1 Newt Gingrich: constitutional conservative.

2 OMG, and you still prefer him to Mitt?!  Check out the French "judiciary."  You don't  want this/that.

3 This is complete bullshit and utter pandering to the hardcore pro-life crowd in Iowa. It's nutty stuff like this that we will get over and over again if we nominate Gingrich. Ron Paul was actually 100% right about this in the Sioux City debate - we don't need to fix the judiciary, we need a Congress with balls to do what Congress is supposed to do and already has the power to do in the Constitution - overturn judicial rulings that the people oppose.

4 I knew that Newt Gingrich was fond of citing the Founding Fathers and Andrew Jackson in his campaign rhetoric, but I had no idea that what he really meant by that was returning to Thomas Jefferson's blatantly corrupt attempts to destroy the independent judiciary by impeaching Samuel P. Chase or approving of Jackson's "Justice Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it" rationale for executing the Trail of Tears.

5 >>>Ron Paul was actually 100% right about this in the Sioux City debate - we don't need to fix the judiciary, we need a Congress with balls to do what Congress is supposed to do and already has the power to do in the Constitution - overturn judicial rulings that the people oppose.

It's a sad fucking day when Ron Paul of all people is now the voice of reason on these matters, but my god you're right about this: he's the only one who really got this correct at the debate.

6 Okay sure this idea sounds a bit chilling.  But, honestly, what is the real danger here?  Congress subpoenas a judge, the judge testifies before Congress and endures a grilling from Congresscritters.  And then what?  MOB RULE???!!?!?!?!?

Viewed in its most benign way, it seems that this idea would be to, essentially, force justices to undergo an approval-style hearing again before Congress.

Or perhaps I am missing something...?

7 The idea that the courts have the final say was a power given to the courts by..... the courts.

8 Do not put your trust in this man. He will screw you and smile all the while, then say "What? You asked for it." He is the Scorpion in the parable of "The Scorpion and The Frog". It is his nature!

9 very disappointing, and When another Dem/progressive like Obama gets power? Would we really we want this type of precedent set ever?

10 OMG, and you still prefer him to Mitt?!
Posted by: ParisParamus at December 18, 2011 01:40 PM (m4nvO)

Yep.

Newt is right that the balance of power is out of whack when it comes to the judiciary and the political branches. His proposed solutions are idiotic but that doesn't mean he isn't right in arguing the problem exists.

I'd rather have a debate about the proper relationship between the branches of government and try and formulate a reasonable response than pretend everything is just fantastic.

Liberals have used the courts for decades to implement what they couldn't get through the politcal branches. If you're cool with that, then I guess Mitt's your guy.

11 Romney, Newt, Perry? Hey the Redskins are kicking some Giant ass 10-0

12 I don't think you can make much of a Founder's argument. The courts today have vastly more power than the Founder's intended or imagined.

The judiciary has long ago become the dominant force of the 3 branches.

Take abortion. The state legislatures, Congress, and the President could all pass laws restricting abortion -- and the judiciary will just undo those laws with a stroke of the pen.

How is that co-equal? The judiciary has final and total say over too many issues.

I'm not saying Newt's idea is a good one, but we've long past the point where you can argue the judiciary is just following the Founder's intent, or that living in a world of judicial fiat over so many issues is a reasonable position for the Republic to be in.

13 wouldn't we rather use impeachment? of course that wouldn't likely be an option  either.

14 No, Tara Reid is not hot.  Tara Reid looks like a starved Chelsea Clinton.

15 Gingrich may have been extreme in some of his rhetoric but he isn't too far off from the founders. The founders never intended for the SCto be the ultimate authority on who has the last word on what the Constitution means.

In fact, prior to the "war" Presidents routinely ignored the SC. Jackson even stated it after they ruled against him with respect to the Cherokee Indians and he is honored on the $20 bill.

It was originally intended that the ultimate authority on the Consitution resided with the States with a role for the President in vetoing laws he thought were unconstitutional. 

Unfortunately when they run John Asshole Adams out of office that all changed.

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Gingrich, but he isn't too far off on SCOTUS.

16 does congress send out the marshalls when executive dept. officials refuse to testify? they have the power of impeachment, use it if you feel the need but to think you can compel an equal branch to attend your showboat hearings is asinine. but its typical newt.

17 does congress send out the marshalls when executive dept. officials refuse to testify?

Yes they do.

18 14 No, Tara Reid is not hot.  Tara Reid looks like a starved Chelsea Clinton.

Yer just jealous you can't wear shoes like that.

19 This image of a judge as some sort of wise, impartial arbiter who bases his decisions on reason and objectivity is the problem.

Judges make all sorts of decisions to please somebody.  I'm sure many seek the approval of their favorite law school professor.

It's not an independent judiciary at all, it's an arm of the corrupt legal profession and has become nothing more than a means of the dishonest Left to get their policy proposals through without debate or opposition.

But imagine the squawks of outrage were future Democratic Congresses to start hauling in conservative judges for questioning.

I don't like Gingrich's proposal, but despite the fact that judges may have to actually face debate and disagreement on their decisions, conservative judges would win that argument simply because the tortured logic used by liberals sounds ridiculous when said out loud. "But it isn't in the Constitution," or "I only go by the law, if you want to change it, you can," is rather persuasive.

Reducing the carefully balanced separation of powers is not among them.

They aren't carefully balanced, the judiciary's is absolute and unquestioned.  They can't be impeached for bad decisions and their decisions can only be overturned by a Constitutional amendment.  It's silly and it puts too much power in the legal profession, witness how many of our elites have no other credential to their name than Ivy League law school.

I'm trying to think of that new word that was coined to mean "rule by a small group of the least qualified"...

20 Liberals have used the courts for decades to implement what they couldn't get through the politcal branches. If you're cool with that, then I guess Mitt's your guy.

Oh sheesh, that is just a cheap shot Drew.  What is your evidence for this assertion?

21 >>>Newt is right that the balance of power is out of whack when it comes to the judiciary and the political branches. His proposed solutions are idiotic but that doesn't mean he isn't right in arguing the problem exists.

We don't need Newt Gingrich to alert us to the existence of this problem, Drew.  It's kinda sorta been top-of-mind for conservative for, oh I dunno, about 40 years or so now.  He's bringing nothing to the table by "starting a discussion" that was already ongoing without him, and doing massive damage not only to his own electability but more importantly to the principle of separation of powers by proposing the destruction of an independent judiciary.

If you didn't want to vomit after hearing Newt talk about abolishing the 9th Circuit wholesale, only to reinstitute it with an entirely new slate of handpicked judges -- and keep in mind we're all in agreement about the egregiousness of the 9th Circuit here -- then we're already well into "toss the baby out with the bathwater" territory in our approach to constitutional issues.

22 The U.S. Marshal Service ordinarily provides security for the federal courts and judges. Gingrich's suggestion is an extreme departure from the vision of Founders.

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

23 No, Tara Reid is not hot. Tara Reid looks like a starved Chelsea Clinton. Posted by: Truman North at December 18, 2011 01:50 PM (I2LwF) OK I had to google Tara Reid. Chelsea Clinton? I don't think so

24 Newt is right that the balance of power is out of whack when it comes to the judiciary and the political branches. His proposed solutions are idiotic but that doesn't mean he isn't right in arguing the problem exists.

I'd rather have a debate about the proper relationship between the branches of government and try and formulate a reasonable response than pretend everything is just fantastic.

Liberals have used the courts for decades to implement what they couldn't get through the political branches. If you're cool with that, then I guess Mitt's your guy.

Come on, Drew, that argument is beneath you.  Is it really your contention that the folks here are just fine with the current state of the Court?  There isn't any other possible explanation? 

I take a backseat to nobody in my disdain for the activist Court.  But here we confront the problem with Newt Gingrich as our nominee for the presidency.  He may be right, although I don't concede that at all.  But is a presidential campaign the right time to bring us something that is so easily demagogued and so far out of the mainstream that it practically guarantees defeat?  And please don't bother with the mocking questions about "hills to die on" and whether it will ever be that time.  This is a monumentally stupid, unforced error by a brilliant, but undisciplined man.  Stuff like this during the general will be fatal.

25 Gingrich is banking on his scheme being well-received by voters angry at how often judges rule without considering whether their decisions have majority support.

It's not so much about majority support as the perception that they've arrogated to themselves the power to make their own laws and Constitutional amendments. Essentially on a whim, and with no practical means of gainsaying them.

There are better ways to get rogue judges under control.

Oh, good. What are they?

26 >>>In fact, prior to the "war" Presidents routinely ignored the SC. Jackson even stated it after they ruled against him with respect to the Cherokee Indians and he is honored on the $20 bill.

Jackson was the only President to ignore the SCOTUS in such a blatant way, and I'm stunned that there's anyone out there who's willing to defend what was inarguably the most disgraceful moment of his Presidency.

27

Posted by: Vic at December 18, 2011 01:53 PM (YdQQY

 

really? who have to arrested to force testimony from? i've never heard of that happening. even when the dems were trying to force bush officials to testify i never heard anyone put that option out there.

28 very disappointing, and When another Dem/progressive like Obama gets power? Would we really we want this type of precedent set ever?

Posted by: willow at December 18, 2011 01:47 PM (h+qn

IIRC, Obama is currently ignoring at least one judicial decision on the permitorium, and he hectored the SJC justices at the State of the Union.

As I've said before, restraining our actions because of fears the Democrats will do the same is folly. The Democrats will do what they feel they need to do to win, irrespective of what conservatives do.

29 Oh, good. What are they?

Elections.

30 Not only is Gingrich wrong about this issue on its face, he is giftwrapping an issue for Obama to jump on and continue making this election about everything besides his pathetic record on the economy and foreign policy. For the supposedly brilliant tactician, this was remarkably stupid. Hate on Mitt Romney all you want, but all he has been talking about in this campaign is Jobs and Debt, and Obama's weakness in foreign policy. That's ALL this campaign should be about, or else WE LOSE. Capisce?

31 Amishdude:

Ineptocracy?

32 Jackson was the only President to ignore the SCOTUS in such a blatant way, and I'm stunned that there's anyone out there who's willing to defend what was inarguably the most disgraceful moment of his Presidency.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 18, 2011 01:55 PM (hIWe1)

Well, in the infamous Marbury v Madison case the President let the SC know they could rule how they wanted, but they had no control over his actions as the head of a coequal branch.

33 Jackson was the only President to ignore the SCOTUS in such a blatant way,

He wasn't the only one to ignore the court. He was the only one though to openly defy them in public. Read the quote above from T. Jefferson. He saw all that coming.

After months of reading your posts here I have come to the conclusion you are a big government federalist just like John Adams. or in other words, a modern Democrat, so why are you here?

34 >>>Posted by: Thomas Jefferson at December 18, 2011 01:53 PM (3aXbg)

Well Thomas, you wrote those words as a matter of pure opportunism, contradicting your earlier stated views on the issue because you were attempting to retroactively justify your involvement in the most notoriously corrupt scheme in U.S. history to remove your personal enemies from the Supreme Court and destroy the power of the judiciary to review the constitutionality of your decisions.  You're hardly an impartial observer in this situation.

Folks, it's not as if "politics" only started in the mid-19th century. 

35 really? who have to arrested to force testimony from?

They threatened to send marshals after some of Nixon's people if I am not mistaken.

36 "the carefully balanced separation of powers" flew out the window when the court decided to anoint itself with unconstitutional supreme power in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

It's about time that usurpation of power is slapped down with whatever force it takes. 

37 >>>He wasn't the only one to ignore the court. He was the only one though to openly defy them in public. Read the quote above from T. Jefferson. He saw all that coming.

No, YOU read Jefferson's quote in its proper context.  He was writing in 1820, long after his presidency, attempting to justify the Chase affair.  Do you even know what that is?  If you did, you might not be so glib in citing him as an authority.  It's like approvingly quoting Richard Nixon in 1980 on the need for greater executive privilege.

And I'll ignore the insult.

38 Good Lord Jeff B. you are truly FOS. Go read some damn history.

39 There are a lot of changes that can be made by the ABA and other gatekeepers of the legal profession if they weren't corrupt.  Here's one:

A cursus honorum: In order to become an appellate judge, you have to have served time below.  For instance, a SCOTUS nominee is automatically unqualified if he or she hasn't served at least 5 years as a circuit court judge. A circuit court nominee is automatically unqualified if he or she hasn't served at least 5 years as either a federal district judge or a high court judge at the state level. I would also require that any SCOTUS nominee have some sort of experience outside of the legal profession.  An undergraduate degree that requires calculus, a couple of years of a summer job at Starbucks, anything.

No law professors, no quick promotions.

40

There are several SC decisions that are in desperate need of a review. Among them are the hideous "right to abort" and the dreadful 14th Amendment decision that completely ignores the plain language of the Constitution, especially the "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part, which plainly states that a citizen of another country does not automatically create an American citizen by mere birth on our territory.

Judges make all sorts of decisions to please somebody.

That's the problem, right there. Judges need to start making decisions that please the Constitution, opposition be damned. If they are to be the final arbiters, the least they could do would be to adhere to the Law of the Land.

Don't like it? Then move somewhere else, to a place that holds your beliefs. It's a big world out there with a diversity of opinions and governments.

41

Posted by: Vic at December 18, 2011 02:01 PM (YdQQY)

 

i was too young to remember details of those days but i seem to remember that nixon had both dems and repubs after him. i think you would hve to have both parties on board to carry through such a threat. the political fallout would be horrendous.

42 contradicting your earlier stated views

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

43 We don't need Newt Gingrich to alert us to the existence of this problem, Drew.  It's kinda sorta been top-of-mind for conservative for, oh I dunno, about 40 years or so now.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 18, 2011 01:53 PM (hIWe1)

You know who doesn't think there's a problem with the judiciary? Mitt Romney.

ROMNEY: Let me tell you what my orientation would be, which is I would like to appoint to the Supreme Court justices who believe in following the constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench.

I would like to see that Supreme Court return to the states the responsibility to determining laws related to abortion, as opposed to having the federal Supreme Court from the bench telling America and all the states how they have to do it. I think that's the appropriate course.

Now, is there a constitutional path to have the Congress say we're going to push aside the decision of the Supreme Court and we instead are going to step forward and return to the states this power or put in place our own views on abortion.

That would create obviously a constitutional crisis. Could that happen in this country? Could there be circumstances where that might occur? I think it's reasonable that something of that nature might happen someday. That's not something I would precipitate.

What I would look to do would be appoint people to the Supreme Court that will follow strictly the constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench. I believe that we must be a nation of laws.

How's that worked out for the last 40 or  so years?

And of course, Jen Rubin thought that answer was just awesome!

So no, not all candidates view this matter equally or are interested in putting it on the table, let alone actually do something about it. Romney is the candidate of status quo. It's fine it that's your point of view but don't pretend Romney would say or do a damn thing about it.

Oh and will your boy Mittens be chatting with his buddy John Sununu (who vouched for David Souter's conservative credentials) when he appoints judges?

44 Gingrich is banking on his scheme being well-received by voters angry at how often judges rule without considering whether their decisions have majority support.

I don't think people are angry because of the lack of majority support.  It's more because the judiciary has taken the emanations of penumbras stuff too far.  They've built an entire legal structure on top of the constitution that far exceeds its purpose.

45 then we're already well into "toss the baby out with the bathwater" territory in our approach to constitutional issues.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 18, 2011 01:53 PM (hIWe1)

The baby has already drowned.

46 Gabe,

While I understand your concern, I think there is also a countervailing concern; viz. that since the 1930's, the judiciary has exceeded its mandated authority and established itself to a certain extent as legislator.

I think Newt's remark is meant to be seen in this light.

47 So, yeah, anybody have a smart idea for how to restrain an out-of-control judiciary? We've had majority support for repealing Roe v Wade for 40 years. How's that working out?

Or we can stick to the current plan -- where they enact a leftist policy by judicial fiat with a small, but influential, minority. And we are allowed to repeal it only with a constitutional amendment super-majority.

Nice recipe for a constant left-wing ratcheting effect. Nice balance of powers.

All they have to do is convince 5 Supreme court judges. And all we have to do is convince 75% of the state legislatures.

How fair and reasonable that is. I feel so empowered.

48

I like Gingrich much more than Romney. I fear that Romney will let Obamacare and meny of the czars remain. Not merely "not good" ... bad.

As far as Gingrich's suggestion to haul judges who make bad/unpopular decisions before a congressional committee (ok, a committee of inquiry, the return of The Inquisition ... there, I said it), supervising the judiciary is Congress' job.

Judges, like the fool on the 9th Circuit who overturned CA's ban on gay marriage, would likely write MUCH better opinions, and likely render better thought-out verdicts, if they realized that they would have to answer to people who could fire them. I expect that fewer appeals would be necessary, as fewer bad decisions would be made.

49 I have to go. Wifey just brought in a new computer to replace her's that broke. I have to set it up. May bbl.

50 Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so.

Actually, less so.  They're lawyers.  Cognitive dissonance is a positive character trait in that profession.  You'd much rather hire a slimy, dishonest lawyer who wants to win than somebody bound by ethics.

51 Posted by: pep at December 18, 2011 01:55 PM (6TB1Z)

I'm confused, do we want a conservative running on conservative issues or do we want a go along, get along moderate?

Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages but for 3 years all I've heard is we want to find some damn hill to die on and fight. Now we want to be as non-confrontational as possible?

Honestly, I don't think this should be a major or even secondary issue in the general election but in a GOP primary? It's perfectly acceptable to lay out a conservative critique of the current status quo.

52 Really Gabriel still prefers Newt?

53 31 Amishdude:

Ineptocracy?

Posted by: Brent at December 18, 2011 01:58 PM (ac7Wr)

Yes.  I think that's it.  Rule by the least qualified.

54 There are better ways to get rogue judges under control. Governor Perry has proposed several, actually.

Yes - Perry has proposed ending the life-time appointments for Judges.  That's an even more glaring deviation from the actual Constitution than Gingrich's.  The life-time appointment thingy is actually written into the Constitution - don't need no steeeenking Federalist Papers to figger it out!  I like Perry,  but that's a bit much.

55 DrewM Gingrich is doing something tactically unnecessary. Why not just focus on winning the Presidency and the Senate-then he won't have to - you know - go all uberStalin.

56 Gingrich is doing something tactically unnecessary.

I think what Newt is attempting to do is contrast himself as a conservative alternative to Romney, and getting the judiciary to a more Constitutional balance is certainly appealing to conservatives.

57 Why would you have to send marshalls after them? You order them to appear and if they don't you find them in contempt. You then impeach them and remove them from the bench for Contempt of Congress.

58 rockmom has it right.  No matter what I think of what Noot says here, this is a move away from the issues that have to be stressed to get El JEFe the fuck out of office.  It's the type of strategic dumbfuckery he does when he's not in a structured debate setting.

59 Posted by: tasker at December 18, 2011 02:11 PM (r2PLg)

So again, we don't want conservatives making conservative critiques of the current system?

That's a legitimate position but it's far different than what we've been hearing for years.

I think what's happening is the same thing that Democrats did in 04. They loved Howard Dean's willingness to stick it to the party ("I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party") and the GOP but when it comes time to pull the lever, they went with the "electable" John Kerry.

60

 Now we want to be as non-confrontational as possible?

That's what I don't get. It's how we got the SCOAMF: eight years of incessant opposition from the Dims and the MFM (BIRM), attacking each and every thing done by GWB and friends.

Oh, that and lying about it. Remember all the Congressional Dims that initially supported the War in Iraq? There were a lot of them. But once they decided that they could gain some political traction with the Idiot Leftards by opposing it, their prior statements conveniently went down the Memory Hole, never to be heard or seen again, except by those of us who wish to make informed decisions in the poll booth.

61 Gabe: "Alexander Hamilton wrote at length about the dangers of subordinating the judiciary to the legislative and executive branches. History buffs might review Federalist #78, in particular, on this issue. "

21 "If you didn't want to vomit after hearing Newt talk about abolishing the 9th Circuit wholesale, only to reinstitute it with an entirely new slate of handpicked judges -- and keep in mind we're all in agreement about the egregiousness of the 9th Circuit here -- then we're already well into "toss the baby out with the bathwater" territory in our approach to constitutional issues."


It is an unassailable fact that ALL the "inferior" courts, as the Constitution states, are creations of the Legislature.

Article III, Section 1.

"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".

IOW ALL the circuit courts are creations of Congress.

Whatever the political merits of Gingrich's proposals, it does not appear that he is talking about "going after" the Supreme Court.  What he is talking about is going after "judge-made law", which even Alexander Hamilton would have opposed as being outside the role of the judiciary.

62 I'm confused, do we want a conservative running on conservative issues or do we want a go along, get along moderate?

False choice.  But more to the point, if I am confronted with the choice between half a loaf and none, I'll take the half, and use the extra energy that gives me to grab the other half. 

Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages but for 3 years all I've heard is we want to find some damn hill to die on and fight. Now we want to be as non-confrontational as possible?

Where did I say to be as nonconfrontational as possible?  What I said was to avoid unnecessary Banzai charges that do nothing but aid the enemy.

Honestly, I don't think this should be a major or even secondary issue in the general election but in a GOP primary? It's perfectly acceptable to lay out a conservative critique of the current status quo.

Because the Dems would never think to use stuff from the GOP primary to torpedo our candidate in the general?  Frankly, this is the self-indulgent stuff that has made professors such a laughing stock.  It's a wonderful debate if that's all that you care about, but if you're running for President, you owe your supporters a modicum of restraint so that you don't throw their votes away. 

63 I think what Newt is attempting to do is contrast himself as a conservative alternative to Romney, and getting the judiciary to a more Constitutional balance is certainly appealing to conservatives. But-you could do it the old fashioned way-win the Presidency and the Senate. That could be considered the Conservative less radical, more rational approach.

64 WTF?

He simply cannot help himself.

65
I think what's happening is the same thing that Democrats did in 04. They loved Howard Dean's willingness to stick it to the party ("I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party") and the GOP but when it comes time to pull the lever, they went with the "electable" John Kerry.

The thing is, there was no functional difference in the politics of the two - both were slightly left of the Democrat center. The only difference between the two was their public personas.

Interestingly, both of our leading candidates also occupy that position - left of the Republican center.

66 The idea that elections have to power to overturn the judiciary is bullshit. They don't.

Only a constitutional amendment can. Which is an insanely high barrier.

Sure, Republicans could win every Presidential election for the next 40 years, and win the Senate for 40 years too, and appoint only Scalias to the bench.

That's what you'd have to do with lifetime judicial appointments.

The "just win elections" line is bullshit. Republicans did win elections after Roe v Wade and it didn't change shit.

It's either a) a Constitutional Amendment or b) win every Presidential election (plus the Senate) in a row for 30-40 years so you can pack the courts.

All to have a chance of overturning a decision made by 5 pricks in black robes.

Totally unbalanced. Total ratcheting effect.

My only useful suggestion is to do away with lifetime appointments. 20 year judicial terms. That's it.

Limits the potential tyranny.

67

I kind of like the idea of activist judges being shot while trying to escape.

They have done horrible damage.

68

Posted by: Roger at December 18, 2011 02:11 PM (tAwhy)

if the founders thought the Constitution was such a perfect document they wouldnt have provided a mechanism for change. this provides a much easier way to reign in and change activist judges. how many have ever been impeached? and how many of those because they were violating the Constitution in their rulings?

69 This bolsters the erratic image that Newt's opponents have tried to paint him with-it's as if Newt decided to buy the brushes for them.

70 Of course Gingrich is right. Either we are a democracy in which elected officials have actual checks and recourse on the court's Power of Precedent or our laws and elections are completely meaningless until approved or corrected by judges who tell us that their interpretations are the rule of law. Obviously this is not an attempt to gin up votes, but Gingrich simply stating the obvious. People don't want to hear that the people are in charge. We take comfort in the fact that they have no responsibility and can elect clowns who promise to spend without taxing and don't write or read legislation because the wise men of the high court will save us from ourselves. No one wants to hear the truth - witness the universal spasms of everyone on the media who hire lawyers to tell us and them what's what. The judiciary is independent until they start playing legislator. They have already crossed the line. The constitution mixes powers as much as it separates them and it is high time we stop bellyaching about the tyranny of the court and actually start acting like they work for us and at our discretion. Why is everyone more fearful of democratically elected officials than unelected ones? Have we really outgrown our duties? Why are progressive presidents worse than progressive judges? When you see both left and right pundits unite so quickly and vehemently against mere statements of fact that any futurist historian can verify, it is always to preserve their monopoly. Even Ron Paul couldn't handle Gingrich's "dangerous" statement of how the court is checked. If he's wrong, can Gabe cite any real checks that any branch or the people have over the courts? Does he think independence means it is immune from any checks - that once appointed, their opinion becomes law? Or are we a democracy?

71

GAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!

Every wonky thread should be paired with an open kitteh or titteh thread BECAUSE NOTHING HAS FUCKING CHANGED!

Dear God, I swear some of you assholes enjoy bitching about political minutae, which is a waste of life.

72

But more to the point, if I am confronted with the choice between half a loaf and none, I'll take the half, and use the extra energy that gives me to grab the other half.

Posted by: pep at December 18, 2011 02:16 PM (6TB1Z)

What half is Mitt offering? Where's is Romney saying he'll move the government in a conservative direction? Not simply undo Obama's horrors but actually move the ball forward for conservatives?

My apologies if you're not supporting Mitt but that's who I was contrasting Newt with in response to Jeff B.

73 But-you could do it the old fashioned way-win the Presidency and the Senate.

That could be considered the Conservative less radical, more rational approach.

Posted by: tasker at December 18, 2011 02:16 PM (r2PLg)

We've tried that several times under both Reagan and Bush 43. You can't get enough reliable conservatives onto the courts to change their makeup enough.

If we believe in our Constitutional principles, we should use every legal, Constitutional method available to fight for them and we don't...not by a long shot.

So the choice is continue playing the left's game and accept a slower decline, or actually fight. I'd like us to try the latter for once.

74 Yes - Perry has proposed ending the life-time appointments for Judges.  That's an even more glaring deviation from the actual Constitution than Gingrich's.  The life-time appointment thingy is actually written into the Constitution - don't need no steeeenking Federalist Papers to figger it out!  I like Perry,  but that's a bit much.

Not really.  I think it's a Constitutional amendment that would actually pass.  The terms could be long -- 18 years -- but their finiteness would keep the very young from being nominated and/or face the world that they created.

We also must understand that when you talk about the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional convention, MvM came later.  I think it was a glaring oversight of the founders who didn't conceive that the judiciary would take such power and they certainly didn't forsee the progressive era in which it would be abused.

75

Posted by: tasker at December 18, 2011 02:16 PM (r2PLg)

 

last time we had the presidency and the senate we had the gang of 14 and miquel estrada and several other well qualified judges were shit-canned. so yeah, that worked out real well

76 I think what Newt is attempting to do is contrast himself as a conservative alternative to Romney, and getting the judiciary to a more Constitutional balance is certainly appealing to conservatives. Posted by: 18-1 at December 18, 2011 02:13 PM (3aXbg) Nah, Newt is doing what Newt always does: come up with some big honking dumb idea that he thinks makes him look like a genius and a Constitutional scholar while his opponents are all dumbasses talking about mundane things like how do we get 25 million people back to work. What I love is how he was so quick to damn Paul Ryan's Medicare plan as too radical, then he turns around and comes up with this incredibly radical plan for overhauling the judiciary. The only thing he didn't like about Paul Ryan's plan was that Ryan made him look like a greedy fool for taking 55 million bucks from the healthcare industry for his supposed "think tank" that never came up with a solution as good as Ryan's plan.

77 Well it's kind of chicken before the egg-Gingrich's talk of "arresting judges" can get spun exactly like that-and guess what that might cost you- the election(s).

78 Where's CAC's poll update?

79 But-you could do it the old fashioned way-win the Presidency and the Senate.

That could be considered the Conservative less radical, more rational approach.
Posted by: tasker at December 18, 2011 02:16 PM (r2PLg)

The problem with that is we are playing by one set of rules and the liberals are playing by a far more relaxed set.

Most of the time they need to find 3 judges to get what they want (A district court judge and sometimes 2 out of 3 appeals court judges. Very few cases go to SCOTUS).

Every time they do that we have to get super majorities of Congress and the states?

I'm not saying we have to resort to extra-constitutional means but we need to fight back with everything we can withing the Constitution.

80 What half is Mitt offering? Where's is Romney saying he'll move the government in a conservative direction? Not simply undo Obama's horrors but actually move the ball forward for conservatives?

I'll limit my reply to the SC, since that's the question at hand.  He has said that he will appoint only originalist judges.  I see that as a huge move forward for conservatives; possibly the biggest he could make.  Based on his history, you may not believe him, but that isn't the same thing as him offering nothing to conservatives. 

My apologies if you're not supporting Mitt but that's who I was contrasting Newt with in response to Jeff B.

But I am supporting him, for the simple reason that I think he is our best shot at reversing the current reign of terror.  Does that make me a bad person?  If not, please remember that we are all on the same team.  If Newt gets the nom, I will support him enthusiastically.  If nothing else, he is clearly in a league of his own in the kinds of political discussions I relish.  But that isn't the same thing as electability.

81 Drew M. & Vic make valid points/arguments.

The courts currently rule over the other two branches of govt. and that's a travesty of justice.

82 Where's CAC's poll update? ****** Second.

83 Gingrich addresses a symptom, but not the underlying disease.

The cause of our problems is all of the legislative, executive, legal, and regulatory end-arounds done to the plain text of the Constitution.  Whenever we wanted to do something that cuts against this, rather than amending the document, we find clever (or half clever) justifications - usually conjured up out of thin air, but then sanctified by some court. 

It all has to end.

84

IIRC, there is a perfectly Constitutional method to restore a bit of sanity to the SC: is there a mention of how many Justices may sit on the SCOTUS? And hasn't the court been "packed" before by a president?

85 Posted by: pep at December 18, 2011 02:27 PM (6TB1Z)

That's certainly a strong argument to make.

I simply don't think when all is said and done that Mitt is all that more electable than Newt or that there's any reason based on what he's done to think Mitt will nominate Scalia/Thomas types.

86 There is no problem with the way things are set up now, if the Executive and Legislative branches where properly zealous about their preserving their own power. 

The difficulty for the last 70 years is that the Judicial branch's power grab has chimed with the policy preferences of the Statist of the major parties, to allow them to get the results they desire despite the opinions of the voters. 

If the Judiciary were pissing off the Democrats as much as they have pissed off the Republicans, the Congress and the President, together, would put them in there place damn quick.

87 Something clearly needs to be done to restore the balance of powers. Not saying this is it, but when justices go inventing decisions based on emanations of penumbras, foreign law or just makin' shit up (e.g., Sandra Day O'Connor's "keep on discriminating but only for 25 more years" crap in Grutter v. Bollinger) there needs to be a check more workable than passing a constitutional amendment. Referring back to the constitution, Federalist #78, etc. only serves to highlight how far the judiciary (and the federal government as a whole) has strayed from what the founders envisioned.

88 DrewM I know you must know this-but just to clarify The Circuit Court of Appeals judges are appointed by the President and voted for in the Senate.

89 Oh, crap. I guess Drew already kind of said that. That's what I get for taking the dog for a walk.

90 How about contracting the 9th or re-organizing the federal bench by speciality instead of geography, a re-organization that would require there-appointment of every judge (best if we save that one for when we've be able to get Lindsey off of the committee, and have 60 plus Senators).

91 All this will work itself out once Newt gets his giant Newt space mirrors in space. Dennis Kucinich has offered to help install them.

92 In case you assumed I was simply referring to the Supreme Court.

93 Newt is toast. It doesn't matter if he jacks his hyperactive jaw about what he might do as POTUS (except to hand his enemies a club with which to beat him), or even if he is right in theory that something like this might sometime be necessary, and is doable by the Executive. What matters is that Newt isn't going to be the next POTUS because he WILL split the conservative vote, and hand the election to the Obamunist (As will the other flip-flopping counterfeit "conservative" Mittens)

94 90 Oh, crap. I guess Drew already kind of said that. That's what I get for taking the dog for a walk.

Let's not underestimate the value of that walk.

95 Zany idea.

96 Newt said he didn't like secularist Establishment Clause of the First Amendment - so those judges who rule strictly on its language must go.

So why let each circuit vote on an official religion?  What could go wrong?

97

Agreed that Newt is , a: floating another one of his many ideas and b: distinguishing himself within the GOP field talking about something most conservatives recognize as a problem, but maybe don't have a good answer for.

I think Newt will be ok on this, as will the GOP.  I don't think any of this will matter in the general because it's over the heads of most folk to think about and the MSM would rather make shit up and the DNC play with personal attacks that common folk can seize.

It is an importatnt debate to have though, but what do you guys think the percentage is of citizens that know about the separation of powers; care ; think much about original intent or the way the progressive libtards have abused the courts the last 80+ years?  I'm thinking <20%..

98 there needs to be a check more workable than passing a constitutional amendment.

There are at least two more, provided the Executive goes along.  The Congress can remove the area of conflict from the power of the Judiciary by statute:

Article III, Section 2:  the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Or they can combine to simply ignore the ruling, or agree that it only applies to the particular appellants, and not to all appellants as a group.

99 The temptation to enjoy Newt doing MFM beatdowns and possibly watch him burn a TOTUSless POTUS to the ground in debates shouldn't obscure the fact that he's THE WIZARD OF FUCKING OZ.

100 The legislature passes law-if you win the chambers of Congress -you get to do that. Gingrich is doing an unnecessary argument that will give the Democrats a call to arms-when they are pretty damn unenthusiastic because of economic conditions. This is a borrowed battle that keeps you off the main objective-winning the damn thing.

101 Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
-Federalist 78

That part I made bold...anyone think that accurately describes the judiciary as it exists today? Either you think it's a fight worth having or not but don't think that is and that Mitt Romney will fight it.

102 Never borrow enemies. Gingrich is doing that for all of us again...

103 Asking judges to explain themselves in a more public venue than SCOTUS chambers isn't the same thing as being able to compel them to reverse, which congress doesn't have the power to do.

104 Once all of his House enemies throw their weight behind the Newt Resistance he won't have a snowball's chance. Newt is a bomb-thrower, and he has proven he'll throw bombs into the "friendlies" as well as the commie-lib Dems.

105 It keeps coming back to the need for an Art5 convention. 

106 Article III, Section 2:  the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This is workable and people have suggested it before.  But as we know, only Democrats set precedent, so they would have to be so annoyed with some ruling that they would pass an Article III solution.

Or they can combine to simply ignore the ruling, or agree that it only applies to the particular appellants, and not to all appellants as a group.

Not really. Precedent means that every judge will rule the way the SCOTUS rules, unless it's a conservative ruling, in which liberal judges will ignore precedent.

107 Not really.  I think it's [ending life-time judicial appointments] a Constitutional amendment that would actually pass.  The terms could be long -- 18 years -- but their finiteness would keep the very young from being nominated and/or face the world that they created.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 18, 2011 02:21 PM (73tyQ)

Actually, I think it would not pass.  I live in a state that has elected judges (almost all do), and the problems with corruption are much greater (arising out of the judge's need to be re-elected).  The life-time appointment creates a much higher-quality judiciary than election.

The real way to deal with courts like the Ninth Circuit is to be a lot more careful about the way Judges are chosen.  As it is, Presidents appoint to the Circuit Courts of Appeal based on Senatorial recommendations.  That can be changed, and has nothing to do with the Constitution; just tell the President to start doing his job and make non-political, merit-based appointments. 

108

Resistance is futile. Eventually Perry will assimilate you all.

109 I think Newt will be ok on this, as will the GOP.  I don't think any of this will matter in the general because it's over the heads of most folk to think about and the MSM would rather make shit up and the DNC play with personal attacks that common folk can seize.

This is a non sequitur.  You are correct that it is over the heads of most (or at least many) folks, or at least there are many folks for whom such arguments are pin-dancing angels, and where the hell is my government cheese?  You are also correct that the MSM and DNC will make up stuff to scare the bejeesus out of the low info voter.   Guess what; it will work!  Therefore, neither Newt, not the GOP will be ok. 

110 #98 shows the problem.

Clarence is emblematic of the Left.  They simply lie.  At best, they misrepresent.

The whole notion of the courts' power is predicated on the idea that they are honest and unswayed by the petty concerns of the masses.

What if they are dishonest? What if they are not constrained by law or precedent or reality? What if they practice a secular taqiyya? In the political branches, there is a remedy.  What remedy is there for the courts, in reality?

111 Precedent means that every judge will rule the way the SCOTUS rules

SCOTUS generally rules so narrowly, any clever judge can make a particular case "different" enough to warrant a different ruling if they really want to.

Certain lower courts (*cough* 9th *cough*) seem to have no problem with a very high reversal rate.

112 >>>Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

Mmm-hmm.  And when did the Chase affair happen?

Oh wow, fancy that. 1803-1804. 

What a coincidence.

(Don't try to game me on this one -- you're going to lose.)

113 Not really. Precedent means that every judge will rule the way the SCOTUS rules, unless it's a conservative ruling, in which liberal judges will ignore precedent.

The key is that any two branches can combine to overrule the third.  If the President, as a co-equal branch and independent interpreter of the Constitution, says the SC has ruled unlawfully and refuses to enforce the Judiciary's decision, the SC is powerless to force his hand.  If the Congress then refuses to impeach him based on that non-enforcement, the court's ruling is moot.

114

Either you think it's a fight worth having or not but don't think that is and that Mitt Romney will fight it.

Mitt is not a fighter by any stretch of the imagination. That's why he describes himself as a Progressive Republican, as Rush noted this week.

He is on their side. He is essentially a Dim and for that reason, I cannot and will not support him unless he manages to win teh Pubbie nomination. Then, I'll hold my nose and vote for him over the SCOAMF, just like last time.

And on a side note, it's about time we started fighting for the Constitution and the Founders' vision for the country. The leftards have been fighting against it (and winning, it would appear) for a long time.

Why are we so afraid to simply say the word, "No" to our enemies?

And to mean it?

115 This whole article is BS. Newt is only talking about exceptional cases where judges have clearly ruled contrary to the Constitution.

116 What remedy is there for the courts, in reality?

Impeachment and removal from the bench if the offense is bad enough.  Its rare that federal judges are removed, but it has happened in the past...most recently with Alcee Hastings who was impeached and removed.

Congress has the power to impeach and remove judges.

117 Actually, Wikipedia has a pretty solid entry on Jefferson and Chase, particularly with reference to how Jefferson was attempting to act to subvert the Constitution out of partisan hostility:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

Guess what?  Even the Founding Fathers had feet of clay.  Both Jefferson and Adams, in fact, were clowns in a lot of ways.

118 Mitt Romney is a CONSERVATIVE!! I said it, so that means it is automatically true, and I'll brook no more argument. As for Newt, I think way too many TEA Partiers haven't done their homework on that guy, as he is Big Government flacid fascism from WAY back.

119 This whole article is BS. Newt is only talking about exceptional cases where judges have clearly ruled contrary to the Constitution

Because, of course, there could never be any disagreement about that.

120 Look I'm no fan of the 9th Circuit-but they get reversed around 80% of the time on major cases.

121 Pep... we agree...  I didn't mean " ok" meant anything more than this discussion/idea of Newts' will be irrelavent in the general for him and/or the GOP nominee. 

122 I live in a state that has elected judges (almost all do)

Nope.  Google "Missouri plan".

The way the Iowa Missouri plan works is actually unconstitutional because the pool of judges that are selected are selected based on a commission which is comprised of 3/7 members appointed directly by the ABA.

They aren't appointed by politicians elected by the people, but by an unelected and, in my opinion, very corrupt guild.

and the problems with corruption are much greater (arising out of the judge's need to be re-elected).

The legal profession is corrupt by definition. Why does someone who represents himself "have a fool for a client"?  It's because you need a man on the inside of the system. If the system would be about justice, you wouldn't need a lawyer at all.  Lawyerbot 3000 could defend you.  You could defend yourself out of a pamphlet.

I'd rather have corruption and subject to the people than corruption and subject to an unelected guild.

The life-time appointment creates a much higher-quality judiciary than election.

Perry isn't suggesting election, but "one and done".  That is, you get a fixed term and then you have to go.  No elections, but no lifetime appointments either.

123

And on a side note, it's about time we started fighting for the Constitution and the Founders' vision for the country. The leftards have been fighting against it (and winning, it would appear) for a long time.

Why are we so afraid to simply say the word, "No" to our enemies?

And to mean it?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, President, Curmudgeon's Union Local 427 at December 18, 2011 02:47 PM (d0Tfm)

Because a bunch of Goddamned pussies on our side have fallen in line with evil bastards on the left and made it possible to call us bigots and racists. We're being attacked from our own side.

124

Not really.  I think it's [ending life-time judicial appointments] a Constitutional amendment that would actually pass.  The terms could be long -- 18 years -- but their finiteness would keep the very young from being nominated and/or face the world that they created.

 This is sound thinking, all of what's there, but not enough of it.

The legislature appoints and chooses the judiciary. That is all the control they ought need. Not to get into an argument of the original argument in favor of life-time appointments... 5 year appointments would give us many more faces doing the exact same thing.

The same people are appointing them the same way and they will appoint the same people.

It does not matter whether the Justices they appoint are there for 5 years or 50. Because to the extent they are immune from facing the world they created they will remain so. They will be filthy rich. Period. The rich never have to face anything they don't like to. They have enough cash to bubble themselves up.

You're telling me if all of a sudden they had to stop being robed priests and became the political equivalent of Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet or Bill Clinton - that is, filthy rich, respected and prestigous but holding no actual government job - they'd suddenly be forced to 'face the world' and have an attack of concious?

AFTER they're out of the court anyway, but apparently this is so obvious and scarry to them it will scare them straight ahead of time?

The problem is for the last 20 years, the people we have appointed as judges would answer us any question at all, so long as it was totally and completely irrelevant.

Anything actually relevant and pertinent to how they will perform the job they will do, is a question they cannot answer.

But you can ask them if they like coke or pepsi, or who they think will win American Idol.

Is this seriously a fucking suprise, what we have now?

125 Impeachment and removal from the bench if the offense is bad enough.

Sorry, but "precedent" has precluded us from impeaching based on bad decisions.  It's only for corruption and then usually bribery.

126 Youre all missing the point. The fact that Noot thinks about this stuff to this degree of detail shows he is a big dope. Is he gonna do this in the general, too? Nobody cares about this shit.

127 Jackson is now believed by many historians to have been our first mis-documented POTUS, having actually been born several days off of the coast of the Colonies, as testified to by the midwife that supposedly delivered him. He sort of set precedent for the Connecticut social security card-carrying commie presently running the country(into complete bankruptcy).

128 Sorry, but "precedent" has precluded us from impeaching based on bad decisions.

A trend is trend, until it's not.

129 It is what it is because (as with all things) the democrats will stop at nothing, and the republicans are afraid to challenge their premise in any fashion whatsoever.

130

..most recently with Alcee Hastings who was impeached and removed.

Who began his second career in Congress. How in the hell did this happen?

How could we be so stupid as to elect that POS down here? He should be a political pariah, but nooooo. Somebody propped up his corrupt ass to continue foisting his malfeasance on the country.

What the fuck is wrong with us?

131 Perry isn't suggesting election, but "one and done".  That is, you get a fixed term and then you have to go.  No elections, but no lifetime appointments either.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 18, 2011 02:52 PM (73tyQ)

I'm missing something.  How does that improve what we have now?  Sure - gets the bad ones out after a foreseeable time, but also gets rid of all the really good ones. 

And just where do they go after their term is up?  Just sit around doing nothing collecting a life-time pension?  Or back to work for someone (making it quite likely they'll be doing that someone a bunch of favors before the end of their term).  And without re-election or re-appointment, where is the incentive to be any better judge than what we have now?

132 Our current system is great, on paper, because it pits institutional power against institution power, and all of them against the power of the citizens.  Things change when the people are pissed enough.  Right now, a large enough bloc of our citizen's think the SC writing law is just peachy so things don't change.

133 The legislature appoints and chooses the judiciary.

No, the president appoints.

That is all the control they ought need.

Well, it isn't.  See Souter, David.  The fact is that with lifetime tenure, you can't be sure what they will do even in broad strokes.  When a college professor has lifetime tenure, it has a limited reach.  Other professors aren't bound by their precedents.  But an appellate court judge had magnificent cosmic powers.

5 year appointments would give us many more faces doing the exact same thing.

I disagree.  In any case, removing lifetime tenure would bring the legal profession down a peg and there's nothing wrong with that.

They will be filthy rich. Period.

Well, that's why I have argued for a single-payer system for the legal profession.  If it's good enough for doctors, it's even better for lawyers.

Seriously, we could also forbid them from taking compensation above and beyond their pension.

they'd suddenly be forced to 'face the world' and have an attack of concious?

There's a chance of it.  There's no chance of it now.

134 I've got two words for you Gabe: Congressional oversight. You will not find this phrase in the constitution, and further, the executive branch is also supposed to be a coequal branch of the federal government. Yet, Congress regularly subpenas members of the executive branch to come before it and answer questions and report on matters of interest. Note: this does not work both ways. The executive is not permitted to require Congress critters or their staff to come before it to account for their actions. Even when it comes to law enforcement matters, Congress holds itself apart. Remember the hubbub when the FBI searched William "Cash in the Freezer" Jefferson's office?

Yet, if you look in the constitution for the congressional oversight authority over the executive, you will not find it. Instead, it is implied rather than stated. The same can be said about congressional oversight of the judiciary.

135

irrelevant ... damn spelling, sorry but it bugs me

 

please continue the discussion..

136 130 Sorry, but "precedent" has precluded us from impeaching based on bad decisions.

A trend is trend, until it's not.

Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at December 18, 2011 02:55 PM (GTbGH)

Also, it's the interpretation of the Constitutional phrase "good behavior".

137

Because a bunch of Goddamned pussies on our side have fallen in line with evil bastards on the left and made it possible to call us bigots and racists. We're being attacked from our own side

I'll be sending you a Curmudgeon's Union Card tomorrow. Dues are payable with Valu-Rite caps, which are considered currency in the more civilized areas of the world.

138 68 and how many of those because they were violating the Constitution in their rulings?

One is reminded of the answer to the 'Why doth treason never prosper?" question when one considers Chaz's query.

139 Also, it's the interpretation of the Constitutional phrase "good behavior".

Until it's not.  Again, my point is that the system is very well designed to limit change in government policy.  The problem is the Proggers in the Executive and Legislative branches agree with the results of the decisions that offend our Constitutional views.  Results that they cannot get by open legislation. 

If the citizens were mad enough, and that was reflected in the elections, the Court would be curbed right pronto.  The problem is us.

140

And without re-election or re-appointment, where is the incentive to be any better judge than what we have now?

Because when the politically connected lawyer who got nominated to the highest bench in the land leaves office and goes back to the private sector, he will apparently become an unemployed blue-collar plumber who has to face the world he created in his past incarnation.

I'm not really seeing that either.

141 I'm missing something.  How does that improve what we have now?  Sure - gets the bad ones out after a foreseeable time, but also gets rid of all the really good ones.

I'm much more concerned with the bad ones.  Again, this takes the prestige of the judiciary down a peg which is good for everybody.

A good structural change means that sometimes you don't get all the benefits you want.  I'd like to have a rule that keeps conservative judges but throws out liberal ones, but this rule has the effect of making judges a little more responsive to the people, for better or worse.

I think that principle is worth defending.

And just where do they go after their term is up?  Just sit around doing nothing collecting a life-time pension?  Or back to work for someone (making it quite likely they'll be doing that someone a bunch of favors before the end of their term).

They can do that now.  Sandra Day O'Connor is still alive.

142 Right now, a large enough bloc of our citizen's think the SC writing law is just peachy so things don't change.

Yep.  That's the long and the short of it.

143 Sorry, but "precedent" has precluded us from impeaching based on bad decisions.

If one looks hard enough, a judge making rancid decisions probably has some criminal dirty laundry hidden somewhere. 

When people think they're untouchable, many liberties get taken in the way they handle their personal affairs.  If you want someone gone, it just takes a bit of digging and research.

144

I don't see how conservatives will ever get the other side to agree that anything needs to be fixed.  

Anything the conservatives do to try and unwind the way the system is being used by the progressive left (to do what they want and require super-majorities to overrule) will be either framed as egregious and epic and whatnot. 

I don't know what can be done about the extent to which so many have gained from an unfair system and a bastardized use of the court for their agenda.

I like that it is being recognized though as a problem.  I've never , ever , heard presidential candidates speak like this and I like it.   ( Newt & Perry )

145

I don't see how conservatives will ever get the other side to agree that anything needs to be fixed.  

So? Has the other side always gotten conservatives to agree with everything they've done?

So what?

146 Here's a fundamental question: This results from judges declaring a law unconstitutional, right?

So here the court is, declaring that Congress broke the law of the land and they shouldn't have to go before Congress to explain how this was done?

Passing an unconstitutional law should be a Biden F'cking Deal, Congress should feel rebuked and angry.  There should be endless hearings regarding how this happened and why, but somehow we just yawn and move along.

147

What the fuck is wrong with us?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, President, Curmudgeon's Union Local 427 at December 18, 2011 02:57 PM (d0Tfm)

We've been cowed by liberal pussies.

148 I don't see how conservatives will ever get the other side to agree that anything needs to be fixed. 

By electing politicians that expressly run on fixing the Judiciary.  If they win, they have the mandate of heaven, as it were.  If they don't, we haven't convinced our fellow citizens of the need. 

It's a chicken-egg problem though.  Unless the people are really pissed, major changes offend the voter.

149 Instead of locking up the nomination now, Newt wants the race to keep going to the convention. That rascal.

150 Reducing the carefully balanced separation of powers is not among them. Carefully balanced until Marbury, that is.

151 despite the fact that judges may have to actually face debate and disagreement on their decisions, conservative judges would win that argument simply because the tortured logic used by liberals sounds ridiculous when said out loud. Yeah, let us know how that works out for you.

152 The current Republican filed reminds me of the D-Day analogy used by venture capitalists in articles describing the types of leadership needed to bring a new idea to market:
  Disruptive -special forces, break things stir it up; can't take or hold ground;
  Growth - Infantry, once on the beachhead can take and hold ground; not very good at cleaning up their mess;
  Value - Military police, good at making the ground that has been taken work efficiently.

The new idea is smaller government & here are our candidates with demonstrated leadership in these areas:
  Disruptive = Gingrich - no doubt about it, this guy can stir the pot; demonstrated it in '94, also demonstrated he couldn't lead past the beachhead;
  Growth = Perry - he didn't just take over from Bush and twiddle with the edges, he has been making good governance decisions since he got in and has been actively courting the Tea Party;
  Value = Romney - His entire sales pitch is that he is a great value leader, that will most skillfully keep us on the current big government course.

The Tea Party has been searching for disruptive leaders all through the 2010 election.  Many of those leaders had no demonstrated ability to either disrupt or lead (O'Donnell). 

I think the question is whether the country needs more disruptive leadership (Churchill) or if we need someone who can consolidate and grow our position.

153 Mmm-hmm.  And when did the Chase affair happen?

Oh wow, fancy that. 1803-1804. 

What a coincidence.

(Don't try to game me on this one -- you're going to lose.)

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 18, 2011 02:46 PM (hIWe1)

Quite the contrary - you've raised a fundamentally unserious objection, as one would expect so much focus on the role of the judiciary only after Marbury usurped the power of Constitutionality...which was in 1803.

154

And we can't use the N word or the F word  or the C word because it isn't polite.

155 How about this- if the Supreme Court abolishes ObamaCare 5-4-should Obama and Reid be allowed to subpoena Scalia, Alito and all the other judges that voted it down? How would the optics of that play out?

156

So here the court is, declaring that Congress broke the law of the land and they shouldn't have to go before Congress to explain how this was done?

Passing an unconstitutional law should be a Biden F'cking Deal, Congress should feel rebuked and angry.  There should be endless hearings regarding how this happened and why, but somehow we just yawn and move along.

OY! That is how the left defines judicial activism - when the courts won't let the legislature do whatever it wants. Overturning statist power-grabs is a BIG F'N DEAL.

That is what the court is suppose to do. That is what it is there for. That is all it really does. It is to defend the Constitution from the Legislature. Courts overturning laws is mundane. That's their job.

157 Yeah, let us know how that works out for you.

Posted by: Justices Kagan and Sotomayor at December 18, 2011 03:15 PM (2jQGY)

You didn't have to respond to actual decisions, inasmuch as you argued that you'd have to recuse yourself if you commented on any particular element of a case that could appear before the court.

The whole thing was kept in generalities.

158 Do you really want the legislature to feel 'rebuked and angry' and then to have US Marshall's drag Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts before Congress on C-SPAN 2 if Kennedy overturns Obamacare?!?

159 Posted by: Jean at December 18, 2011 03:14 PM (OfinX)

And the 14th Amendment.

I love me some Founders but it's not their fault the system they set up was swamped by judges using that amendment as a warrant to do whatever they hell they want.

160 What about a notwithstanding clause amendment as suggested by Bork?

161 Remove then needed to have government solve all problems and then you will remove the needed of the court to go against some of the people on the solutions.

If some wanted abortion legal and some wanted it illegal and the only solution was by rule of law a court will be needed somewhere. So remove the government from everything related to it. Just like marriage remove the government and you will remove the need for a court to overturn prop 8.

162

Do you think if the Supreme Court had a 5 year term-limit, Obama would not have gotten to appoint more than 1 (to a seat that was already in the bag)?

Do you not think if a guy like him ever got 5 seats in favor he couldn't do as much damage as a Chavez might to some South American craphole?

163 So, Newt wants to add another check to the game of checks and balances. Good Lord. Congress already can check the Court. How would he have liked it if President Clinton could have dragged him into the WH because Clinton didn't like some bill the House passed? Newt is smart, but sometimes he needs to chill and think things through a bit better. This idea of his reveals two of his chief faults. He likes to "fix" things, and he can't think more than two moves ahead.

164 FWIW:  USSC Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 

Q:  What is the average length of a JusticeÂ’s tenure
A:  The average number of years that Justices have served is 16.

165

OY! That is how the left defines judicial activism - when the courts won't let the legislature do whatever it wants. Overturning statist power-grabs is a BIG F'N DEAL.

Actually, that's how everybody defines judicial activism.  Sorry, I recognize that the court might be used for my purposes as well.  But the notion that "SCOTUS wrote it in a decision that should remain unchallenged by any other branch of government" is incredibly weak.

That is what the court is suppose to do. That is what it is there for.

No it isn't.  It exists to apply the law to specific cases.  The notion that it serves as an uber-legislature was invented by MvM.  Shouldn't the court have to defend its rulings when it does something as radical as declare a law unconstitutional?

That is all it really does. It is to defend the Constitution from the Legislature. Courts overturning laws is mundane. That's their job.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 18, 2011 03:17 PM (TLNYf)

Oh, I strongly disagree.  And why would you put that power in the hands of somebody whose only credential is law school?  Shouldn't we select someone with a triple-digit IQ?

166

I think one of Newt's problems is he is smart and he thinks he's smart and he is used to being seen as the smartest man in any room he's in.

Lots of ideas in his head.  Better grasp on history than many. 

Pontificatin' pontificator from pontificertersville historificating and ideafacating and whatnot.

167 161 Do you really want the legislature to feel 'rebuked and angry' and then to have US Marshall's drag Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts before Congress on C-SPAN 2 if Kennedy overturns Obamacare?!?

Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 18, 2011 03:18 PM (TLNYf)

The Marshalls wouldn't have to do it, Congress could call the hearings and hold SCOTUS members in contempt.  But I'd love to see SATR defend their rulings.

It would be great.  And then I'd like to see Souter and the gang defend Kelo.

Again, you seem to think that laws should be routinely overturned on a whim of a person who was too stupid to do mathematics.

168

Do you not think if a guy like him ever got 5 seats in favor he couldn't do as much damage as a Chavez might to some South American craphole?

Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 18, 2011 03:21 PM (TLNYf)

Maybe.  And then in 5 years it's over.  Look at how long we'll have the wise Latina and the walking conflict of interest.  Unless they have a Mama Cass moment with a ham sandwich, we'll be with them for a long, long time.

169 "There are better ways to get rogue judges under control. Governor Perry has proposed several, actually. Reducing the carefully balanced separation of powers is not among them." He proposed amending the Constitution to end lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. That would certainly qualify as tampering with the separation of powers.

170 169

I think one of Newt's problems is he is smart and he thinks he's smart and he is used to being seen as the smartest man in any room he's in.

Lots of ideas in his head.  Better grasp on history than many. 

Pontificatin' pontificator from pontificertersville historificating and ideafacating and whatnot.

Posted by: Yip in Texas : OMG at December 18, 2011 03:25 PM (Mrdk1)

Newt needs a filter.  The president is supposed to be the filter.

171 The idea that judges should be able to act with impunity to impose their grandiose visions on society without any regard for what the Constitution actually says is far more ridiculous than the idea of Congressional oversight. Impeachment is actually in the Constitution, so suggesting that Congressional oversight of judges is unconstitutional is absurd.

Hystericism about an "independent judiciary" is laughable. I'm sick of hearing any time someone criticizes judicial malfeasance that the independence of the judiciary is under attack. For starters, the judiciary is already not independent. Judges are actually appointed by politicians. If judges want to be independent, maybe they should do their effing job and obey the Constitution.

If you want to get politics out of the judiciary, repeal the 17th Amendment. But for all of our sakes, don't whine about the least accountable branch of government having too much oversight.

172 And just where do they go after their term is up?  Just sit around doing nothing collecting a life-time pension?  Or back to work for someone (making it quite likely they'll be doing that someone a bunch of favors before the end of their term).

They can do that now.  Sandra Day O'Connor is still alive.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 18, 2011 03:08 PM (73tyQ)

You will have a lot more doing that, and at a much younger age, with Perry's system.  And I am very disappointed with your cavalier attitude about throwing all the good ones out so you can dispose of a few bad ones.  Have any statistics on how many fall into the "good" and "bad" categories?

Incidentally, retired Federal Judges do not all sit around doing nothing.  Most continue to hear cases on a reduced basis - including retired Supremes (who take appointments to appellate court panels).  Includes O'Connor: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124994271588320565.html

173 Jordan, you magnificent dunce. Shut the fuck up and get back under the stairs

174

Actually, that's how everybody defines judicial activism.

Bullshit, Amish, don't play games with me and tell me no opposite viewpoint exists. I hate having to do links on this website. Do I have to go find links?

Judicial Activism is when the court creates law and regulation from the bench. (This isn't always the judges fault, congress now often tells them to and passes the buck).

Roe v. Wade is judicial activism.

Overturning the legislature is the Supreme Court's soul purpose.

And why would you put that power in the hands of somebody whose only credential is law school?

The legislature appoints the people it feels are qualified, however it wants to qualify them. If the fucking legislature asks no questions relevant to how the judges will perform their job, approves them, and then finds it can't work with them - tough shit. We end up with gridlock.

The court cannot make new legislation (that is, without judicial activism), it can only strike it down. May it strike all it pleases and then some, for good measure. The courts have NOT operated as an effective check on congress for a long long time, precisely because of the prevailence of the sort of views you are arguing for.

Things like McCain-Feingold and New London never should have passed the court. They abdicated their duty, it was their job to stop the other 2 branches from doing things like that.

175

Newt was simply pandering to Iowa conservatives.  It's what politicians do.  They pander.  All of them.

In the 2010 elections, Iowans booted out three state Supreme Court judges that ruled that same sex marriage was legal.  Iowans didn't like the idea of activist judges essentially making law.  Newt knew that and exploited it because it was the last debate before the Iowa caucuses.

It was a shrewd political move. 

 

176 If the average service is 16 years, an 18 year term for justices would probably work as well as a lifetime appointment in keeping the court insulated from public fads and transient passions.

177 Again- How about this- if the Supreme Court abolishes ObamaCare 5-4-should Obama and Reid be allowed to subpoena Scalia, Alito and all the other judges that voted it down? How would the optics of that play out?

178 Only the SCoUS should be for life.
The rest should be subject to election by the people.

179 The choice is between Mitt and Gingrich. Why cant I just choose to shoot myself? I just say get rid of lifetime appointments. Make it 8 years for a judge to sit on a bench.

180 It takes nearly 500 elected officials to draft legislation, two thirds of both houses to pass it, a lone President to sign off on it, and three fourths of the states to ratify it. Yet 5 Supreme Court judges can stop it. That's not what the founders had in mind I'm sure. Of course they thought the country would remain sane and not give in to big brother and liberal judges who think the constitution is junk and out of date. The fact that so many think Newt is out in left field only shows how even conservatives have fallen for the almighty court syndrome.

181
How about this-

if the Supreme Court abolishes ObamaCare 5-4-should Obama and Reid be allowed to subpoena Scalia, Alito and all the other judges that voted it down?

How would the optics of that play out?

Posted by: tasker at December 18, 2011 03:17 PM (r2PLg)

I'd LOVE to see Scalia give Reid a beat down. He'd rip him a new asshole. Truly popcorn time.

182 if the Supreme Court abolishes ObamaCare 5-4-should Obama and Reid be allowed to subpoena Scalia, Alito and all the other judges that voted it down?

Can you imagine the Justices trying to explain the decision to the monkeys in Congress?  It would be like the appointment hearings³.

183 >>>Quite the contrary - you've raised a fundamentally unserious objection, as one would expect so much focus on the role of the judiciary only after Marbury usurped the power of Constitutionality...which was in 1803.

Okay, if you want to be the guy who argues we should overturn the foundational precedent of all Supreme Court law, and the guarantor of our liberty in the face of Congressional overreach (yes, there's good AS WELL AS bad, it ain't all monochromatic, bro), then you go ahead.  Grab Vic and DrewM. and have fun out on your ice floe. 

Maybe at some point, though, you could explain to me how we have a nation of laws, and not of men, in a world without judicial review.  Because in THAT world, Congress would just be free to make whatever-the-fuck laws it wants, and the Constitution be damned -- nobody would be around to strike it down anymore if we all just agree that Marbury v. Madison is now the equivalent of Kelo v. New London and do away with the idea that the laws Congress pass ought to be subject to some scrutiny to make sure they don't abrogate the rights enshrined in the Constitution.  And you people call yourself Constitutional conservatives!

What amazes me is how people are willing to snap to even the most insane positions -- positions that they never would have taken even days ago -- just because it's important that Newt Gingrich Never Be Wrong Because He's Our Guy. 

What you're really saying, is...what?  We need to run the next election not on the economy, or jobs, or Obamacare, or entitlements, but rather...on repealing one of the coequal branches of our tripartite system, a basic part of civic class.

What does it say when even Clarence Thomas would say "whoa there -- you're out of your fucking mind, dude" to your theories of True Constitutional Conservatism?

184

I might remind you the legislature need not appoint only lawyers, nor the president nominate only lawyers. They can nominate whomever they want and appoint whomever they want. There have been USSC justices who were not lawyers.

If the only qualification of a judge is law school, that is only because the legislature and the executive have made the only qualification law school.

With the worst result being nothing gets done - gridlock, they may lay in the bed they've made now, until they learn from it. The job of the courts with regard to the legislature and executive is to strike down whatever they view as unconstitutional.

They limit the actions of the other 2. In any way they please, and yes, this is fine and dandy, no matter what kind of jackasses there are on the bench, because all they can do is stop things, not do things. And their job is to stop things.

The fact that the other 2 branches get to choose who those people are, is enough.

185 I'm incredibly confused and dismayed at the Colts' lack of focus here.  They are on the verge of a perfect season, and it looks as if they're going to blow it today.

186 The Constitution says whatever you can get five justices to say it means, in effect a super legislature.

187 >>>I just say get rid of lifetime appointments. Make it 8 years for a judge to sit on a bench.

Glad to hear your informed opinion on this subject.

Now explain to me how you plan to go about altering the Constitution to accomplish that.  Oh wait -- you did know that lifetime appointments to the Federal bench are explicitly written into Article III, right?  Of course you did.  You're always up to speed on this stuff.

188 Congress 2 year terms X 3 = Senate's 6 year terms X 3 = Judges 18 years terms.

It has some numerological balance.

189 You will have a lot more doing that, and at a much younger age, with Perry's system.

Again, if the rewards are so great for leaving SCOTUS, they'd leave in great numbers.  They don't.  Why not?

And I am very disappointed with your cavalier attitude about throwing all the good ones out so you can dispose of a few bad ones.  Have any statistics on how many fall into the "good" and "bad" categories?

As I often say, lawyers are corrupt by definition.  They are all "bad ones" unless proven otherwise.  Deceit and activism are rewarded in the legal profession, there is great incentive for both.

Even tenured professors have to go through a trial period before they receive lifetime tenure.  And you would be surprised how mindful they are of their employers before that time.  (And tenured professors have incentives for good behavior such as salary.  Judges have none.)  An appointment, followed by a probationary period, might be a better solution.

190 "Judicial Activism is when the court creates law and regulation from the bench." Well... short of abandoning our common law legal system, there isn't much we can do about that. Almost all law is made by the courts, with the notable exceptions of criminal law, commercial law and federal civil procedure. Just about everything else (property law, marriage law, IP etc etc) is made by judges on the bench.

191 Can you imagine the Justices trying to explain the decision to the monkeys in Congress? It would be like the appointment hearings3. ***** Gawd, awful.

192 TOTALLY OT, but have you guys checked your pickems today?

193 TOTALLY OT, but have you guys checked your pickems today?

I'm dying in the early games.  I think only NO will win for me.

194 Now explain to me how you plan to go about altering the Constitution to accomplish that.  Oh wait -- you did know that lifetime appointments to the Federal bench are explicitly written into Article III, right?  Of course you did.  You're always up to speed on this stuff.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 18, 2011 03:39 PM (hIWe1)

You mean there is no way to change the constitution? Fuck. Those history classes were worthless then.

I'm glad you're around to keep us dumbasses informed Jeff B.

195 It has some numerological balance.

Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at December 18, 2011 03:39 PM (GTbGH)

My ass it does.

196 >>>Well... short of abandoning our common law legal system, there isn't much we can do about that. Almost all law is made by the courts, with the notable exceptions of criminal law, commercial law and federal civil procedure. Just about everything else (property law, marriage law, IP etc etc) is made by judges on the bench.

I know.  Jesus Christ, it's getting to the point where these people seem to be taking issue with reality. 

Hey, you got a problem with "judge-made law"?  Then fucking take it up with Edward II and the roughly 700 years of common law precedent which formed the basis of the American legal system and all Anglo-Saxon law.  Perhaps you would prefer the French or continental systems instead.  (And no, I'm not kidding -- those are based on Roman Law at the core, which is essentially statutory rather than precedential aka 'judge-made').

197 Okay, if you want to be the guy who argues we should overturn the foundational precedent of all Supreme Court law, and the guarantor of our liberty in the face of Congressional overreach
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 18, 2011 03:37 PM (hIWe1)

The Supreme Court is the "guarantor of our liberty"?

That's straight out of the liberal hymnal.

198 >>>You mean there is no way to change the constitution? Fuck. Those history classes were worthless then.

No, I asked you to explain to me how plan to amend the Constitution to accomplish this.  Tell me how you see this baby getting ratified. 

199 Also totally OT, but this article about Hedey Lamarr is fascinating.  I may have to pick up the book.   http://tinyurl.com/7nhjypc

200 I'm dying in the early games.  I think only NO will win for me.

Signs of the apocalypse today. How would you like to lose to Indy!?

201

It takes nearly 500 elected officials to draft legislation, two thirds of both houses to pass it, a lone President to sign off on it, and three fourths of the states to ratify it.
Yet 5 Supreme Court judges can stop it. That's not what the founders had in mind I'm sure.

What kind of bullshit did you slip in there?

Are you talking about 'legislation' or 'constitutional ammendments'?

The Supreme Court has no judicial review of constitutional ammendments. You cannot strike down a constitutional ammendment as being unconstitutional. Jackassery in places like Florida aside.

202 The Supreme Court is the "guarantor of our liberty"?
That's straight out of the liberal hymnal.

Yep.  The Unelected Branch. 

I prefer the ones I can have vengeance on.

203 That's straight out of the liberal hymnal.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 18, 2011 03:44 PM (dXPup)

Liberals don't sing, they recite.

204 California I meant... not Florida.

205 Maybe at some point, though, you could explain to me how we have a nation of laws, and not of men, in a world without judicial review. 

Shouldn't the review have review?  That's actually what a republic means from the original Greek: "res publica" not "res voted on by 9 elites in black robes and shut up about it"

Because in THAT world, Congress would just be free to make whatever-the-fuck laws it wants, and the Constitution be damned

Absolutely not.  We'd have review of the review. That's all.

Even the Pope isn't considered as infallible as SCOTUS.

on repealing one of the coequal branches of our tripartite system, a basic part of civic class.

In what way are the courts coequal? They are supreme.

206

time for work... you guys take it easy 'till the next thread is up. 

207 So it really is Romney, eh?

208

You mean there is no way to change the constitution? Fuck. Those history classes were worthless then.

I'm glad you're around to keep us dumbasses informed Jeff B.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 18, 2011 03:43 PM (FKQng)

Thank for the funny!

209 What's wrong with eliminating the 9th Circus Court of Appeals?

Currently, a federal judge has to commit a crime to be impeached by Congress.  Currently a federal judge can blatantly violate his/her oath to faithfully interpret the Constitution with impunity.

210

The Supreme Court is the "guarantor of our liberty"?
That's straight out of the liberal hymnal.

Yep.  The Unelected Branch. 

Dude. Because they can't do anything.

The Supreme Court cannot, (or is suppose not, at least) do anything to your liberties. All they can do is stop the other 2 branches from doing anything.

Now, they can stop them from doing any thing.

Are you afraid they will stop the other 2 branches from giving you liberties? How else could they be soley responsible for depriving you of them?

Your liberties do not come from the Executive and Legislature. If anything, in most anything they do, they will be the ones depriving and abusing you of them. In stopping them from acting, the courts will stop them from abusing your liberties.

211 >>>The Supreme Court is the "guarantor of our liberty"?

>>>That's straight out of the liberal hymnal.

Oh for christ's sake Drew, you know what I mean so stop playing gotcha in order to avoid the substance of my point.  The Supreme Court has made retarded decision after retarded decision throughout its history, and I could sit here all day and discourse on the subject.  But I'm asking YOU to address this simple question: if there didn't exist a court that could look at a law Congress passed and say "this isn't constitutional," would we not be well and truly fucked as a nation?  Would we not have been fucked long ago, in fact? 

Are you simply attempting to avoid dealing with the reality that Congress is fully capable of passing popular-yet-evil-and-unconstitutional legislation because they're more concerned with vote-whoring than defending the Constitution?  Somebody has to be a backstop, somewhere.  And although the Court has done a miserable fucking job in any number of situations (this we all agree on), what people like you are doing is attacking the fundamental principle of their right for that backstop to exist.  However flawed it is, I'm still glad it's there. 

That's why, outside of this weird "hey let's defend Newt's insanity because I really fucking hate Mitt Romney and I'm not all that rational right now" kaffeklatsch you've assembled in this thread, nobody thinks judicial review as a general concept is a bad idea.

212

How is it conservatives are arguing that government is too obstructed?

WTF?

Can't get enough done??

213

I might remind you the legislature need not appoint only lawyers, nor the president nominate only lawyers.

But they will never not do it.  The media will tout the appointee as being "unqualified" and not "knowing enough about the law".

There have been USSC justices who were not lawyers.

Not recently.  Again, we've created an oligarchy and there will be no going back from this without radical change.  In fact, we had lots of lawyers (Calvin Coolidge) who never went to law school.  It was a civilized time.

People are under the misimpression that lawyers are smart and what needs to happen is to demystify the morons in robes.

With the worst result being nothing gets done - gridlock, they may lay in the bed they've made now, until they learn from it. The job of the courts with regard to the legislature and executive is to strike down whatever they view as unconstitutional.

No it's not.  Again, its to rule on specific cases.  If you'd made that statement to the Constitutional Convention, they would have laughed in your face.  They would have said that it was stupid that you have an uber-legislature.  You have one, for better or for worse.

They limit the actions of the other 2. In any way they please, and yes, this is fine and dandy, no matter what kind of jackasses there are on the bench, because all they can do is stop things, not do things. And their job is to stop things.

So what's wrong with stopping the stopping?  Think of it as a double-veto.

The fact that the other 2 branches get to choose who those people are, is enough.

Well, it doesn't seem to be, does it?

214 Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you. A Republic that guarantees only one side will prevail is not a republic. Want a SC that leans Conservative? Elect Conservative Presidents and Senators. Can't always do that? Oh well, that sucks. Liberals and other such folks are Americans, too. There are millions of them. You can't rearrange the system to flip reality into something you prefer.

215 Well, let's just ask the question: what <i>should</i> happen when judges make rulings based on clearly erroneous jurisprudence?

216 As I often say, lawyers are corrupt by definition.  They are all "bad ones" unless proven otherwise.  Deceit and activism are rewarded in the legal profession, there is great incentive for both.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 18, 2011 03:40 PM (73tyQ)

Well - there's your problem, right there.  Just populate the Courts with soccer moms; no lawyers allowed.

Next problem?

217 206 That's straight out of the liberal hymnal.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 18, 2011 03:44 PM (dXPup)

Liberals don't sing, they recite.

Posted by: ErikW at December 18, 2011 03:45 PM (JtI5t)

Liberals don't sing, they recite.

218 I asked you to explain to me how plan to amend the Constitution to accomplish this.

Federal Judges shall serve a single 18 year term during good behavior.  This amendment shall apply only to new appointments approved by the US Senate after it's ratification.

219

Well - there's your problem, right there.  Just populate the Courts with soccer moms; no lawyers allowed.

Next problem?

Posted by: Roger at December 18, 2011 03:53 PM (tAwhy)

No, just somebody with a triple-digit IQ would be fine.  Or maybe somebody who has held a real job takes a bar prep course, passes the bar and that's enough.

Law school is a magnificent waste of time and money, but it does provide that sweet, sweet barrier to entry.

220

Uh.....what was the average life expectancy back during the days when the Founders chose to make it a SC appointment a 'lifetime appointment'? .......age 45 to 55?

  

221 Is JeffB. Santorum still all pissy that Romney wants to keep Obamacare and his comments didn't go through at the live blog?  He seems exceptionally whiny and insufferable today.  And I've only read 2/3rds of 2 comments by him.  Ron Paul gets less screachy than him and Newt Gingrich is humbler about his intellect.

222

This is utter anathema to like everything I thought we were all about here.

MOAR POWAR FOR CONGRESS! WE NEED MOAR POWAR!

How dare those 'activist' judges strike down our glorious ObamaCare? It was written by the Most Glorious Constitutional Scholar and Savior Our Lord Barack Obama.

A MAJORITY (that is, concensus! Settled!) of our legal scholars who write the law, in the Legislature, thought this was Constitutional, as well as Harvard Law Review President Barack Obama. Who do these lawyers on the SC think they are??

WTF 'conservatives' are arguing the Supreme Court has no right to strike down ObamaCare?

No wonders I am a libertarian.

223 Federal Judges shall serve a single 18 year term during good behavior.  This amendment shall apply only to new appointments approved by the US Senate after it's ratification.

Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at December 18, 2011 03:54 PM (GTbGH)

That absolutely will not work.

.

.

.

"it's" should be "its".

224 The favorites aren't just failing to beat the spread, they are getting beat straight up.

FMP.

225 crap, wrong thread.

226 Newt is determined to make me feel bad for voting for him.

227 The SC is not supreme. The SC can shoot down a law and Congress can pass a new one that does what Congress intends but does not violate the Constitution. The SC has a veto power and it is not absolute; just like the President's veto power is not absolute.

228 Ever since FDR liberals have used the courts to implement progressive oppression's. And nobody had done anything, not one thing! We hold our breaths each Presidential election hoping we get a Repub in place that will put conservatives on the Supreme Court as it stays delicately balanced between insanity and actual judicial conduct. At least Newt has everyone talking about the elephant in the living room. While everyone reacts like nuns that just got their asses patted. I am sick of liberalism running amock and we just wring out hands. Probably would not come out exactly as Newt states but something has to be done to rein in this un-elected, unaccountable branch of government. And Ron Paul is now suddenly right? Ron Paul has a Constitutional Fetish that is distorted and just as perverse as any fetish. He talks like the Constitution will grow legs and go and grab an errant judge by the ear and lecture that judge into submission. Or Congress will actually do its job...laughable.

229 However flawed it is, I'm still glad it's there. 
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 18, 2011 03:49 PM (hIWe1)

You really Donkey Punched the hell out of that straw man!

Who is talking about getting rid of the Supreme Court?

I think an institution that gave us Dred Scott, Plessy, Kelo, Roemer, Raich,  Miranda, Gideon , Lawrence v. Texas, Kennedy v. Louisianan to name just a very few has done a pretty shitty job over the years.

Could a more modest Court have done better? We'll never know, will we?

230

Uh.....what was the average life expectancy back during the days when the Founders chose to make it a SC appointment a 'lifetime appointment'? .......age 45 to 55?

Posted by: wheatie at December 18, 2011 03:56 PM (HvKWW)

Such statistics are misleading because they include infant mortality.  You want the life expectancy of people who already made it to 30.  But I'd think it'd be somewhere in the 60s, yes.

231 223.....oops, it

232 "I think an institution that gave us Dred Scott, Plessy, Kelo, Roemer, Raich, Miranda, Gideon , Lawrence v. Texas, Kennedy v. Louisianan to name just a very few has done a pretty shitty job over the years." And of course Bush v. Gore, which did more to damage the institution in modern times than anything else.

233 >>wouldn't we rather use impeachment?

Yes

234 WTF 'conservatives' are arguing the Supreme Court has no right to strike down ObamaCare?

What if they uphold it?  Then what does it say about our Constitution?

Look at how many judges already ruled in favor of it.

Besides, they'd just have to defend their ruling in front of Congress.  That's all.  No hiding behind a written opinion to slither away in the dark.

SCOTUS is a double-edged sword and it's too sharp.

235 @DrewM. You forgot Roe.

236 230 The SC is not supreme. The SC can shoot down a law and Congress can pass a new one that does what Congress intends but does not violate the Constitution.

They can't write one without violating the many emanations and penumbras.

237 Maybe at some point, though, you could explain to me how we have a nation of laws, and not of men, in a world without judicial review.  Because in THAT world, Congress would just be free to make whatever-the-fuck laws it wants, and the Constitution be damned

So many problems with this statement.

In the current paradigm, the Constitution is what 5 SC justices say it is, with no requirement that their pronouncements reflect the text in any way, shape, or form. In your example, the Supreme court is free to create "whatever-the-fuck-laws" it wants - with no check whatsoever in the real world.

If we return to the original system of checks and balances, as you note, the SC has only minimal ability to stop Congress from legislating what it wants. But keep in mind what the restrictions are on Congress from legislating what it wants;

The President's veto power
The President's enforcement power (presuming the law in question requires enforcement by the federal government)
Power split between two houses.
The Senate has significant protections for political minorities
Elections every 2 years.

Are you seriously going to argue that those protections are weaker then hoping Justice Kennedy wakes up on the right side of the bed on any particular day?

238 Posted by: JohnJ at December 18, 2011 04:01 PM (Tt6ky)

You're right.

I had it in there an accidentally deleted it.

I also should have added Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

239 If anything there ought to be something where judges can be recalled, or something other than what we have, and that goes to Federal or State judgeship's. Anyone tired of the stories of some fucking judge, sitting like he is God Almighty letting a child rapist off with a slap on the wrist? Or judges that let some twenty-five time DUI off with a fine, who then T-Bones a Van and kills a family? We are all sick of it, and the problem, however it can be addressed is these fucking black-robes need to be accountable for their actions and decisions. At least in some reasonable manner. That might end getting perverse judges on the bench forever.

240

Well, let's just ask the question: what <i>should</i> happen when judges make rulings based on clearly erroneous jurisprudence?

First, you wait until he dies. Really can't take that long. A government that can't just always act on a dime (in areas that are always NOT military) is a feature, and not a bug. 15 years or so, a blink in terms of history.

Then, when you appoint his replacement, you don't play silly kabuki games.

You ask him what the hell he thinks about the law on that, and if you don't get candid and honest answers that the legislature doesn't agree with, don't appoint him. Find someone else.

OR, every candidate can be a tabula rasa, a blank enigma who, when asked a relevant question, blinks and explains he's never ever thought about RvW before, and this is suppose to make him qualified, because we want impossible ignoramuses on our bench.

Of course they've thought about it. And on top of that, they are being dishonest in the confirmation hearings. And that's how we select them. That's what we ask of them.

Congress should stop being afraid to have the 'jurisprudence debate', and start demanding candor and honesty from judicial appointees, as a start.

241 Half of what I'm hearing is hysterical "If we impeach judges for good reasons, liberals might impeach them for bad ones, therefore judges should have no oversight!" B.S. I can play this game all day.

If we amend the Constitution for good reasons, liberals might amend it to do something bad, therefore we should never amend the Constitution!

If we pass good laws, liberals might pass bad ones, therefore we should never pass a law!

If shoot rapists, liberals might shoot law-abiding people, therefore we shouldn't shoot anyone at all!

If we advocate good ideas, liberals might advocate bad ones, therefore we shouldn't advocate any ideas at all!

Child's play.

242 MOAR POWAR FOR CONGRESS! WE NEED MOAR POWAR!

Actually, yes. Congress has ceded significant power to both the courts and the federal bureaucracy.

Which isn't to say they haven't in turn claimed power that belongs to the states or to the people as a whole.

243

I told you, it is as it always is. The democrats will stop at nothing and the republicans are literally terrified of fighting them.

If it is to stop, we must reverse the precedent of Bork.

244
Are you afraid they will stop the other 2 branches from giving you liberties?
...
Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 18, 2011 03:49 PM (TLNYf)

Yes. See Kelo.

245 If you want conservative SC decisions, elect Republican presidents who will make conservative SC appointments, and Republican senators who will confirm them. Flipping the table when the game doesn't go your way is for small children and liberals.

246

If we amend the Constitution for good reasons, liberals might amend it to do something bad, therefore we should never amend the Constitution!

WTF? Cite your source. Who said that?

Was it Kayzer Soze again?

247 Actually, I'm kind of liking a 6-year probation period before lifetime tenure.  After 6 years, they go back to the Senate to be reappointed or removed.

248 Down goes Green Bay, down goes Green Bay!

249 Is this the thread where I equate liberals and muslims as being collectively evil and worthy of being dead?

250 If you want conservative SC decisions, elect Republican presidents who will make conservative SC appointments, and Republican senators who will confirm them. Flipping the table when the game doesn't go your way is for small children and liberals. With lifetime appointments? Can you calculate the damage done by Gingsberg? Can you calculate the damage to be done by Sotamayer and Kagan. The ideological divide is so great I almost wish we would do an Atlas Shrugged. At the very least SC judges should be for ten years, then they have to get reconfirmation.

251

Law school is a magnificent waste of time and money, but it does provide that sweet, sweet barrier to entry.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 18, 2011 03:56 PM (73tyQ)

If you read the Constitution, you will find there is no educational requirement - at all - for Federal Judges.  No professional requirements.  All you need is a RickPerry nomination and Senate confirmation.  So - like I say - problem fixed.

252 >>>You really Donkey Punched the hell out of that straw man!

>>>Who is talking about getting rid of the Supreme Court?

I wasn't addressing a straw man because that's not what I was referring to.  I was referring to getting rid of Marbury v. Madison. Maybe you haven't bothered to read the comments (like an inverse Breitbart) but that's what several people have been arguing here: that the Supreme Court isn't entitled to be considered a coequal branch of the government because its powers are really unconstitutional usurpations under Marbury, which in establishing the principle of judicial review provides the basis for the court's essential power.  And I'm arguing that even if the SCOTUS has misused and abused the shit out of that power over American history, it still needs to have it, it still needs to be there. 

No straw men here.  Though I do suppose you could actually make the case that if you eliminate judicial review (i.e. the Court's right to review and overturn any law of Congress on constitutionality grounds), then yeah...you really are eliminating the Supreme Court in all but name.  I guess they would still have some original jurisdiction, for cases involving states suing one another, etc., but it wouldn't have any appellate power if Congress or the President could simply ignore its rulings or override them without amending the Constitution.

253

The judicial branch has overstepped their authority so badly that sometimes it seems we're living in an oligarchy rather than a democracy. We don't even really consider some laws entirely "passed" until the Supreme Court has their say. In fact I know that many legislators don't even consider if a law is Constitutional or not, they just pass it and leave it up to the Supreme Court to figure out if it's legal.

I think Newt realises that something drastic needs to be done, that it's not just the judges that are the problem & that replacing them won't fix it. It's the system that has become totally screwed up.

I don't know if what Newt suggests is the right answer, but the problems we have in America aren't going to be fixed by just nibbling around the corners.

254

If you read the Constitution, you will find there is no educational requirement - at all - for Federal Judges.  No professional requirements.  All you need is a RickPerry nomination and Senate confirmation.  So - like I say - problem fixed.

Posted by: Roger at December 18, 2011 04:12 PM (tAwhy)

Won't happen.

We really need to break the back of law schools.  No federal loans to law schools that last more than 2 years should be a start.

255 it wouldn't have any appellate power if Congress or the President could simply ignore its rulings or override them without amending the Constitution.

As long as both act in concert, they have that power right now.

256

>>>First, you wait until he dies. Really can't take that long. A government that can't just always act on a dime (in areas that are always NOT military) is a feature, and not a bug. 15 years or so, a blink in terms of history.

>>>Then, when you appoint his replacement, you don't play silly kabuki games.

>>>You ask him what the hell he thinks about the law on that, and if you don't get candid and honest answers that the legislature doesn't agree with, don't appoint him. Find someone else.

>>>OR, every candidate can be a tabula rasa, a blank enigma who, when asked a relevant question, blinks and explains he's never ever thought about RvW before, and this is suppose to make him qualified, because we want impossible ignoramuses on our bench.

>>>Of course they've thought about it. And on top of that, they are being dishonest in the confirmation hearings. And that's how we select them. That's what we ask of them.

>>>Congress should stop being afraid to have the 'jurisprudence debate', and start demanding candor and honesty from judicial appointees, as a start.

I don't agree with Entropy on pretty much anything, but I actually endorse everything he wrote in this post 100%.  We need to get away from the bullshit "oh no Senator I've never thought even for a moment about judicial theories as applied to particular subjects!  I'm an honest injun!" crap of the post-Bork years.

Really, as with many things, it's pretty much all Teddy Kennedy fault.  Fuck you, dead man.

257

Are you afraid they will stop the other 2 branches from giving you liberties?
...

Yes. See Kelo.

What. The. Fuck. Are you talking about?

Kelo v. New London.

The Executive was trying to sieze her property.

The Courts failed in their duty to stop them.

How is that the Court taking away your liberty? It is the executive, the court failed to stop it like they should have, with judicial review. How does taking the ability of the Court to even hear the case away from them, restrict the fucking executive that actually siezed the property???

Seriously?

Please?

You can tell me....

258 Entropy, how can you be wrong about so many other things yet essentially dead-on in your legal understanding? 

(That's my attempt at a backhanded compliment, by the way.)

One of the great things about AoSHQ is nobody -- not even me! -- is entirely predictable in their views. 

259 Actually, I'm kind of liking a 6-year probation period before lifetime tenure. After 6 years, they go back to the Senate to be reappointed or removed. Posted by: AmishDude at December 18, 2011 04:09 PM (73tyQ) So, what kind of behavior would we get from folks during the probation period? Would they rule to keep their jobs during that time and then rule otherwise later? Would a good judge be removed because the political tide had turned, a bad one not removed because it had not? You won't get better results by giving Congress a chance to reverse a good choice or reinforce a bad one. This whole enterprise boils down to the quality of the electorate and the fact we must live with the reality that we will never get what we want when we want it all the time.

260 250 Actually, I'm kind of liking a 6-year probation period before lifetime tenure.  After 6 years, they go back to the Senate to be reappointed or removed.

Very interesting discussion, folks. 

AmishDude-
I am intrigued by the idea of a probationary period, but an obvious potential problem is that a probationary judge would be tempted to slant his decisions to favor whomever he thinks will be in a position to confirm him as a full-fledged judge.  I assume that's why the FF chose to make the SC appointment a lifetime appointment. 

261 I like!

262 and yet people were trying to tell me Neuter was a good candidate for President...

263 "if the Supreme Court abolishes ObamaCare 5-4-should Obama and Reid be allowed to subpoena Scalia, Alito and all the other judges that voted it down? " Yes. We ought to deliberate about what the constitution requires and forbids congress and the president to do. Of course, that's what they tried to avoid when passing the abomination to begin with, so of course they won't have that conversation after the fact. But I would welcome the Democrats turning back to democracy as a venue in which they might persuade a majority of the sovereign People to accept the constitutionality and desirability of their agenda, instead of their disdain for the process and faith in their lawyers and court supremacy. But Gabe's wrong about Newt's threat. The threat of public opinion is already there and already skews court decisions - there is no independence or de-politicized forum that stands over and above the government and people in the general sense. The party of Lincoln used to know this. Now it is the party of conservatives and precedent - mere Whigs. I propose the party change the name back to reflect yalz' belief in turning back the clock on dem gains made in the last 10-30 years, instead of insisting on constitutional rule or republican govt. That way I could join your party and become a WINO, like Lincoln, instead of a RINO like everyone whose only sin is that they want to preserve the precedents of only the last 3-9 years.

264

What. The. Fuck. Are you talking about?

Kelo v. New London.

The Executive was trying to sieze her property.

The Courts failed in their duty to stop them.

How is that the Court taking away your liberty? It is the executive, the court failed to stop it like they should have, with judicial review. How does taking the ability of the Court to even hear the case away from them, restrict the fucking executive that actually siezed the property???

Seriously?

Please?

You can tell me....

Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 18, 2011 04:15 PM (TLNYf)

Well, it's like two wrongs don't make a right.

Several states have recently amended their state constitutions to prevent another Kelo type taking.

Wait until a challenge ends up at the SCOTUS. Kelo will be upheld under stare decisis. It will remain to be the law of the land for generations yet unborn.

265 Meanwhile... this year's game of the century is under weigh.

266

I don't agree with Entropy on pretty much anything, but I actually endorse everything he wrote in this post 100%.  We need to get away from the bullshit "oh no Senator I've never thought even for a moment about judicial theories as applied to particular subjects!  I'm an honest injun!" crap of the post-Bork years.

Really, as with many things, it's pretty much all Teddy Kennedy fault.  Fuck you, dead man.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 18, 2011 04:15 PM (hIWe1)

Ditto here, I agree with this as well.

But this is the fundamental problem with the Left.  They are not bound by precedent. The politeness of the old system where judges did not overstep their bounds and the Senate was not used to enforce ideology gets blown up by Leftists' lust for power.

They don't care about the system and the unwritten rules that allow it to operate and they don't care that it will be used against them because they hold our own virtue against us.

267 249

If we amend the Constitution for good reasons, liberals might amend it to do something bad, therefore we should never amend the Constitution!

WTF? Cite your source. Who said that?

Was it Kayzer Soze again?

Posted by: Entropy

I said I could play that game too. Those are statements based on the same logic that if Congress reprimands bad judges, liberals would reprimand good judges, therefore we shouldn't reprimand any judges at all.

268 Nobody gets people talking about the fundamentals of our system like Newt. Everyone else it is about some fine points of elect-ability, some fucking around with the tax code. But Newt gets people talking about the fundamental nature of our government, or about our foreign policy. He just mentions that Palestinians are an "invented," people. And that shines a light on the whole mid-east foreign policy and the problems in that area. Now he ventures some ideas about our judicial system and the light starts shinning on its obvious flaws and actual damage it is causing our Republic.

269 Posted by: Jeff B. at December 18, 2011 04:12 PM (hIWe1)

The Court isn't authorized to overturn statutes by the words of the Constitution. That's a simple fact. Now, the Founders didn't write that in because it was assumed to a degree (English Courts could and had for hundreds of years). Federalist 78 is exceptionally clear on this.

The problem is the Founders envisioned the Courts as a restraint on government power, not an enabler of it.

What I'm arguing (and I think Newt is too, notice he doesn't argue against judicial review) is that while the courts have that power, like any power in our system, it's not unlimited and beyond the check and balance of another branch or the people.

Trying to figure out how best for "the people" to exercise their inherent power (or even if they should) is one thing, denying that they have that power is something very different.

Again at

270

Entropy, how can you be wrong about so many other things yet essentially dead-on in your legal understanding? 

I'm a moderate radical populist libertarian.

271 @29 pep

"Oh, good. What are they?

Elections."

That's what Newt is suggesting, pep.  Or do you believe that federal judges are elected to office?

How exactly would "elections" work to check the judiciary unless it is by electing to office people who will question, argue against, berate, and ultimately fire members of the federal judiciary?

272 That's what Newt is suggesting, pep.  Or do you believe that federal judges are elected to office?

How exactly would "elections" work to check the judiciary unless it is by electing to office people who will question, argue against, berate, and ultimately fire members of the federal judiciary?

There is a vast difference between firing a sitting member, and nominating a good justice in the first place.  If the legislature is unable to fulfil the latter function, why are they qualified to berate, second-guess, and ultimately fire judges with whom they disagree?

Elections are for putting people in place who will select good judges, not for mob rule.

273 So, what kind of behavior would we get from folks during the probation period? Would they rule to keep their jobs during that time and then rule otherwise later?

How did they get the appointment in the first place?

What is most likely to happen on average is milquetoast decisions and uncreative rulings.  In addition, they would not go against the perception of their judicial temperment at the time of appointment.

If a "conservative" judge starts acting "liberal" nobody would defend him.

Would a good judge be removed because the political tide had turned, a bad one not removed because it had not?

Possibly.  But I say better that a good judge be removed than a bad judge be kept in office forever.

Look, if this were an issue of courts rarely overturning laws and having strict interpretations of the Constitution, you'd have a point, but ultimately the judiciary has no humility, which needs to be reinstalled.  In any case, I'm much more interested in such reforms being applied to the states first.  The Missouri plan is a wretched mess of corruption.

This whole enterprise boils down to the quality of the electorate and the fact we must live with the reality that we will never get what we want when we want it all the time.

No.  Judges are explicitly against the electorate.  That's the problem here.  As much quality as the electorate may have, they are always overturned by judges who know better.

274 "The Executive was trying to sieze her property. The Courts failed in their duty to stop them." The courts just noted that the People can appropriate private property if they want to do so. That's their right. It's supposed to be their country and if they broke no laws in making new ones then the court can't suddenly insist that the constitution makes property absolutely inviolable, when it clearly does not. The courts didn't fail - the executive and people were bamboozled. They didn't violate anything in the constitution, they just made New London suck more and gave themselves what they deserved. Courts aren't our parents. It's not their "duty" to clean up our messes for us. Suck it up and take some blame. Stop being so dependent on tribunals, and then blaming them when they let you oppress others - it's your country.

275 Some sort of oversight must be set in place. Why do we allow judges to over turn legal election results. The state of California passed a one man and one woman in regard to marriage. It called for a state constitutional change, whereupon the Judiciary shot it down as unconstitutional. Wait now, the people mandated a constitutional change, but the judge was allowed to deem it unconstitutional? The judge also said that the one party responsible  had no standing, thus trying to make his decision appeal proof. Who gave them this power?
 Who allows this to continue? But Newt is nuts and will cause the people to vote for Obama? I say bullcrap.

276 @64 Niedermeyer's Dead Horse  "WTF?

He simply cannot help himself."

Newt has been saying exactly this in public, in speeches since at least November of 2009.  Youtube the Victory or Death speech.

This is not new.  This is not whim.  This is not unconsidered.  This is not undisciplined.

This is the long-held conclusion of someone who has actually thought about the relevant rules for a significant length of time.

277 ultimately the judiciary has no humility, which needs to be reinstalled

I suggest that we submit all judges to a popularity contest and shoot the bottom 10%.  Worked for the Romans.

278 Courts aren't our parents. It's not their "duty" to clean up our messes for us. Suck it up and take some blame. Stop being so dependent on tribunals, and then blaming them when they let you oppress others - it's your country.

Posted by: Judge Dred Scotch at December 18, 2011 04:37 PM (Xb9XV)

You have no idea, though, how much people want to be ruled by brilliant elites.

279 By the way, did you know that courts created the notion of slavery in Virginia?

Without courts, we may never have had slavery in the North American English colonies.

280

They don't care about the system and the unwritten rules that allow it to operate and they don't care that it will be used against them because they hold our own virtue against us.

So stop playing by ancient exploded rules.

Start arguing for and demanding clear and consistent jurisprudence from Congressional nominees, and blatantly vote against ones you don't agree with.

They will try to Bork them. That is why the GOP has been pissing it's pants and nominating enigmas. The Federalist Society is a group for lawyers and legal scholars all about promoting free discussion of various sane jurisprudential approaches. The GOP screams and runs for the hills at the mere mention of them, as if it was Godzilla.

They are terrified of the Ghost of Kennedy.

This isn't the 80's. We have internets, praise Algore. Get back on your horse and fight, that is the only way. That Borking of Teddy's would never fly today, it would bite back with the force of a billion social-cons (many of whom are Christian-Progressive democrat).

281 DrewM. --

By the way, now that we're actually talking to each other a little, as opposed to talking past one another, I'd like to take the opportunity to apologize to you for some of my recent rhetoric towards you.  Yes, I get frustrated and pissed off when yet another old Romney video showing him saying something "unfortunate" pops up, and yes it sometimes makes me react a bit like a whiny bitch.  But that doesn't excuse my behaving like a nasty shit towards you. 

I think your support of Newt (and your -- by your own admission -- rather emotionally-based hate of Romney) is benighted, but you no doubt feel the same about my pragmatic "he's the only hope we've got so stop piling on" support for Romney.  There's no need for me toss out prickish insults at you over it.  Sorry.

(Honestly, this probably doesn't make too much rational sense, but the reason I've been gunning for you lately is, if anything, actually because I respect you so much.  I mean, it's one thing for Flapjackmaka to post silly fuck-Romney stuff...but it stings more coming from you.)

282 They will try to Bork them. That is why the GOP has been pissing it's pants and nominating enigmas.

To be fair, neither Roberts nor Alito were enigmas, but they did have to dance a little.

283 This is the long-held conclusion of someone who has actually thought about the relevant rules for a significant length of time.

I don't doubt that this is true.  However, I'd wager that not one person in 500 knew about it before the last debate.  My earlier comment about his lack of discipline referred to his willingness to unnecessarily insert it into the campaign, not his intellectual rigor or thoroughness. 

Think Ron Paul:  some of the stuff he says can be persuasive, and then the antennae come out of his head and he starts in with the crazy stuff.  Newt's behavior is like that in the strictly political sense. 

284

Without courts, we may never have had slavery in the North American English colonies.

Did you know the legislature did <insert whatever>?

Can we abolish all 3 at once? Cuz now maybe we're talking.

285 And let me put it more clearly (I'm in a bit of pain now so I'm not going to go all intellectual):

What. The. Fuck. Are you talking about?

Kelo v. New London.

The Executive was trying to sieze her property.

The Courts failed in their duty to stop them.

How is that the Court taking away your liberty? It is the executive, the court failed to stop it like they should have, with judicial review. How does taking the ability of the Court to even hear the case away from them, restrict the fucking executive that actually siezed the property???

Seriously?

Please?

You can tell me....

Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 18, 2011 04:15 PM (TLNYf)

A failure of omission is still a failure. Yes, the SCOTUS did take away a Constitutional liberty by ruling incorrectly. In fact, I'd argue their ruling was unconstitutional.

286 Yeah it really sucks when video of Romney that is only a year old shows up confirming what people say about him.

287 The problem is the Founders envisioned the Courts as a restraint on government power, not an enabler of it.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 18, 2011 04:32 PM

They also envisioned the legislature as a restraint on government power. And the executive. And the states.

288 >> The courts didn't fail - the executive and people were bamboozled. They didn't violate anything in the constitution, they just made New London suck more and gave themselves what they deserved. They stretched the definition of the term "public use" so far it broke. See also: Commerce, Interstate.

289 This isn't the 80's. We have internets, praise Algore. Get back on your horse and fight, that is the only way. That Borking of Teddy's would never fly today, it would bite back with the force of a billion social-cons (many of whom are Christian-Progressive democrat).

You nailed it.

290 @275  "There is a vast difference between firing a sitting member, and nominating a good justice in the first place."

How many judges have been fired in the history of the Republic?  Other than the ones Jefferson booted?  Two?  I don't recall exactly.

The way things stand today, there is NO way to be rid of a bad judge, because everyone treats them as untouchable.  There is no external check on them.

That was never the deal, and it is well past time when they should have been jerked up short.

291 Wonder if Gingrich will pursue all the unconstitutional actions by Obama (starting with the illegal fund raising from the 08 campaign.....

Or should I expect crickets?

Yeah, I will go with crickets.

292 No. Judges are explicitly against the electorate. That's the problem here. As much quality as the electorate may have, they are always overturned by judges who know better. Posted by: AmishDude at December 18, 2011 04:37 PM (73tyQ) Always? Seriously?

293 We're still asking about Newt? Both NY Football teams are playing like shitty Division 3 College teams and the Muslim Brotherhood and worse are taking over Egypt lock stock and barrel.

294 294 Wonder if Gingrich will pursue all the unconstitutional actions by Obama (starting with the illegal fund raising from the 08 campaign.....

Or should I expect crickets?

Yeah, I will go with crickets.

Posted by: Dandalo at December 18, 2011 04:48 PM (GAJm6)

Well, you should.  You don't want new admins going after old ones like in a banana republic.

Honestly, I thought Holder would go after the Bush administration and he simply hasn't.

There are limits to this, of course, and you want to go after blatant lawbreaking, but you pass laws to keep these things from happening again and you go after small frys against whom the case is open-and-shut.  Frankly, unprosecuted crimes do more political damage than prosecuted ones.

295 @290 JohnJ
"They also envisioned the legislature as a restraint on government power. And the executive. And the states."

No, they did not.  Except for the States.  They did envision them to be willing and able to act in their own self interest to limit the federal government.

They envisioned the legislature, the executive, and to some extent the judiciary to be in opposition to one another to an extent great enough to hamper their ability to concertedly usurp more authority than the Constitution allowed.

But the people really do have to exert themselves if they want to keep a republic.

296
The courts just noted that the People can appropriate private property if they want to do so. That's their right. It's supposed to be their country and if they broke no laws in making new ones then the court can't suddenly insist that the constitution makes property absolutely inviolable, when it clearly does not.

I call bullshit. The Constitution allows eminent domain for the public good. Things like roads and bridges. To allow the SCOTUS to stretch that interpretation into meaning collecting more tax revenue is indiscernible from the horrible injustices that have plagued the nation by the overstretching the Interstate Commerce clause.

Somehow, someway, this kind of crap needs to be ended.

297 @298 Troll Feeder "No, they did not."

Uh, ya, actually they did. A legislature is inherently less inclined to expand government than a King. That's kind of the point. You're right, of course, that the branches were also designed to be in opposition. But they essentially used every chain they could think of (elections, separation of powers, federalism, written Constitution, bicameral legislature, semi-independent judiciary, etc.) to bind the government down.

298

The courts didn't fail - the executive and people were bamboozled. They didn't violate anything in the constitution, they just made New London suck more and gave themselves what they deserved.

This is poppycock, plain and simple.

It was a ridiculous (and ridiculously corrupt) land grab by a greedy New London, in cahoots with a slick developer full of promises.

The court was only able to rule in favor of the city by redefining the meaning of 'public use', from the 200 year precedant of it meaning 'used by the public' rather plainly, to now meaning 'public good', as in, whatever whomever determines is in the best interests of their ethereal and ephemeral rhetorical ploys.

For instance - no one likes all these heroin junkies laying in the gutter. We'll take away your house, level it, build a giant concrete project, and give it to the junkies to live in, in your middle class suburban neighborhood. See? Public good. Anything you want, really, if you're a bit clever.

The executive was not bamboozled (save maybe by the private developer, who's deal fell through and the land is now a garbage dump). They went for it. The courts simply allowed it, which while simple, is still atrocious as well. In this case, as well as in commerce clause jurisprudence, the courts essentially hold what a lot of people are arguing for - it's not our business to tell the executive/legislature 'no' because what's constitutional is so subjective - we refuse to ever talk about it, it could be anything, they're all suppose to be coy and blink and pretend they don't have one.

The problem there is they did not strike it down. Taking away the case from them does not, in any way I can possibly concieve, rectify that.

299 @297

Well, it would be nice to see congress be a bit more aggressive in pursuing these things now. All the things Bush was accused of doing insofar as blocking investigations Obama and co. are doing now and to be honest I would like to see some people arrested.

And the fund raising illegalities are a big deal and I have not seen a thing about it.

I really do not think the next president prosecuting the O would turn us into a banana republic anyway. Liberals always call foul on non-issues, so they do not pursue them too far, just political gain. Obama has broken the law and should be punished. He will not be, but I think that just opens the door that much farther for the next socialist who occupies 1600 Penn. Ave

300 Posted by: Jeff B. at December 18, 2011 04:43 PM (hIWe1)

Hey, we fight like cats and dogs now and when it's all done we hug it out. Then we go kick Obama's ass.

301 No wonder FDR is one of his favorite presidents... Separation of powers. Deal with it.

302 @286 "...lack of discipline..."

I suggest that you watch the Victory or Death speech and reconsider the discipline trope.

Maybe it is true, but the consistency of the core of Newt's message belies it.  As does his explanation of his electoral and governing strategy.  As does the historical fact of the conservative successes that occurred while he was in office.

I disagree with about as many of Newt's apparent policy positions as I do of Romney's apparent policy positions.  I wish I had a good choice rather than one or the other of them.  But I don't have a better choice, and I like Newt's results much better than Romney's.

303 "295 No. Judges are explicitly against the electorate. That's the problem here. As much quality as the electorate may have, they are always overturned by judges who know better.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 18, 2011 04:37 PM (73tyQ)

Always? Seriously?"2011 04:48 PM (R1+VK) "   He may have overstated that a bit, but a prime example is in California where voters rejected the case for homosexual marriage and a homosexual judge over ruled.  These judges once installed seem like little mini tyrants bent on doing whatever the hell they want regardless of the constitution whether state or federal.  Reading rights in the constitution that just aren't there.  Then we have to ping pong major cases like Obama care through 10 different courts rather than just going straight to the Supreme Court.  This will be the case of the century, why delay it.

304 All this argument over should it be Newt or Romney, just assumes that there is no one else out there. I will back our candidate with all I have, but the primaries are made to choose the best candidate. Why should we not vet our own, do we want another Obama.

305

They didn't violate anything in the constitution

To reiterate, if I was not clear:

The Constitution only allowed them to take land for public use.

They never intended a public use for Ms. Kelo's land. They took it because they wanted money from it, and they pretty flatly admitted it (though not in quite those words). They said it should be OK, because it was for the 'public good' for the public Municipality to have more money and tax revenue.

You are not allowed to take people's property for some foggy public 'good'. No one ever does anything they don't think is 'good'. Everyone justifies everything they do. 'Public good' in place of 'public use' is as meaningless and unlimited and open-ended as commerce clause is now held to be.

They did this, but they have no such legitimate power. It was un-constitutional.

The Courts should have ruled so, instead they pretended the law meant something it did not mean and allowed the executive to proceed.

306 Where are my cons?

307

But they essentially used every chain they could think of (elections, separation of powers, federalism, written Constitution, bicameral legislature, semi-independent judiciary, etc.) to bind the government down.

Almost all of which has now broken down, owing to the precedant of having once violated each of them and faced no riots in the streets over it, so they continued.

308 @186 JeffB

"Okay, if you want to be the guy who argues we a majority of the House, and a 2/3rds majority of the Senate"

Fixed it for you.  The majority of the legislative branch must come to agreement on the unfitness of the accused official to give him das boot.

Exactly how often is that even remotely likely to happen barring the most blatant and heinous of evidence?

Sweet molasses, boy!  Obama and the Dems had a huge majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate, and it still took them months to by the barest of margins drag Obamacare -- one of their damn campaign issues -- over the line!

Newt's suggestion is unlikely to be deployed much, but the threat of it has to be out there, or no check exists on the judiciary whatsoever.

309

I call bullshit. The Constitution allows eminent domain for the public good. Things like roads and bridges.

BULLSHIT.

That is public USE.

The public USES public roads and public bridges and public schools.

New London took Kelo's land to give it to a private developer, to build himself a privately owned shopping plaza, because they figgured on getting more tax revenue out of the land that way.

And more tax revenue is in the public good, the town will have more money to spend on libraries without raising tax rates, if they can just sieze all the poor people's property and give it to rich people who will pay more taxes at a lower percentage rate.

You're defending this?

If so - Fuck you. Fascist.

310 Newt will drag us back to the dark ages.

311 @310 Entropy "Almost all of which has now broken down, owing to the precedant of having once violated each of them and faced no riots in the streets over it, so they continued."

Well... ya.

312 Fuck imminent domain.

313 Well, Robert Bork wanted to make it so that Congress could overrule the Supreme Court by a simple majority, so Newt's not alone. Liberals don't have a monopoly on dumb ideas.

314 I say stupid cons should pay triple what the land is worth before confiscating it for their own nefarious means.

315 @300 "@298 Troll Feeder "No, they did not."

Uh, ya, actually they did."

Again, the Founders recognized that the institutions they were creating would be staffed by men.  Who are usually self-serving.  Politicians perhaps more than most.

They envisioned the written Constitution as a restraint on Legislative power.

They envisioned the self-interest of each branch as a restraint on the others.

They envisioned the self-interests of the States as restraints on all of the federal branches.

And they envisioned the self-interests of the citizens as restraints on all of it, if the citizens could keep their acts together.

But they envisioned every branch of the government as the grasping, ever-expanding, tyrants-in-waiting that they are.  The growth of the federal government and the influence of the federal government is in the best interests of the every branch of government.

The founders never expected that the legislature would by itself act as a restraint on its own self-interest.

316

Wait until a challenge ends up at the SCOTUS. Kelo will be upheld under stare decisis. It will remain to be the law of the land for generations yet unborn.

OK.

You are extremely ignorant on this issue.

I apologize and take back everything I may have attributed to malice over your position on this.

317 "A legislature is inherently less inclined to expand government than a King. That's kind of the point." Reality check: In the last 96 hours, the House of Representatives has approved 1.6 *trillion* in new spending. Both bills had strong support from both parties.

318 LOL, this thread is still going. Good old Kelo. What they did if you look at the case and its precedents, they used stare decisis crepe to change the wording of the Constitution from "public use" to "public purpose".

If I am not mistaken (been a few years since I reviewed that) they actually used the term "public purpose". There are two major things wrong with this ruling. (1) You can not change the wording of the Consitution via a court case and (2) Stare Decisis has no buisness being used in the Constitution contrary to that fat fk Ed Kennedy.  Stare Decisis was part of the English Common law and was meant to establish law based on precedent WHERE NO WRITTEN LAW EXISTED! Not where you have written law.

So Kelo did, in fact prove, that the liberal wing of the court doesn't give a damn about what the Constitution actually says. They are what I call "outcomists". The know the outcome they want and they torture words until they get there. You can tell how screwed up a ruling is simply by looking at the length. If it takes more than 10 pages to write an opinion you can bet it is screwed up BS.

So how do you fix that? You can't, if you allow the court final word then it become political just like the other two branches. So you do stuff to make it more fair politically. Give each State one justice to be appointed in what ever manner they see fit. Allow them to remove their justice by a vote of 60% in the upper House of the State. Allow the Federal House to impeach any justice by a 2/3 vote.

Also in the amendment that establishes this state that no ruling may be made based on anything other than the written text of the U.S. Constitution.

319 Cripes, this is a long and difficult discussion. The right of the Supreme Court to declare a law Unconstitutional was bestowed on the Court by the Court in Marbury vs Madison. Now, if the Court had indeed stuck to strict interpretation we would not have the problems we have now. Too many Courts have not! Do I need mention Dred Scott, upholding Segregation Laws and of course Kelo! That list of course only hits the LOW points. Congress does of course does have the right to Impeach a sitting Judge, so why the outrage over being able to Subpoena a Judge in order to get all of the facts before making a decision? Or are those people who are saying that Congress cannot Subpoena also continding that they cannot Impeach?

320 Fuck imminent domain.

Every time I see a photo of that beautiful little pink house it just breaks my heart.

All for nothing.

321 Fuck imminent domain.

There is nothing wrong with imminent domain, we actually need that because there are a lot of hard heads. What we don't need is corrupt urban governments who abuse the shit out of it by taking property and giving it to cronies for money under the table.

We also don't need governments like NY that took a guy's beach front property on Long Island and gave him $15,000 for it.  There is a requirement that they pay fair market value. Long Island property values at the beach should be more than South Carolina which runs into the $100K per foot range.

322 "Every time I see a photo of that beautiful little pink house it just breaks my heart.

All for nothing."

Dear lord, you make your cons easy to despise.

323 What are the odds that gingrich is just positioning himself to be romney's number 2? I do not think newt is stupid - though he may have a maverick / fuckin' nuts streak in him that gets out every so often. if you have a romney/gingrich ticket and gingrich is running around making all sorts of noise to pander to the far right it might make romney more palatable; he is still an anchovy but only on one slice.

324 "It was a ridiculous (and ridiculously corrupt) land grab by a greedy New London, in cahoots with a slick developer full of promises." Yes, but hardly illegal. "The court was only able to rule in favor of the city by redefining the meaning of 'public use', from the 200 year precedant of it meaning 'used by the public' rather plainly, to now meaning 'public good', as in, whatever whomever determines is in the best interests of their ethereal and ephemeral rhetorical ploys." "Public use" and "public good" have always been an ambivalent term that means what the public and their officials want it to mean. Privatize the care-taking of your local park, junkie rehab garbage dump if you want - give away my property (after compensating me) to a mill or hydro-electric company serving only the mayor and his cronies. If you do so legally and democratically, what grounds do I have to stand on? If I can appeal to an unelected body of jurists who hate corruption and fat-cats more than me, fine, but stop calling your system republican. You just trumped one arbitrary factor with another in my favor. Maybe the people and their elected officials should carefully define what public use is and what good might be served for themselves on a case by case basis before wielding their formidable powers instead of assuming they can keep tolerating and enjoying corruption and irresponsibility because the courts will sort it our for them. There won't always be enlightened statesmen at the helm, but there will always be plenty of selfish, corrupt and ambitious officials around. When we defer to the courts on every decision of what they happen to think the law says and means, WE set the precedent that corruption can be tolerated and the people can be lax and keep electing corrupt officials, without ever having to deal with the consequences of our bad decisions and ourselves. If the people and legislatures are understood and deferred to as having preeminent authority over the the courts (whose only purpose is to rule on narrow, particular cases), then maybe even corrupt and selfish officials - even democrats - will also exhibit some rationality and restraint and responsibility in their actions. By making the courts supreme and absolute on general questions you create incentives and opportunities for corruption, collusion and crap-laws, because everyone can blame or rely on the Censors of the Court for curbing what the public wills as good or useful for itself. The court was just letting the people screw themselves and each other how they wished within the scope of the law. That's what democracy allows, along with corruption and collusion. You're not against democracy are you, Entropy? I say argue for vigilance and responsibility if you are in favor of freedom - not more nannies and parchment barriers.

325

don't bother, its raykon.

326 "There is a requirement that they pay fair market value. Long Island property values at the beach should be more than South Carolina which runs into the $100K per foot range."

Fk fair market value, I say they pay triple fair market value.

327 At least in the cities I've lived in, ID is no longer used because it's so unpopular. Instead, there are protracted purchasing negotiations. My town is in the process of purchasing half a dozen bits of property for a bike path and park expansion. The property owners are making out like bandits because they know ID will not be used.

328 "don't bother, its raykon.

Posted by: buzzion at December 18, 2011 05:39 PM (GULKT)"

Don't bother, its buzz, the shiny shaved ahole.

329 Yes, but hardly illegal.

Depends on what went on under the table and I am sure there was more than a blow job involved.

330 >>>What are the odds that gingrich is just positioning himself to be romney's number 2?

If that's what he's doing then he's every bit as stupid as Bachmann is (assuming we believe Ace's theory that she's laying off him as an audition for Veep).  Newt's horrible baggage (the adulteries, the ethics violations, the lobbying corruption, idiocy like today's entry in the sweepstakes) isn't going to simply disappear from view if he's the V-P candidate.

If Romney wins the nomination he's going to pick Rubio, McDonnell, or DeMint.  It's really that simple.

331 Squid for dinner, not bad.

332 Holy hell is this thread up?

333 Also, I think Paul Ryan has an outside shot at being named to a Romney ticket.  Would send a pretty strong message if he was chosen.

334 stale thread

335

Yes, but hardly illegal.

"The court was only able to rule in favor of the city by redefining the meaning of 'public use', from the 200 year precedant of it meaning 'used by the public' rather plainly, to now meaning 'public good', as in, whatever whomever determines is in the best interests of their ethereal and ephemeral rhetorical ploys."

"Public use" and "public good" have always been an ambivalent term that means what the public and their officials want it to mean. Privatize the care-taking of your local park, junkie rehab garbage dump if you want - give away my property (after compensating me) to a mill or hydro-electric company serving only the mayor and his cronies. If you do so legally and democratically, what grounds do I have to stand on?

You're not listening to me. Nothing you say addresses my point.

It IS illegal. The government has no legal authority to sieze land, with or without compensation, for the public good.

It must be for public use.

They never intended a public use for Kelo's property.

Your assertion that 'it's always been murky' is rejected. First of all, it has not. Second of all, it wouldn't matter or change anything if it had.

336 And Romney sure would love to get those conservatives out of positions of influence in Congress where they might hamper his bipartisan efforts.

337

Depends on what went on under the table and I am sure there was more than a blow job involved.

No, it does not depend on that.

It is illegal no matter what.

338 Does anyone have a transcript of the Mittens class warfare bullshit he was spouting this morning on Fox?

I'm only seeing bits 'n pieces on twitter. Would love the full context to see if it's as bad as it sounds in 140 characters.

339 Check their website?  I don't know how soon they put up video though.

340 >>>And Romney sure would love to get those conservatives out of positions of influence in Congress where they might hamper his bipartisan efforts.

Everything is an anti-conservative conspiracy theory with you, isn't it?

Look, I don't have to have an inside line to the Romney campaign to know that the consideration you just mentioned isn't going to figure even remotely into their calculations.  What, you think Romney would put Paul Ryan on his ticket only to shit all over the Ryan plan if it ever came across his desk?  How would he pull that one off, exactly?

341

Oh, more stuff eh?

Mittens goes class warfare? That cannot be.

That's like Superman trying to work over Lex Luther with a kryptonite baseball bat.

342 Gingrich is another con nut bag.

Ron Paul for president.

343 Something about how "the rich" seem to be doing well in this economy.

I really need to see the full quote before I have a tantrum over it.

344 @318 Troll Feeder

You're mistaken. Legislatures have long been argued to be less prone to expand government than a single monarch due to the necessity of prolonged deliberation before passing legislation. The founders were well aware of this, and that's why the legislature exists in the form it does instead of in the form of a single person elected or appointed to pass new legislation.

Federalist 26: "[A] power equal to every possible contingency must exist somewhere in the government: and that when they referred the exercise of that power to the judgment of the legislature, they had arrived at the ultimate point of precaution which was reconcilable with the safety of the community... The principles which had taught us to be jealous of the power of an hereditary monarch were by an injudicious excess extended to the representatives of the people in their popular assemblies."

Federalist 38: "Whence could it have proceeded, that a people, jealous as the Greeks were of their liberty, should so far abandon the rules of caution as to place their destiny in the hands of a single citizen? Whence could it have proceeded, that the Athenians, a people who would not suffer an army to be commanded by fewer than ten generals, and who required no other proof of danger to their liberties than the illustrious merit of a fellow-citizen, should consider one illustrious citizen as a more eligible depositary of the fortunes of themselves and their posterity, than a select body of citizens, from whose common deliberations more wisdom, as well as more safety, might have been expected?"

345 Ron Paul for president.

You do know what website you're at, right?

346 Brady's Hair: 27 Tebow: 16

347 lacy http://tinyurl.com/cjx2tes transcript

348 Actually JeffB Santorum I think you're completely wrong on who you think Romney would choose for VP and not for some anti-conservative conspiracy you pompous blowhard.  He hasn't done shit to court conservatives now when he would arguably most need them to even get the nomination, he's sure as hell not going to be choosing a conservative as his VP.  I was just snarking about a reason he would choose them.  Because I think Romney would be very very happy at pursuing a bunch of bipartisan crap "solutions"

349 Isn't Ron Paul extreme right wing Lacy?

350 ron paul is insane

351 "349 Brady's Hair: 27

Tebow: 16"

Fk Tebow, I have been praying to his imaginary God that he will lose.

352 ron paul is insane Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 18, 2011 05:58 PM (Ho2rs) and is a big fan of earmarks.

353 apparently drunkard is insane too

354 "353 ron paul is insane

Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 18, 2011 05:58 PM (Ho2rs"

Sure, he wants to eliminate the military and the war on drugs. Crazy sheet indeed.

355 "You are not allowed to take people's property for some foggy public 'good'. No one ever does anything they don't think is 'good'. Everyone justifies everything they do. 'Public good' in place of 'public use' is as meaningless and unlimited and open-ended as commerce clause is now held to be." Not "you", but the public is. Democracy is dangerous and error prone, but not everything that is wrong, corrupt, stupid, or unfair is necessarily "FASCIST". Entropy, You want the court in charge of these matters, but when the court is wrong you say they are unconstitutional. How can that be unless your opinion, as a member of the public has some standing and authority outside the courtroom (where it is officially irrelevant)? If only control the legislature legitimately has over the court is to choose and appoint the judiciary, then stop attacking their decisions and abide by the rule of law. What's the point of going on and on saying they were wrong? They're in charge not you. what difference does it make if you think the constitution means something else, or that the public is not allowed to use land for what it deems to be its good? If you are right these are all questions for lawyers, not citizens. We can pass whatever law we want - in favor or against Kelo and the court can interpret or overturn it as they see fit. I and Lincoln, though think your opinion matters. We think the people's interpretation of the constitution ought to trump the courts' (which only pertains to specific laws and instances) in a democracy. You may call that fascist, but ultimately someone has to be in charge and held accountable. I'd rather that be the people than the courts because I think even in CT, in the long-term, we can still trust in the justice and good sense of the people. But, maybe I'm wrong, and your opinion means dick.

356

Rick Perry for President.

He's got something, even for Paulnuts. He wrote a book about the 10th ammendment. He supports a proper constitutional ammendment banning homos that will never happen.

He even gave Ron Paul 3 departments he would cut, even if he couldn't remember one.

And he's been getting consistently better and more comfortable and less awkward at these debates. And when he's on, he's ON.

357 Perry is a social con, but one who understands that government is not the answer but the problem.

358 Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 18, 2011 06:02 PM (TLNYf) Perry is the one is dislike the least. That will have to do this round.

359 "Rick Perry for President."

Perry is a religious freak. He will destroy the country, like W nearly did.

360 "Perry is the one is dislike the least." Let's try that again. Perry is the one I dislike the least.

361 thank you v. much, phoenixgirl

Here's the quote --> "The people that have been hurt in the Obama economy are — are not the wealthy. The wealthy are doing just fine. The people that have been hurt are people in the middle class."

Looks like he knows that $10,000 bet hurt him. So he tries to appease with this bullshit?

Fuck off, Willard.

362 Drunk and Drunkard is no way to go through life, Son.

363 Not to mention, Congress doesn't have a stellar record on getting things right. I would feel comfortable with say, Paul Ryan giving the 3rd degree to a judge who ruled in favor of the health reform act, I'd hate to see that same judge being coddled by Pelosi.

364 364 thank you v. much, phoenixgirl

Here's the quote --> "The people that have been hurt in the Obama economy are — are not the wealthy. The wealthy are doing just fine. The people that have been hurt are people in the middle class."

Looks like he knows that $10,000 bet hurt him. So he tries to appease with this bullshit?

Fuck off, Willard.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 18, 2011 06:05 PM (f0Xgz)

After that video yesterday he ought to be sending Perry $5,000.

365 Show me where the expensive carpet is. I need to drop a deuce.

366

He'll make the judeges have to listen to a four hour DVD of his speeches and very special thoughts and superduper ideas

367 "Perry is a social con, but one who understands that government is not the answer but the problem." Rick Perry increased spending from $47B when he took office to nearly $90B in FY2011. State government employment rolls are at nearly 300,000. This isn't fiscal conservatism or small government.

368 "365 Drunk and Drunkard is no way to go through life, Son.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 18, 2011 06:06 PM (f0Xgz)"

Quit telling me what to do.

I am honoring Hitch, the smartest person I ever read.

369

Quit telling me what to do.

I am honoring Hitch, the smartest person I ever read.

Posted by: Drunkard at December 18, 2011 06:08 PM (t13uJ)

Then go down to MD Anderson in Houston and fucking die.

370 "Fuck off, Willard". Can I get a "So say we all"? (Been watching a lot of Battlestar Galatica on Netflix, lately.)

371 Looks like he knows that $10,000 bet hurt him. So he tries to appease with this bullshit? Fuck off, Willard. Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 18, 2011 06:05 PM (f0Xgz) It truly was stupid to make that bet. And if he had bet $10, that would have been mockery because $10 means absolutely nothing to him.

372 Bet the little shit didn't read Hitchens or even know who he was until after Ace posted about his passing.  And then he saw that he was an atheist and was all about him.

373 "It IS illegal. The government has no legal authority to sieze land, with or without compensation, for the public good. It must be for public use. They never intended a public use for Kelo's property. Your assertion that 'it's always been murky' is rejected. First of all, it has not. Second of all, it wouldn't matter or change anything if it had." Illegal for laws to be passed by elected legislators? "Public use" has always been clear and distinct from "public good"? Maybe in law school, never in politics or life. You want it to be, but that demand requires we run our country through the courts, and that elections and legislative deliberations and shifting opinons about these matters be ignored or corrected by the precedents you prefer. Who's fascist again?

374 Is Jordan the one (or one of them anyway) that Sooth tells to 'get under the stairs'?? Heh. I love that.

375 (Been watching a lot of Battlestar Galatica on Netflix, lately.) Posted by: Jypsea Rose at December 18, 2011 06:09 PM (digkk) All this has happened before and will happen again.

376 Stupido, we all die, except the the frightened little God believers, whom only die in reality, not die in their land of make believe.

377 I like Frum and much as Frum likes Butter.

378 Jeez, eman! THAT was the episode I watched last night !!! Spooky.

379 >>>Here's the quote --> "The people that have been hurt in the Obama economy are — are not the wealthy. The wealthy are doing just fine. The people that have been hurt are people in the middle class."

>>>Looks like he knows that $10,000 bet hurt him. So he tries to appease with this bullshit?

Umm...Romney's been using that line in the debates for at least three months now.  Seriously, look it up: he said that verbatim in at least two of them.  It's hardly a reaction to the $10,000 bet kerfuffle.

And he's right to make an appeal to the middle class.  They ARE the ones who have gotten raped in the Obama economy.  They also, conveniently enough, are the ones who will decide this election.  I remember most people around here praising his rhetoric on this subject when he used it in the debates a couple months ago.  But I guess the Newt Is The One Craze has erased memories.

Keep effin' that chicken, though.

380 As for this post, there's just too much stupid to even address.

I'll just say these types of comments won't be undoing. Things like this will

(link to Politico)

381 Rick Perry increased spending from $47B when he took office to nearly $90B in FY2011. State government employment rolls are at nearly 300,000. This isn't fiscal conservatism or small government.

As noted here and without comment on the validity of the increased spending, adjusted for population growth in that period (20.6%) and inflation (27%) it's more like it has increased 21%, in real terms, rather than doubled.

A decade is a long time.

382 Spin spin spin. He increased spending every year until his campaign began.

383 This is the shape of things to come.

384 "375 Bet the little shit didn't read Hitchens or even know who he was until after Ace posted about his passing.  And then he saw that he was an atheist and was all about him."

Stupid fk, I have a subscription to "The Atlantic", own the book named "God is not Great", and the hard cover "Arguably", the latter, 750 pages that Hitch said no one would ever read, and which I am almost through.

Why are you so stupid? Inbreeding I suspect

385 Wow, thread is still going?

Well, let me try this then.  I've been giving this a lot of thought.  I am drifting more and more for Romney, to be honest.  Here is why.  It is not because he is some stellar example of Perfect True Conservatism(TM), because he isn't.  That is not a reason to vote for him.  If you want a person who has a 1,000% ACU rating, then don't vote for him.

What has impressed me the most about Mittens is his problem-solving abilities in politically difficult situations.  Take the infamous RomneyCare.  What people don't realize is that there was not an option for Romney to "do nothing".  The D legislature wanted to force all employers to provide for health insurance, and the nutty D activists were pushing for single-payer and were going to get a ballot measure approved on the subject if the Legislature didn't act.  So Governor Romney did get health care reform in Massachusetts, using the Heritage Foundation Approved(TM) individual mandate (recall this was back in 2005), INSTEAD of an employer mandate, and he did it without raising taxes.  In a heavily D state.  I know the conservative purist in me would rather have seen Romney break out the Sword of Conservatism and smite them all into adopting free-market principles.  But instead he did, considering the circumstances, what I think is the most plausibly conservative thing.

That is what I fear about people like Bachmann, or the other purists out there - oh I have no doubt that she has solid conservative bona-fides, but I have significant doubt that she has the ability or the skill to put them into play in the real world.  Every battle that she has fought has been a losing one.

Perry, I think, receives too much credit for the success of Texas.  It is already a conservative state favorable to economic conditions.  What did Perry do to demonstrably make it better?  I don't know.  I really don't.  If a Perry booster could tell me what *specifically* Perry did to make Texas better, please let me know.  More disturbingly, he has never really had to contend with signfiicant D opposition.  What is he going to do when his down-home folksy mannerisms don't work on the likes of Chuck Schumer or Harry Reid?

And Newt is just too unstable, frankly.  He has a record of ideas - yes.  His record of *leadership*, however, is lacking.  This is where Newt IMO clearly falls short to Mitt.

And besides, you will all be assimilated anyway into the Mittens Collective.  Resistance is futile. 

386

What you need is an actual case rather than a hypothetical. Say you subpeona Justice John Paul Stevens to defend his opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA in which he opined that carbon dioxide is "the primary species of greenhouse gas". That statement is false. Water vapor is both more prevalent and has a broader absorption band in the infrared range than carbon dioxide making it the primary species of greenhouse gas. The AGW crowd ignores water because their definition of "global warming potential" adjusts the value based on the average residence time of the gas in the atmosphere, a concept somewhat allied with half-life. Carbon dioxide's residence time is measured in decades whereas water is about 8 days (before it precipitates out). This artificial constraint ignores the fact that 70% of the Earth's surface is water which is constantly evaporating thereby replacing the moisture that precipitates out. Rather then decaying without anthropogenic replenishment, nature constantly replenishes the humidity in the air maintaining an average of about a 1% moisture content contrasted to less than 400 parts per million for carbon dioxide. Seen from space the earth has large banks of clouds.

Mother Nature does not observe an "exclusionary rule" for the facts. Let  Stevens defend his opinion in public dressed in a suit rather than a robe. What's the problem, he wrote it so he should believe it and be ready to defend his opinion in public on TV under oath for the record? You wouldn't impeach him, you humiliate him to the point where he either asks his brethren to re-open the case or resigns.

387 Tara Reid looks like a 36yr old alcoholic actress because she is one.

388 He increased spending every year until his campaign began.

Not disputing that as I noted, just putting 2% growth per year in perspective.

Also of note in the article, We need to consider, too, how much of that growth in spending was caused by shared state-federal services. There's only so much a state can do to restrain spending on a federal entitlement program such as Medicaid. And the state's Medicaid enrollment has grown at an even faster rate than the state's general population. Total Medicaid enrollment in Texas stood at 3.5 million at the end of 2010 — up from 1.9 million in September 2001, according to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission

389 >>>Actually JeffB Santorum I think you're completely wrong on who you think Romney would choose for VP and not for some anti-conservative conspiracy you pompous blowhard.  He hasn't done shit to court conservatives now when he would arguably most need them to even get the nomination, he's sure as hell not going to be choosing a conservative as his VP.

Hey Buzzion, would you like to bet?  How about $10,000?

Seriously though, make a gentleman's bet with me.  If you're wrong, all you have to do is write (in a Romney VP announcement thread here on AoSHQ) the post "Jeff B. was right about this and I was wrong.  I admit it."  And I'll write the same if, indeed, Romney picks a liberal for his Vice-President.  Heck, I'll write something even more self-insultingly vulgar if you'd like.

Seriously -- there's nothing to lose here, so why wouldn't you take the bet? 

N.B. The one thing you can't do is retroactively deem anyone Romney chooses not to be a conservative, merely because he picked them.  So if he takes any of Rubio, McDonnell, Ryan, or DeMint, you can't just go and say "ZOMG JIM DEMINT SUPPORTED LINDSEY GRAHAM'S REELECTION FUCKIN' RINO!" or "PAUL RYAN VOTED FOR TARP!" or "MARCO RUBIO'S PARENTS WEREN'T REALLY FLEEING CASTRO!!" or whatever. 

390 Gabe,

We don't HAVE an "independent judiciary."  We have Liberal Judges in thrall to their ideology and the political interests of their Party.

We have a constitution that aimed to create a careful system of Checks and Balances, so no one branch of government became too powerful.

But I ask you Gabe: What Check or Balance is there on the federal judiciary?

I submit: None, Zip, Zilch, Nada.

A judiciary answerable to NO ONE has pretty much gutted the rest of the "checks and balances" and replaced it with an Almighty Commerce Clause that Justice Kagan says gives Congress the right to dictate you eat brocolli and when and if you should rinse your butt. 

As I seem to recall, it's up to Congress to decide what cases the SCOTUS & federal judiciary has jurisdiction over - but when was the last time Congress ever did that?

It seems to me that Newt is right.  HE is the one out to restore some semblance of "balance" and "check" on the omnipotent power of the federal judiciary.

391 Tara Reid looks like a 36yr old alcoholic actress because she is one. Posted by: DaveA at December 18, 2011 06:18 PM (/3UeZ\ ================================= She had a horrible breastacle job too. Awful.

392 Umm...Romney's been using that line in the debates for at least three months now.

Well I certainly stand corrected. How wonderful for him! He's not just pandering to the middle class with his tail between his legs. No. No! This means, according to Mr. Know-It-All, that he has said it verbatim three times now. This may actually be one of the things that we can pin him down on actually believing in his hearts of hearts. Class warfare. How...progressive of him.

Fantastic!

393 Denver's on the move in the 3rd quarter.

394 All this reading I do (comma) and yet (comma) I have so little ability (comma) to write a (comma) sentence.

395 Uh oh.

We we've got him going in ALLCAPSELEVENTY!!!1!!!! mode now. Time to depart from this thread.

396 OT/ VDH has as good a takedown of the myth of that intellectual giant that is POTUS that I've seen, and well worth the read @ PJMedia.

_{sorry if it's been mentioned previously.}

397 And besides, you will all be assimilated anyway into the Mittens Collective.  Resistance is futile. 

From this time forward.  You will service.  US.

398 I read that article, ontherocks...it was a great read.

399 I fell in love with Newt a little more when he promoted this idea--actually, if I were a judge-oligarch I would prefer Newt's relatively harmless option to Big Fat Meanie's preferred option, which would entail offending judicial windbags being dragged before a citizens' tribunal, being measured for a coffin, provided an opportunity to defend themselves, being found guilty, and being dispatched accordingly.     

400

Go fuck yourself you whiny little arrogant dick.  I would have no problem doing that.  You're a jackass and pathetic though.  I never said Romney was going to pick a liberal.  I said he wouldn't pick a conservative.  But then I guess it is hard to read when you're so focused on trying to sniff your own farts from the source.

Yeah sure if Romney actually chooses a conservative I will write "One of Jeff B. Santorums whiny little political prediction screed was actually correct and I was mistaken"

401
From this time forward.  You will service.  US.

Posted by: Locutus of Romney at December 18, 2011 06:22 PM (tXq+o)

Hey now, only I get to call him Locutus, when Mitt is busy assimilating me!

402 the myth of that intellectual giant that is POTUS

Fact not in dispute:  Not even a National Merit Semi-finalist.

403 >>>Well I certainly stand corrected. How wonderful for him! He's not just pandering to the middle class with his tail between his legs. No. No! This means, according to Mr. Know-It-All, that he has said it verbatim three times now. This may actually be one of the things that we can pin him down on actually believing in his hearts of hearts. Class warfare. How...progressive of him.

Where's the class warfare in what Romney said?  In fact, where's the part that's even remotely objectionable, either as a matter of political morality OR electoral campaigning?  If he had said, "the 1% of this country need to pay more than they do already, they need to pay their fair share, they're not contributing enough!" then THAT is what class warfare looks like.  All Mitt is trying to do with that line is defuse the entirely predictable (and 100% guaranteed) attacks that Obama and the media would launch against him as being a wealthy plutocrat who's out of touch with the majority of the country.  And he's saying -- "hey, the rich are doing fine, I'm really concerned about America's middle class."  Not: "we need to tax the wealthy more!" 

You're looking for a reason to be against what Romney said, which is the only reason your panties are in a twist over this.  Your pump has been primed, so to speak.  But man, there isn't anything wrong with that positioning.

404 Let's see, its radical to suggest that Judges, who found abortion and gay weddings in the constitution, need to be reined in? As an officer of the court, it delights me to say; they brought it on themselves! Too often, under the guise of an "Independent Judiciary", the John Paul Stevens of the bench have been more dictatorial than judicial. Newt is voicing the frustration of many people regarding this topic, which needs to be discussed.

405 Jeez, eman! THAT was the episode I watched last night !!! Spooky. Posted by: Jypsea Rose at December 18, 2011 06:13 PM (digkk) They say that a lot.

406

Not "you", but the public is. Democracy is dangerous and error prone, but not everything that is wrong, corrupt, stupid, or unfair is necessarily "FASCIST".

Did I call you a fascist? I called Ed Anger a fascist, and then apologized because I realized he has no idea what he's talking about, and is making predictions about how the Supreme Court will decide the landmark supreme court case Kelo v. New London when it finally gets heard.

Not "you", but the public is. Democracy is dangerous and error prone

Democracy is disasterous and I hold no love of it.  Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. A Montesquieu/Madisonian Constituional Republic is what we ought be, the only thing that works any good. The mob must be restrained by checks and balances, same as all the other terrible powers.

Entropy, You want the court in charge of these matters, but when the court is wrong you say they are unconstitutional.

No, you lot of disingenuous and/or deaf bastards. I don't want the court in charge, the court is not charge, the court simply has a veto.

I want checks and balances and obstructions and restraints. The court gets a veto, on behalf of the Constitution, which is known as Judicial Restraint.

Judicial activism is when the court creates law, policy or regulation that has not been passed by the legislature. They must not do this.

What they must do, is their job - the leftist definition of judicial activism - obstructing the Legislature and the Executive from over-reaching their Constitutional limitations.

They are not 'in charge'. They may not tell the other branches what to do. They may tell others what they may not do. That's the purpose of judicial review.

If only control the legislature legitimately has over the court is to choose and appoint the judiciary, then stop attacking their decisions and abide by the rule of law.

Strawman much? Where does that come from? A majority of justices have decided in a fashion that assaults common sense. They have decided wrongly.

This is because the legislature picked dishonest politically-connected activist lawyers to staff the court. That is a problem.

How many Republicans voted for Sotomayor? Now we all wonder whether the lying bint has even the shame (forget about integrity) to recuse herself from cases she's clearly a party to.

That is the problem. I will not vote for douchebags who won't fillibuster the likes of Sotomayor on simple principle, because if we do, we will end up ruled by 9 robed priests, no matter if they're term limited, or subpoena-able to the same people who created them, and enthusiastically continue to.

As it stands, none of them are spring chickens, I doubt a couple of the worst activist leftists will last even 4 years, so who do you want picking the next nominees and how do you want their confirmation hearings to be held?

As 3 hours of vapid and meaningless (and occaisionally contentious) introductions, or do you want to discuss jurisprudence, A.K.A. your vision for what the fuck you are going to do if we nominate you, what you see as your job, and how you think you're supposed to do it?

407 Gingrich is just pointing out why the judiciary was given no enforcement capabilities in the Constitution, other than the minor ability that Gingrich is threatening them with.

Better to just start impeaching the lunatic leftists, I think.  We've got a lot of shit floating around in the federal judiciary, especially since BHO started bringing the real crazies in with him.

And SCOTUS justices who lied during their confirmation hearings ought to be impeached, too.

408 387 "375 Bet the little shit didn't read Hitchens or even know who he was until after Ace posted about his passing.  And then he saw that he was an atheist and was all about him."

Stupid fk I have a subscription to "The Atlantic" own the book named "God is not Great" and the hard cover "Arguably" the latter 750 pages that Hitch said no one would ever read and which I am almost through.

Why are you so stupid? Inbreeding I suspect

No commas

409 >>Jypsea Rose at December 18, 2011 06:23 PM (digkk)

'nother good one.

410 Hitch and Obama two giant intellects.

411 Quote something memorable from Obama that isn't laughably trite.




Also, the Denver D needs to step up and keep it close.

412 Down dooby-doo down down.  Comma comma down dooby-doo down down.  Comma comma comma comma comma comma comma question mark estupido cons dooby-doo down down.

Love.

413 And Denver D fail.

414 >>>Yeah sure if Romney actually chooses a conservative I will write "One of Jeff B. Santorums whiny little political prediction screed was actually correct and I was mistaken"

No.  The entire point of this is that you actually have to be gracious about it.  I'm perfectly capable of that (just as I'm also perfectly capable of being an insufferable prick), and what I'm looking for here is a willingness on your part to actually suck it up FOR ONCE and back down without adding in little mewling-pukey little insults to salve your wounded pride. 

I mean, do you have any idea how whiny and insecure you come off in almost all of your posts?  How much anger and weakness your whole 'internet tough guy' routine inadvertently reveals?  How much condescension and arrogance you blast at people who hold different views than yours (this in particular is key because it's your nominal reason for hating on me.) 

And yet I don't make it a point to hunt you down in every thread you post in and call you out by name.  In fact, more often than not I just ignore or you, and at times I try to actually argue or discuss without the name-calling if you're willing to forgo it as well.  And yet you feel the need to never drop the inflexible hostility, as if you're afraid of losing some core principle you hold dear if you were to just stop behaving like a pusillanimous mope for even five minutes.

415 "Posted by: Raydrunkardkon at December 18, 2011 06:32 PM (tXq+o)"

Another con whose too stupid to create a link that works and that doesn't understand the tube thingy.

Why is everyone on the right so proud of their stupidity?

416

This is one question, I can tell you I've thought this several times, I would love to pop on our POTUS aspirants at a debate, if I got a 'question from the audience' shot.

Everyone says things like 'I will nominate judges like Scalia'. Like Scalia how, Italian? That can mean a lot of different things. What I've always liked most about Scalia is his legendary candor and his honesty, his passionate and even incendiary advocation for and defense of his legal positions. Will you appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Bork, who are well known for their candor, and begin a serious debate about constitutional jurisprudence in this country, or would you follow the post-bork model of trying to avoid informed debate?

That, and if you are elected, will I have still have to go through porno-scanners and sexual molestations seemingly designed to mock the 4th ammendment if I want to fly in a plane?

(Also, will you continue to allow the DEA and other federal agencies to hassle, harrass and abuse legal marijuana dispensaries?)

417 Newt really tries too hard to come up with the memorable soundbite.  In most cases in politics, a bumper sticker beats an essay.  With Newt, maybe not so much ... http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

418 "Posted by: toby928© at December 18, 2011 06:33 PM (GTbGH)"

Tubby Toby, your God failed Tebow?

419

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 18, 2011 06:34 PM (hIWe1)

"Blah Blah Blah, I'm the smartest guy in the room and blah blah blah" 

Yeah sure I will be polite and cordial in writing "you were right and I was wrong."

420 I cant get (comma) this link to go anywhere (comma) Ive been clicking on it for hours (comma) and I just get a 404.

This can only mean (comma) that estupido cons (comma) cant work the internet thingy (comma) and expect their God to lead people (comma) to their sites.

I guess (comma) Ill just have to keep trying (comma) and see if I can eventually get thru.

421 "404 Not Found

The path '/undeadstates' was not found.

Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/cherrypy/_cprequest.py", line 606, in respond cherrypy.response.body = self.handler() File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/cherrypy/_cperror.py", line 227, in __call__ raise self NotFound: (404, "The path '/undeadstates' was not found.") "Powered by CherryPy 3.1.2"

Stupids

422 You know undead, you sock puppetting of him is making more sense than anything he's written on here all day.  But still I suppose its a solid B+ effort on the Presidential scale.  So you know, 4th best.

423 And the reason why I am supporting Romney over Gingrich. At the moment I am a Perry man.

424 Just read it, ontherocks. Thanks!

425 I like commas and paragraph breaks

Cons like long drawn out diatribes that not one reads.

426 Here's the pbroblem: President: too much power Congress: too much power Supreme Court: too much power Giving more power to Congress to counter the SC is not the answer

427

President: too much power
Congress: too much power
Supreme Court: too much power

Giving more power to Congress to counter the SC is not the answer

How dare you steal several hundred pages of my shit and condense it into 26 words!?!?

428 See previous comment: Congress does not have such a stellar record of getting anything right that I would like to see more power in their nasty little hands.

429

HOLY SHIT TEBOW TIME!

Can they make it though?

430 Giving more power to Congress to counter the SC is not the answer

Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at December 18, 2011 06:50 PM (6i3vq)

Judges who don't follow the law should be impeached.  That is the power that the Constitution gave Congress.  The Judiciary thinks that it has domain over every single thing, since it rules what is in its domain (laughably), so Congress tossing the real lunatics out of the judiciary is part of Congress' most important function as a co-equal branch of the federal government.

Maybe if the judiciary ever felt restrained by anything this wouldn't be necessary, but we have an insane group infesting that field, these days.

431 I say buzz should be banned because he is stupid. Sorry, life is not fair

432 Cons like long drawn out diatribes that not one reads.

Yet you claim you read Hitchens.

433 "435 Cons like long drawn out diatribes that not one reads.

Yet you claim you read Hitchens.

Posted by: lowandslow at December 18, 2011 07:00 PM (GZitp)"

Uh, I dont like God

Uh, I read much

Uh, I drink much

434 Dear lord God in heaven, plz make your Tebow throw an interception.

Amen

435 It's a Hobson's choice.  Have your freedoms obliterated by 9 unelected politicians or have your freedoms obliterated by mob rule... which is EXACTLY what is being proposed here, make no mistake about it. 

It appears the Pubbies do not have a single candidate running who is not a full on retard right when the presidency is theirs for the taking. 

This primary is like they some kind of awkward mating ritual where they each take turn stepping on their own dicks.

436 I ask one more time of the Libtards. If Congress has the Power to Impeach a sitting Judge, why do they not have the Power to subpoena him/her to justify an opinion? Where is the so called Magic Line?

437 If the judges make a decision based on politics and not the iron letter of the law, then they are this nation's dictators already. If a President calls bullshit on them and rules according to the law and against the judges, then he is in the right and the judges are in the wrong.

I applaud Gingrich for announcing this as a principle.

438 No, congress should overrule statutory interpretions by statute or divest the fed courts of jurisdiction in some areas.

439 @347  "@318 Troll Feeder

You're mistaken. Legislatures have long been argued to be less prone to expand government than a single monarch due to the necessity of prolonged deliberation before passing legislation."

I agree with this point. 

What I disagreed with you on was your statement at @290 that a legislature is a restraint on government power.  It is a restraint on the power of a monarchical government, but it is not in and of itself a restraint on government power per se.

If the point you are arguing really is only that the Founders thought that legislatures have more obstacles to becoming tyrannical than monarchs do, then yes, I fully agree that the Founders believed that.  I would not have thought it a matter in dispute.

440 Gingrich's suggestion is an extreme departure from the vision of Founders. Alexander Hamilton wrote at length about the dangers of subordinating the judiciary to the legislative and executive branches I'm not saying that I agree with Gingrich, but claiming that Hamilton's positions on federal and judicial power are illustrative of the vision of the Founders is, quite possibly, the most retarded thing that I've ever read.

441 Go and actually read the Constitution! It did NOT set up three co-equal branches, Congress was supposed to be the check on the on the two and be the DOMINANT Branch We have today the Congress in submission to the other two ie, exactly reversed!

442 Alexander Hamilton wrote at length about the dangers of subordinating the judiciary to the legislative and executive branches. History buffs might review Federalist #78, in particular, on this issue. Gabe might read anything written by Thomas Jefferson on this issue.

443 I had no idea that what he really meant by that was returning to Thomas Jefferson's blatantly corrupt attempts to destroy the independent judiciary by impeaching Samuel P. Chase or approving of Jackson's "Justice Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it" rationale for executing the Trail of Tears. Posted by: Jeff B. at December 18, 2011 01:43 PM (hIWe1) Gabe - Jeff B agrees with you; how stupid do you feel now?

444 Tell me that the current state of the judiciary is what the founding fathers envisioned. I don't like calling judges before Congress either but, something has to be done. They have learned how to twist and manipulate laws to suit their own agendas. Gingrich is right. The balance of power has tilted toward the judiciary.

445 Gabe might read anything written by Thomas Jefferson on this issue.

Posted by: gm at December 18, 2011 07:27 PM (K0tm3)

Jefferson was a total nincompoop.  He loved the French Revolution and his greatest contribution (the Louisianna Purchase) went against everything he had railed about for the whole of his political life, in a very nasty and underhanded manner, to boot.

That aside, Hamilton had a whole different type of person that he had to deal with.  There were idiots back then, but nothing like the modern, nihilistic, self-hating leftist.  That was what was happening in France.  Except for Jefferson, we had nothing of the sort, here.  But, over the centuries, the French Revolution has finally won the West, including the hold-out US, which is why the West is just about dead.

446 Posted by: Steve Lockridge at December 18, 2011 07:32 PM (U//lK) If Congress has the power to fire (Impeach) a Judge why do you feel uncomfortable with them questioning that Judge?

447 If Congress has the power responsibility to fire (Impeach) a Judge ...

448 So, who's the next flavor of the month? Imagine if the left actually followed this lead? We wouldn't be here right now as such expression would be banned.

449 If Congress has the power responsibility to fire (Impeach) a Judge ...

Posted by: really ... at December 18, 2011 07:39 PM (X3lox) And that changes the thrust of my question how?

450 "What they must do, is their job - the leftist definition of judicial activism - obstructing the Legislature and the Executive from over-reaching their Constitutional limitations." Or what? What are you going to do when they legislate from the bench or validate unconstitutional laws? Just say they are wrong and unjust but abide by their decrees as a law-abiding good American wolf? Try to get an amendment passed that says something else they can interpret or explain away? Keep saying they are wrong, while insisting we cannot really do anything about it? In effect, this all puts them in charge - as the final authority (veto with no override) of what the constitution says and means. "If only control the legislature legitimately has over the court is to choose and appoint the judiciary, then stop attacking their decisions and abide by the rule of law. Strawman much? Where does that come from? A majority of justices have decided in a fashion that assaults common sense. They have decided wrongly." It comes fro comment 126, where some straw man named Entropy said "The legislature appoints and chooses the judiciary. That is all the control they ought need." I disagree - that is not all the control they need if we are really a republic ( a species of democracy). But you said you don't have much esteem for democracy because of wolves. I still say it's better than a lawyerocracy - the Roman solution of putting dictators and censors above the law to correct it and protect the mob from themselves and their false notions of "freedom" and "rights" and other legal issues far too complex for the common man. Maybe Americans can't get the constitution right either, but at least if they exercised their constitutional power to veto the judiciary then we really would be a republic and wouldn't be lying when we said ours was a democratic form of govt. I would rather live somewhere where all that language is not just pretense and rhetoric meant to fool the masses into following laws as legitimate because they consented to them. I would rather just put you and Scalia and Gingrich in charge and be done with all the formalities of elections and legislating, while yall served us. Think of the savings - in money, time, and effort. And the freedom from faux-responsibility. I don't see why this isn't better. Why do we have to go through all these motions and pretenses and confusions if it's all only legit when the star chamber signs off on it. Cut to the chase, man. Cut out the middle man/politician and put Madison and Montesquieu in charge of everything. They are smarter and more trustworthy and less liable to take my land than the mob I guess.

451 I don't have a problem with judges being soebpenaed by congress any more than I do the executive branch. The Supreme Court isn't elevated higher than the other two branches, the same checks and balances are supposed to apply. A Supreme Court judge could simply assert their coequal status and refuse the soebpena if they chose too, like the executive department can.

The problem is people - even many conservatives - have this impression, without realizing it, that judges are supreme, superior, and loftier than the other two branches, and they're not. A Supreme Court judge is no better a person and in no greater position than a congressman or president.

452 This is because the legislature picked dishonest politically-connected activist lawyers to staff the court. That is a problem. How many Republicans voted for Sotomayor? Now we all wonder whether the lying bint has even the shame (forget about integrity) to recuse herself from cases she's clearly a party to. That is the problem. I will not vote for douchebags who won't fillibuster the likes of Sotomayor on simple principle, because if we do, we will end up ruled by 9 robed priests, no matter if they're term limited, or subpoena-able to the same people who created them, and enthusiastically continue to." There is only one answer that would unite every congressman against any nominee: No sir, I do not believe in Judicial Supremacy. I think every branch has a duty to uphold and abide by the constitution - this branch as much as the Court. I'm sorry to imply you are responsible for the state of the nation and that you should have to justify your laws and check other branches according to the document you have sworn to uphold and protect from encroaching powers, but that's what it says" The nominee who would dare say we are a democracy would be Borked so fast from left and right we would never see or hear of them again. That's why I think Gingrich is either a bold fool or foolish prof for stating something so obvious and damning of the powers that be - No one wants to face their responsibility - they want to keep calling themselves democratic, self-governing citizens, statesmen, and their country a republic, but cannot stomach someone telling them that this would mean they have supremacy over the court - that the courts can only overturn specific laws and exist only at the people's discretion. Such blasphemy will not be tolerated - it will be ridiculed and denied until everyone believes the nonsense that ours is a govt of separate but equal branches, balanced by mere words, as defined by the only branch that needs to read, think or write laws and hold constitutional opinions. For this alone Gingrich will be crucified and crushed by both sides with vested interests in their cushy racket.

453

It appears the Pubbies do not have a single candidate running who is not a full on retard right when the presidency is theirs for the taking. 

This primary is like they some kind of awkward mating ritual where they each take turn stepping on their own dicks.

I think they have a lot of good candidates. But in a sense you are right.

Damn near everyone has gone stark raving mad. They are all delusional.

No one is perfect, but dammit I picked the worse and stuck to him, the only one I've demagogued is Romney, because he is a lying weasle who must be destroyed. Any other candidate who's turn it's not is progress. Even if he's lying at least they can plead stupid - Romney outright promises to screw us, to our face.

90% of everyone else has the long knives out for everyone.

Let's face it, as a society we are not mature and responsible enough to have a calm and rational primary. Emotion is on 11. Anything may happen at this point and then we will be stuck with it. But it's not necessarily going to be bad... can't tell yet.

Next year let's have a reverse primary. We'll go in rounds, and everyone vote for who you want to STFU & GTFO until 1 is left. Off the island and on to the next round, reality tv style.

Let's be honest about ourselves; it would suit us so much better wouldn't it?

454

Posted by: Judge Dred Scotch at December 18, 2011 08:09 PM (Xb9XV)

That's all well and lovely but I have no idea what any of it is suppose to do with what you quoted me saying.

And you may as well start defining all your terms now, I may not disagree with as much substance as you may think, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with all your labels.

I'm still Perry > Bachmann > Roehmer > write-in Palin > re-entered Cain > Paul > Santorum > Johnson > Gingrich > Libertarian party nominee > Huntsman > Obama > Romney.

That's with weighting for plausibility.

455 Let's be honest.  The Supreme Court has taken on a role that is damn near dictatorial.  Perhaps you'd like to explain why a court that  could give us Kelo, and twist the Constitution to give the Federal Government powers not delegated to it shouldn't be reined in?

The alternative is to get a government that will work for us.  Read the Declaration of Independence, ponder the approval rating of our government, and continue to support the status quo if you wish.  Most would not go as far as I would, yet. 

456 The point isn't the further politicizing of the judiciary, its holding the judiciary accountable to the law that was enacted.  Look no further than the 9th Circuit to see what disregard and lack of accountability has led to.

457 What would you propose for the Ninth Circuit?

458 217 Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you.
A Republic that guarantees only one side will prevail is not a republic.

I think Newt's solution lets Congress lift the ratchet and might work well.  You know Alito, Roberts, Thomas & Scalia would love to walk over and school some fools.  Hell they might even learn something and the MFM might cover it.  Boehner calling Kagan might just be another circus we'd get blamed for but maybe some bullshit would slow down or get seen thru.

It doesn't directly address the precedence problem or the ?competence? (whatever you call it when a court decides something is it's business, purview?) issues which produce the ratchet.  And it only calls for review cases where the court got it wrong and a majority of congress is right.

And I'm probably talking to myself since the spam is already here.

459 If memory serves, federal Marshals are appointed by the executive. A Marshal for each federal court district, I believe. Sirica wrote of this. As he was considering issuing an order to the pres to turn over the tapes, he also considered how he would enforce his order. He reasoned something like this: I issue the order. Give it to the Federal Marshal to enforce. The FM knocks on the front door of the WH. Nixon fires the FM. Next man up. Sirica, like most judges, did not want to weaken the authority of the court by issuing an order that could not be enforced. Am I remembering correctly, he issued the order anyway?  Yes, I think that is right.

As I also recall, enforcement did not became an issue; political reality and pressure forced Nixon's hand. By then, the tape doctor disappeared the 18 1/2 minutes, if memory serves.

But what do I know. My memory has become so hazy of these events. To Set The Record Straight, was I think, the name of Sirica's book. A very good read. In fact, I may shake the moths out of my copy to see if it still holds my attention.

What got this rambler going was the Q far above: Could the Legislature order the Federal Marshal to appear before them? If the FM's appointing authority is the Executive, then only with the blessing of the Executive, if at all.

And that was the basis, I believe, of Jackson's remark. The Federal Courts have a weak hand when it comes to forcing an adverse party to comply with an order of the court. A subpoena, or order to show cause, why an adverse party should not be held in contempt of court, or of congress, is usually the remedy. If the adverse party cannot be served, I don't know what remedy is available.

If the thread is still alive, please feel free to respond that I am full of s**t.

460 I am full of s**t.
 unknown lurker

You're full of it.  Actually I have no idea but that invitation is so rare on the toobz I could not resist.

461

Perhaps you'd like to explain why a court that  could give us Kelo, and twist the Constitution to give the Federal Government powers not delegated to it shouldn't be reined in?

Because you have misrepresented the situation again.

The Court did indeed do what you say, but the executive branch of New London first asserted it had powers not delegated to it. The Court was 2nd.

However out-of-control the courts are, the executive is worse, or maybe just just-as-bad but having worse effects. The courts do not DO anything. The executive will haul you off your land and bulldoze your goddamn house.

The courts, fucked up as they are and guilty as you say, may not stop them.

Or they may.

But without judicial review, then they may not ever.

You want to punish them, reign them in because they did not stop the executive - but what will you do to the goddamn executive who started it, and now has run off with his shiny new powers?!? Bulldozed a lady's house into a landfill chasing phony business profits for city coffers? Nothing? Unmentioned?

Then who will reign in them, if not, ever again, the courts? Who will reign them in on Obamacare?

Reigned in by whom?!? The Legislature is twisting the Constitution and giving the Federal Government powers not delegated to it, the Executive is twisting the Constitution and giving the Federal Government powers not delegated to it.

We can control 2 with who we vote for, and in a few years, we can control the 3rd the same way. We just have to do it. We have to do it. There's no procedural fix that will just make everything work right without us having to bother much. Fight you dumb bastards fight.

462

Once again Newt proves he is a master at overplaying his hand. The sheer stupidity of this assertion is stunning, particularly from someone who claims to know so much about history. The attempts to justify it are even more absurd.

The fact is the Supreme Court is not the sole arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws. Every member of Congress gets to do that when deciding to vote for or against a law, and then the President gets to do it when deciding whether to sign it or not. Further, someone has to actually object to the law and bring a case to them before they even get to arbitrate.

The fact is that if the Supreme Court could never declare a law unconstitutional Congress could pass laws eliminating freedom of speech, imposing a national religion, prohibiting gun ownership, eliminating jury trials, permitting torture to obtain confessions, mandating everyone buy a GM car, purchase and eat 20 lbs. of brussels sprouts per year, and anything else they liked, and there would be no basis in law for telling them they were exceeding their power

The fact is that Jefferson eliminated half the judgeships as a partisan political move. If FDR trying to pack the court was wrong how was Jefferson gelding the courts right?

The fact is that Congress has the means to overrule the Supreme Court - they can pass a law that is Constitutional. They further have the power to hold members accountable for their behavior - they can impeach them. They have yet another method to seek reasonable rulings in the first place - they must approve judges. If they are so hopelessly incompetent as to be unable to use three separate methods to vet judges, control excesses, and enact legitimate laws, it is insanity to expect they will achieve anything with a fourth, thoroughly unconstitutional method, direct intimidation on a partisan basis.

The MSM "liberal" talking heads want to combine the executive and the legislative powers, and now the "conservatives" want to make the judiciary utterly subservient to them.
What a wonderful bipartisan effort to create a dictatorship there guys. Kudos.

463

Look no further than the 9th Circuit to see what disregard and lack of accountability has led to.

You have a point there.

A court as consistently and completely out of touch with reality as the 9th is something that needs to be adressed.

Again - the root of the problem isn't so much a lack of options of ways to currently deal with them, that we need constitutional reforms. What we need is a party with the will and the spine to use them.

As it stands, they could impeach the judges or abolish the circuit and re-form it slightly different. Or, better still, stop allowing leftwing activist lawyers to be appointed to the bench, even in the 9th, even to replace retiring activist judges.

Fillibuster and explain why. If the left does the same and fillibusters all our judges, then sooner or later we'll run out of judges for a while, which is OK, and then people must decide, or else decide to hobble on with hardly any judges. And that will be that - so put everything you got into it.

Or you can force them to the table - no more fillibuster for nominees on either side. Up or down votes. That would make it transparent, at least. They wouldn't like that, oh no. You need radical Tea Party types.

464

The fact is that Congress has the means to overrule the Supreme Court - they can pass a law that is Constitutional. They further have the power to hold members accountable for their behavior - they can impeach them. They have yet another method to seek reasonable rulings in the first place - they must approve judges. If they are so hopelessly incompetent as to be unable to use three separate methods to vet judges, control excesses, and enact legitimate laws, it is insanity to expect they will achieve anything with a fourth, thoroughly unconstitutional method, direct intimidation on a partisan basis.

Winner winner chicken Entropy Sheen dinner.

465 That aside, Hamilton had a whole different type of person that he had to deal with. There were idiots back then, but nothing like the modern, nihilistic, self-hating leftist. That was what was happening in France. Except for Jefferson, we had nothing of the sort, here. But, over the centuries, the French Revolution has finally won the West, including the hold-out US, which is why the West is just about dead. Posted by: really ... at December 18, 2011 07:33 PM (X3lox) Yeah - Jefferson, that fucking idiot. How dare he want the power to rest with the people. Obviously, it should rest with our betters and we should shut the fuck up and do what we're told.

466 Reducing the carefully balanced separation of powers is not among them. I don't know how carefully it was balanced. John Marshall made this shit up on the fly in Marbury.

467

Hamilton was a dickhead.

Jefferson is the man.

Aaron Burr deserves a medal.

 

468 A case he obviously should have recused himself from.

469 Aaron Burr deserves a medal. Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 18, 2011 09:14 PM (TLNYf) If only Hamilton had pissed Burr off a decade or so earlier ...

470 471 Yeah - Jefferson, that fucking idiot. How dare he want the power to rest with the people. Obviously, it should rest with our betters and we should shut the fuck up and do what we're told.

In most cases: well, yeah.

471 468 What a wonderful bipartisan effort to create a dictatorship there guys. Kudos.

As long as it claims to be a Right dictatorship, I will give it the benefit of the doubt.

472

Except for Jefferson, we had nothing of the sort, here. But, over the centuries, the French Revolution has finally won the West,

Jefferson and even Paine were of a kind with Girondists. Much like Paine, those not beheaded went in a dungeon for a while. These were the Montesquieu types, the Madison types. Jefferson and Madison were the leaders of the Democratic Republicans.

The Girondists overthrew the Monarchy, then lost control of the new government. After a flurry of factional changes and purges, the Jacobins settled on top and began slaughtering everyone and being generally crazy, the military took over with a coup d'etat and Napoleon was then in charge, then the Russian winter ground him down and the British beat him, put the Monarchy back, which was overthrown by escapee Napoleon again, who was then defeated by the British again, who put another monarchy into place again, which then over the next decade or two was reformed and/or revolted into still more political forms.

And this has continued every few decades up until like 1970.

How the hell has the rest of the west followed in that course??

I think what you're getting after is the legacy of Rousseau, which had a lot to do with the nutters in France and a lot to do with the crazies of today, but to drag Jefferson into that madness is absurd.

473

Patently asisnine and illogical on its face.  Never should have left his lips.

Bad Newt rears his head again.  Steyn has his points when he rails on this kind of behavior by Gingrich - Tourette's-like spouting of Big Ideas with little to no thinking them through.

I've always thought that the only fair trade-off for the huge power they wield was to make the judiciary politically accountable, but not in this way.  They should periodically stand for election with a long term (e.g. six+ years) and be accountable to the people - not be star-chambered by the politicians whose edicts they review the day after they make their ruling, and face sanctions from them to boot.

Newt's obviously channelling his heady days of Congressional power and relishing the idea of what he would have done to settle some scores. 

Citizen immigration panels and now this ?  And I'm sure I'm missing some more intellectual loose-cannon fire. 

Perry (again) and Romney will start looking a lot better to me if Newt adds a strike or two more like this to his poor impulse control resume.

474

Jefferson's pals in France:

Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau (9 March 1749 Â– 2 April 1791) was a French revolutionary, as well as a writer, diplomat, freemason, journalist and French politician at the same time. He was a popular orator and statesman. During the French Revolution, he was a moderate, favoring a constitutional monarchy built on the model of Great Britain. He unsuccessfully conducted secret negotiations with the French monarchy in an effort to reconcile it with the Revolution. In the years leading up to the Revolution, he communicated with Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson—who served successively as United States Ministers to France in that period—and used materials provided directly by each of them in several of his pre-Revolution publications.

Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette (6 September 1757 – 20 May 1834), often known as simply Lafayette, was a French aristocrat and military officer born in Chavaniac, in the province of Auvergne in south central France. Lafayette was a general in the American Revolutionary War and a leader of the Garde nationale during the French Revolution.

In the American Revolution, Lafayette served as a major-general in the Continental Army under George Washington. Wounded during the Battle of Brandywine, he still managed to organize a successful retreat. He served with distinction in the Battle of Rhode Island. In the middle of the war he returned to France to negotiate an increase in French support. On his return, he blocked troops led by Cornwallis at Yorktown while the armies of Washington and those sent by King Louis XVI under the command of General de Rochambeau, Admiral de Grasse, and Admiral de Latouche Tréville prepared for battle against the British.

Back in France in 1788, Lafayette was called to the Assembly of Notables to respond to the fiscal crisis. Lafayette proposed a meeting of the French Estates-General, where representatives from the three traditional orders of French society—the clergy, the nobility and the commoners—met. He served as vice president of the resulting body and presented a draft of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Lafayette was appointed commander-in-chief of the Garde nationale in response to violence. During the French Revolution, Lafayette attempted to maintain order—to the point of ordering the Garde nationale to fire on demonstrators at the Champ de Mars in July 1791—for which he ultimately was persecuted by the Jacobins. In August 1792, as the radical factions in the Revolution grew in power, Lafayette tried to flee to the United States through the Dutch Republic. He was captured by Austrians and spent more than five years in prison.

475 Not that it matters, to such socialists as are now populating AoS morons and moronettes today, but Newt never said, or implied he could fire, dismiss, or even have any power over the NINE Justices' of the Supreme Court, he did imply he would fire certain Federal court justiceses, which the President has absolute power to do. He did suggest that he would attempt to pass law that there would be term limits on the NINE Justices', and fire some of the Federal judges who are not acting in the intent of the Constitution.

476 I don't think I've ever read such a bullshit piece of crap article ever on Ace.

Someone please tell me where it's written that judges make the laws in the United States. What Newt was proposing actually is about the checks and balances between the three powers which no Republican has had the nerve to actually apply because the howl from the press and liberal socialist would be heard around the world. From what I've seen here they would be joined by Ace and others here.

In his own words we do not need an oligarchy which is what courts in this country have become. Without activist judges making law from the bench most of the progressive agenda would fall by the wayside. ooooooh! how scary is that.

 

477

Okay, I understang Gabriel's and Texas' position:

Constitutional amendment to do away with the branch of government that keeps the Congress' power in check, by giving Congress veto power, is good (Rick Perry)

Hauling justices in who have abused their power to be questioned before Congress as to whether they need to by impeached (Newt and the current constitution), is bad.

478 Excellent blog, thanks for the share. I'll be a regular viewer.

479 You know, I've read and reread what Newt is saying about the Judiciary here and I simply do not see how his position is any different that the Founding Fathers intent. 

He is simply stating that the Judiciary must be held responsible for upholding the Constitution and not legislating from the bench.  If they do, they will answer for it.  He is simply stating that the Judiciary is not all powerful, but rather the weakest of the three branches, which they should be since they are not elected and never have to face the voters once put in place.  This whole argument of, "well yes, but if we start there then where does it end?" is specious.  It begins and ends at the same point.  If you are going to argue that all government activity is wrong because it might someday become corrupt is to join forces with the OWS crowd.

Of course, the panicked headlines "Newt Threatens to Arrest Any Judges Who Disagree With Him!" sound scary, but Newt NEVER said that (or anything even close to that).  I find it sad and somewhat pathetic that this respectable blog has allowed itself to become involved in the same misrepresentations and fear mongering as the MSM.

480 from Gabe's judges piece:

Gingrich is banking on his scheme being well-received by voters angry  at how often judges rule without considering whether their decisions have majority support at how often judges rule without considering whether their decisions are even remotely constitutional or not or if they fall within the authority that the Founders designated for the judiciary.

There. FIFY.

481 I'll stick with the separation of powers provided by the Constitution. I don't give a rat's patootie about the way the New York Times thinks we should do it.

Go Newt! Subpoena them suckaz.

482

What Newt is proposing is fundamentally sound in that the three branches are supposed to be co-equal. A judge can rule against a law citing the Constitution. The President can appoint the judge. Congress can approve a judge. But what happens when the judge starts coloring outside the lines and peforming as a one man (or woman) legislature and executive? One of the mechanisms provided in the Constitution is a congressional trial in the form of impeachment. It is designed to be a pain in the ass process and not a simple slam dunk. The other is in the form of changing the Constitution. I'd rather see a bad Judge tried and removed from office than tinkering with the Constitution. 

What recourse do The People have when a judge goes beyond the scope of their authority? We have a hand on Congress, a finger on the President, but nothing to save us from bad judges except Congressional oversite-which is sorely lacking.

I don't agree with the intimidation idea, but I'd love to see some of these jokers from the 9th circuit called to give an account.

483

I take a backseat to nobody in my disdain for the activist Court.  But here we confront the problem with Newt Gingrich as our nominee for the presidency.  He may be right, although I don't concede that at all.  But is a presidential campaign the right time to bring us something that is so easily demagogued and so far out of the mainstream that it practically guarantees defeat? 

----

But does it really "guarantee defeat" as you say, or does it instead open the door for Newt to counterpunch any criticism from Obama on that issue while sparking a national debate over judicial overreach which should have happened years ago? All Newt has to do is say "The judiciary has bestowed upon itself powers for which it was never authorized. If you're going to call me 'extreme' for this view, then what in the hell do you call the CA judge who threw out results from a free election on Prop 8 because he didn't like the outcome?"

The judiciary has run wild over the constitution and all Newt would have to do is cite several egregious examples to demonstrate that point with devastating effect. It would insulate him from the "extremist" charge and sway opinions IMO.

484 Approving or not approving judges is insufficient check on the system, which is why the founding fathers put in a system to remove judges from power. However, this has never been used on a supreme court judge and to my knowledge has been used perhaps twice on a federal judge. The main reason is that the critieria that judges have imposed on this system are so strict and incredibly limited that its basically impossible to get rid of a horrible judge unless they are desperately, publicly corrupt, unpopular, and infamous.

Simply being a really crappy judge that consistently makes unconstitutional rulings isn't enough, when that should be the foremost reason for removing a judge from power.

485

Let me pose this to you all:  A judge has one function in their job.  That is to INTERPRET THE LAW.  Not to CREATE NEW LAW by pulling it out of their asses.  A judge has no right to make new laws.  That job belongs to congress and congress alone, unless you are Obama and you just shit out executive orders whenever you want to. 

But assuming everyone does their job the way it is supposed to be done, the judges interpret case law, congress makes the laws, and they are supposed to work together.  This is not however what happens.  When a judge just shits new law based upon their personal desires and beliefs, you have judicial activism, and  transgressions of authority.  They cannot do that.  But there is nothing in place to stop them from doing this.  They can do anything they want to on that bench.  And given that they are there for life unless they get caught committing a felony or something that lands them in prison, they are not coming off the bench, no matter how poorly they do their job.  No reviews of their performance, no nothing.  They can do whatever they want to do.  If they get looked at, their fellow judges do that and that is just about useless. 

I see no challenge to the sacred "independent judiciary" everyone is screaming about to make them justify outlandish court decisions which affect every one of us, particularly given that we have absolutely no voice or choice in them at all.  But it might make the predominately liberal abuser judges who like to make law out of whole cloth think a bit if they knew they might get dragged before congress when they do stupid shit. 

486 it's good to know that the GOP plan of appealing to uneducated voters is going over swimmingly.

487 Newt is mostly right on this one. 

488 Hoo Rah, USMC Steve. Would love to see how the judges decide that the process isn't "Constitutional" when they start getting impeached for violating their oaths. 

489 I agree with John that Newt is mostly right here. But I think it important that we state the corollary: Gabe is mostly, and quite emphatically, wrong.

490 Congress already has the authority to impeach any federal judge.  They impeached Alcee Hastings and removed hm from office. They just rarely do it for a good reason.   Too bad his constituents didn't get the hint this guy was crooked because they later elected him to the House.  The biggest problem is the media...as usual.  They would make a big stink about any liberal being impeached, as they ptobably did about Hastngs.  I don't remember but it sounds right.  The whole world of Washington DC is politics...right and wrong...good or bad has nothing to do with anything.  The whole city is based on the theme of what can you do for me if I do something for you.  Or you do something for me free gratis if you're so stupid.  Blago didn't pull this out of the air.  If the media is for you, there will be a lot of controversy..

491 Actually, I see nothing wrong with summoning a SC justice or from a lower court and demanding to know where they got the information to make the  decision they did if there is a dire question about it.  And if the said they pulled it out of the air as it seems so many do, then impeach him/her or some sort of punishment.  However, these justices tell us why they reached their decisions and therefore justifying their decision.  All three powers are answerable to each other one way or another.  It is just that the present occupant of the WH is ignoring the whole rule of law.  Up until January 2009  he had the legislature in his pocket and is now trying to pack the SC with communists.  He's already put  two there.

492

air filter,oil filter,water filter,all filter

www.genset-china.com