Newt Gingrich will ignore Supreme Court cases he disagrees with - Polidicks

[quote] [b]Newt Gingrich is giving fair warning to judges and courts across the country: If he becomes president, the judiciary won’t reign supreme.[/b] The former House Speaker and current Republican presidential front-runner convened a conference call with reporters on Saturday to expand on his call for Congress to subpoena judges or even abolish courts altogether if they make wrong-headed decisions. Those arguments from Gingrich at Thursday's debate in Iowa drew scrutiny and criticism from his rivals. Far from distancing himself from the issue, however, Gingrich said he was “delighted” that it came up and directed reporters to a 28-page white paper on the judiciary on his website. Then, in what amounted to a 35-minute seminar on constitutional history, [b]Gingrich argued that the judicial branch has grown far more powerful than the nation’s founders ever intended and said it would be well within the president’s authority as commander in chief to ignore a Supreme Court ruling that he believed was incorrectly decided.[/b] He cited four examples in presidential history, including Abraham Lincoln, whose administration, Gingrich said, refused to enforce the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court on slavery and then actively flouted it by emancipating the slaves with an executive order. “They just ignored it,” Gingrich said. He said the principle applied most recently to the 2008 Supreme Court decision finding that the Bush administration had exceeded its constitutional authority in handling suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. “A commander in chief could simply issue instructions to ignore it, and say it’s null and void and I do not accept it because it infringes on my duties as commander in chief to protect the country,” Gingrich said of the Guantanamo ruling. Gingrich, a former history professor, also stood by his statement that Congress could abolish certain courts altogether, although he clarified that it should be a last resort to counteract judicial overreach. “There are many remedies, there are a number of steps,” he said. “I’m not suggesting that’s the only recourse or even should be the primary recourse. There are a number of in-between steps.” He added later in the call: “I think it’s important to say, that's the last choice, that's the last place you’d want to go.” When pressed as to whether a president could ignore any court decision he didn’t like, such as if President Obama ignored a ruling overturning his healthcare law, [b]Gingrich said the standard should be “the rule of two of three,” in which the outcome would be determined by whichever side two of the three branches of government were on.[/b] He also indicated it would be rare for a president or Congress to challenge or ignore a court decision, and said in more than 99 percent of cases “you want the judiciary to be independent, you don’t want the Congress or anybody to be able to rewrite cases, per se.” Another branch would step in, Gingrich said, when a judge or a court makes a decision that is “strikingly at variance with America.” “I think it’s important to have a discussion: [b]Do we have a balance of power between the three branches, or do we have a judicial supremacy in which they can dictate to the rest of us?” he asked. “I think the country will overwhelmingly conclude you do not want a court which is capable of dictating.”[/b] During the Thursday debate, Gingrich defended his views on the judiciary from criticism from two conservative former attorneys general that they were “dangerous.” His chief rival for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney, said the government had the “ability to rein in excessive judges,” but he criticized the suggestion that Congress should be more active in overseeing the Supreme Court. “I don't believe that it makes a lot of sense to have Congress overseeing justices,” he said. “The only group that has less credibility than justices perhaps is Congress. So lets not have them be in charge of overseeing the justices.” Gingrich’s position represents, in effect, a direct challenge to the interpretation of Marbury v. Madison, the seminal 1803 Supreme Court decision that established the principle of judicial review and cemented the high court as the ultimate arbiter of whether congressional or executive acts are constitutional. Gingrich said the case had been “grossly overstated” in modern law schools in the U.S. He acknowledged that his position on challenging the judiciary would be “controversial,” but he said he was happy that his standing in the presidential race had prompted the national discussion. “It’s a logic train that going to take a little while,” Gingrich said. He said he developed his proposals after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002 ruled that reciting phrase “one nation, under God” in the Pledge of Alliance in public schools infringed on the separation of church and state. [b]“I was frankly just fed up with elitist judges imposing secularism on the country and basically fundamentally changing the American Constitution,” Gingrich said. “The more it was clear to me that you have a judicial psychology run amok, and there has to be some method of bringing balance back to the three branches.”[/b] [/quote] Source: [url]http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/200107-gingrich-ramps-up-objects-to-judicial-power[/url]

While the supreme court has been known for being kind of extremely stupid. That's just dumb. Like straight up stupid. Talk about a corporate whore.

So much for checks and balances.

Pulling the good 'ole Andrew Jackson maneuver.

A true American patriot. Newt Gingrich 2012

This kind of articles really don't phase me much anymore cause I kind of just expect it now

[QUOTE=God of Ashes;33776140]This kind of articles really don't phase me much anymore cause I kind of just expect it now[/QUOTE] When I first saw [url=http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/17/gingrich-ill-ignore-any-supreme-court-ruling-i-disagree-with]this[/url], I thought it had to be fake. No one could be this stupid, or so I believed.

Gringrich needs to retake 5th grade history. I just finished analyzing the article.

So you impose to bring balance to the branches by allowing yourself the power to ignore anything you disagree with. trolling or retarded which is which.

I wish they would give out 8th grade US History final exams to the candidates. I'm interested in what they would score

[QUOTE=MeMassiveFag;33776212]Gringrich needs to retake 5th grade history. I just finished analyzing the article.[/QUOTE] The funny thing is, he was a history professor. Which makes what he said even dumber.

Oh wow, corrupting the system is one thing, but choosing not to follow the American system as the President will not go over well. It will be the shortest presidential term in history.

Well I'm sure this strategy would get support in Iowa. The state where gay marriage was made legal by the state supreme court, then the judges got voted out of office by angry hicks. [editline]17th December 2011[/editline] [url]http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101103/NEWS09/11030390/Iowans-dismiss-three-justices[/url]

all the GOP candidates are torpedoing their own careers one by one. it almost seems intentional

[quote] Gingrich argued that the judicial branch has grown far more powerful than the nation’s founders ever intended and said it would be well within the president’s authority as commander in chief to ignore a Supreme Court ruling that he believed was incorrectly decided. [/quote] it's funny because the entire fucking federal government has grown more powerful that our nation's founders ever intended

What a fucking child.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;33776430]Well I'm sure this strategy would get support in Iowa. The state where gay marriage was made legal by the state supreme court, then the judges got voted out of office by angry hicks. [editline]17th December 2011[/editline] [url]http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101103/NEWS09/11030390/Iowans-dismiss-three-justices[/url][/QUOTE] this is why having no term limits is sometimes a good idea, at least in theory you're accountable only to what's right, not lobbyists and large organized groups of bigots

Obama

So basically, Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling NEENER NEENER?

Are there any republican candidates that are somewhat respectable? Seriously. Perry is a massive joke, Bachman is a nut, Cain is gone, and Gingrich is a whiny asshole. I don't know much about Romney though.

[QUOTE=green bandit;33776240]I wish they would give out 8th grade US History final exams to the candidates. I'm interested in what they would score[/QUOTE] Newt would turn in the exam with 3 of the questions filled in "I only answered the questions I agreed with"

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;33778328]Are there any republican candidates that are somewhat respectable? Seriously. Perry is a massive joke, Bachman is a nut, Cain is gone, and Gingrich is a whiny asshole. I don't know much about Romney though.[/QUOTE] Well, in terms of being respectable I guess Paul and Huntsman are, but as far as I have heard Paul is a bit on the crazy side himself.

[QUOTE=Selek;33778388]Well, in terms of being respectable I guess Paul and Huntsman are, but as far as I have heard Paul is a bit on the crazy side himself.[/QUOTE] Huntsman is also crazy but thankfully he's only got like what, 2%?

[QUOTE=Selek;33778388]Well, in terms of being respectable I guess Paul and Huntsman are, but as far as I have heard Paul is a bit on the crazy side himself.[/QUOTE] He doesn't sound as crazy or insulting as these other candidates though. At least he's true to his views and isn't pandering to everyone for votes. He says what he believes. Fuck, if Obama told you that he was going to renew the patriot act and approve the NDAA, you probably would have thought he was crazy too. I don't think he's so bad though. He seems to really be at odds with the rest of the hardcore Republican candidates. Fuck, they don't even want to acknowledge he exists. [url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier[/url] I know everyone thinks he's crazy, but I'd take a Ron Paul over a Gingrich or Perry any day. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xeii0QWzx8[/media]

[QUOTE=Selek;33778388]Huntsman [/QUOTE] [release]On July 30, 2007, he attended a concert by progressive metal band Dream Theater. Later that day, Huntsman signed a proclamation creating "Dream Theater Day" on that date for the state of Utah.[/release] yes that sounds like something a dream theater fan would do

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33778466][release]On July 30, 2007, he attended a concert by progressive metal band Dream Theater. Later that day, Huntsman signed a proclamation creating "Dream Theater Day" on that date for the state of Utah.[/release] yes that sounds like something a dream theater fan would do[/QUOTE] no no way you are fucking with me zeke

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;33778448]He doesn't sound as crazy or insulting as these other candidates though. At least he's true to his views and isn't pandering to everyone for votes. He says what he believes. Fuck, if Obama told you that he was going to renew the patriot act and approve the NDAA, you probably would have thought he was crazy too. I don't think he's so bad though. He seems to really be at odds with the rest of the hardcore Republican candidates. Fuck, they don't even want to acknowledge he exists. [url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier[/url] I know everyone thinks he's crazy, but I'd take a Ron Paul over a Gingrich or Perry any day. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xeii0QWzx8[/media][/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW9-RRRD14I[/media]

[QUOTE=thisispain;33778488]no no way you are fucking with me zeke[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.dreamtheater.net/board_posts/july-30th-dream-theater-day-in-utah[/url] warning: link to dream theater website I cried a little

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33778563][url]http://www.dreamtheater.net/board_posts/july-30th-dream-theater-day-in-utah[/url] warning: link to dream theater website I cried a little[/QUOTE] it's endearingly geeky.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33778466][release]On July 30, 2007, he attended a concert by progressive metal band Dream Theater. Later that day, Huntsman signed a proclamation creating "Dream Theater Day" on that date for the state of Utah.[/release] yes that sounds like something a dream theater fan would do[/QUOTE] They make everything a _______ day these days, don't they? Also, I kinda wish the guy was a fan of 90s pop groups, so Utah could have something like an N-Sync Day, just because it would be pretty funny.