in charge.

        1. No you do. You are the one who thinks judges should get the final say on the law and never be subject to any oversight.

  24. All your judges are belong to us!

  25. I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass I am a dumbass

    1. I am sorry you forgot your meds Rather. Can’t you go back to posting as White Indian? You were more interesting that way.

  26. I’d make a very good dictator in my own mind.

    1. He is just talking out of his ass. He would never be able to get Congress to act. Only in a better universe is there a Senate willing to kick judges out on their asses for not following the Constitution. In our universe, they will continue to ignore it whenever it suits their vanity.

  27. Since that is always true for acts of Congress

    Not really. Congress can override a presidential veto.

  28. Only in a better universe is there a Senate willing to kick judges out on their asses for not following the Constitution.

    It would have to be a pretty fucking good Universe indeed for the Senate to remove a judge for overturning a law that the Senate had passed.

    In reality, John, your approach would just lock in the ratchet to mo bigga government. Judges would only be impeached on policy grounds for daring to thwart the will of the Supreme Legislature. What little protection they provide the Constitution now would be completely removed.

    The genius of separation of powers was that it required all three branches to agree that a law was Constitutional (or two, if Congress overrides a veto).

    Giving Congress the authority to remove federal judges on purely policy grounds makes the judiciary subservient to Congress. I simply cannot believe that was the intent of the Founders.

    1. It would have to be a pretty fucking good Universe indeed for the Senate to remove a judge for overturning upholding a law that the Senate had passed.

      Stupid fingers.

      1. First, not every case the court reviews involves a federal law. A lot of them involve stupid regulations or state laws.

        Second, every Congress is new. Gasp, someone could win an election and make a difference.

        I don’t know what planet you live on where courts do anything but extend the reach of government, but I would like to live there. Courts almost never reduce the power of government. And they routinely ignore people’s rights. If and when there is a Congress that recognizes how bad that is, I see nothing wrong with them impeaching judges. As a matter of fact, I would amend the Constitution to give federal judges ten or fifteen year terms. They have no business being on the bench for decades. it just corrupts them.

        In the end, your position says that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it does. And the people have no mechanism to change that. That can’t even do it through amendment since the Courts would have the final say on what the amendments say.

        That is not what the framers intended And that is not a good system of government. Judges have read pretty much all objective meaning out of most of the Constitution. I would like to hold out hope that some day the American people will come to their senses and be able to do something about that.

  29. Jefferson called impeachment a “scare-crow” as far as punishing judges for bad decisions. And Jefferson actually tried it.

    Congress’s hands aren’t tied. They don’t have to punish judges, just say that in subject ares where federal judges are wrong, “OK, fine, we’ll have the state courts decide this.”

    There’s a lot of phony objections to this, but it’s in line with the Constitution and preserves judicial review.

    And it allows a proper division between cases suitable for state courts and cases suitable for federal courts. Congress has never given federal courts the full measure of jurisdiction that Article III allows. It’s a matter of where to draw the line. And if federal courts are going around ordering tax increases, etc., send the matter to state judges who can get fired by voters for that kind of stuff.

    1. That is an excellent point. Limited federal government applies to the judiciary as well.

  30. Gingrich should be running for Dear Leader of the DPRK.

  31. After reading and rereading this entire thread it’s pretty damn obvious:

    Show us on the doll where the bad judge touched you John.

    1. I just don’t get you guys’ love of judges. Yeah sure judges should protect our rights and enforce the Constitution. But when they don’t, we can and should be able to kick their asses out. I fail to see why that is such a controversial statement.

      1. But when they don’t, we can and should be able to kick their asses out.

        But Congress can’t kick them out for failing to protect our freedoms without also having the power to kick them out for protecting our freedoms.

        And I know which Congress is more likely to do.

        Yeah, the current state of the judiciary sucks. Making them wholly subservient to Congress will make it worse.

        1. First, they are subservient to Congress by the terms of the Constitution. So that ship has sailed. And further, they are only subservient in so far as 2/3rds of the Senate agrees, which is pretty rare.

      2. “But when they don’t, we can and should be able to kick their asses out.”

        Not all of us here are Senators, John. If you don’t see the logical disconnect in trusting the people who passed the unconstitutional laws in the first place with the power to punish judges for failing to strike them down, you’re profoundly idiotic.

        The only result would be punishment for judges that did stand with the Constitution against the tyrannical whims of our native criminal class. You aren’t usually this stupid — go see a doctor or something, you may have had a stroke.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.