Arrest the activist judges!!!!!!!

[ABikerSailor]

His argument is that judges are interpreting rather than following the US constitution and are subverting elected politicians by legislating from the bench.

Mr Gingrich made the suggestion of arresting judges in response to a scenario put to him by CBS’s Bob Schieffer. “If you had to, or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshall,” he said. “Let’s take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical.”

Judge Fred Biery received fierce criticism in June for a ruling that barred religious speech during a high school graduation ceremony at Medina Valley Independent School District in Texas.

His ruling was overturned by a federal appeals court but Gingrich used it as an example of a judiciary out of touch with regular American values. “So I have to ask the question, is there an alternative? What’s the recourse?” he said.

While Mr Gingrich’s tough stance on judges might excite conservatives it runs the risk of his cementing a view that he is prone to bombast and inflammatory rhetoric.

US elections 2012: Newt Gingrich suggests 'activist' judges could be arrested - Telegraph

So, anyone that Gingrich disagress with in the Supreme Court could be arrested?

Anyone else concerned this country is trying to turn fascist?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I don't think Newts crazy. Dumbass statements like this tells me he doesn't want to win. How else can it be explained?

 

[ABikerSailor]

No, the dumbass statements are lighting the highways via mirrors in space.

Newt is actually telling us what he'd do as president, and to tell ya the truth, it sounds pretty fascist to me.

Never thought I'd actually see fascist statements being made by American politicians running for president, but now I have.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Wow. Newt is sound more and more like the Queen of Hearts.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I wonder if he's starting to spew the crazy because he's started to tank in the polls?

 

[Sundial]

I don't think he does want to win. He makes a lot of money peddling influence. He thinks running for pres burnishes his street cred.

 

[Steelplate]

I wonder if he's starting to spew the crazy because he's started to tank in the polls?

That's a theory... maybe he's trying to win over the "FUCK YEAH!" crowd?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I wonder if he's starting to spew the crazy because he's started to tank in the polls?

That's a theory... maybe he's trying to win over the "FUCK YEAH!" crowd?

Well.........looks like standard protocol has been when a GOP candidate starts to tank, they start throwing red meat to the base, which mean appealing to teabaggers, which in turn means they have to say some really aberrant stuff.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

His argument is that judges are interpreting rather than following the US constitution and are subverting elected politicians by legislating from the bench.

Mr Gingrich made the suggestion of arresting judges in response to a scenario put to him by CBS’s Bob Schieffer. “If you had to, or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshall,” he said. “Let’s take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical.”

Judge Fred Biery received fierce criticism in June for a ruling that barred religious speech during a high school graduation ceremony at Medina Valley Independent School District in Texas.

His ruling was overturned by a federal appeals court but Gingrich used it as an example of a judiciary out of touch with regular American values. “So I have to ask the question, is there an alternative? What’s the recourse?” he said.

While Mr Gingrich’s tough stance on judges might excite conservatives it runs the risk of his cementing a view that he is prone to bombast and inflammatory rhetoric.

US elections 2012: Newt Gingrich suggests 'activist' judges could be arrested - Telegraph

So, anyone that Gingrich disagress with in the Supreme Court could be arrested?

Anyone else concerned this country is trying to turn fascist?

Unless a Judge broke a law he can not be "arrested". In the case in point the recourse is to impeach him. The President has no power to Impeach or arrest a Judge neither on any Federal Bench or at the Supreme Court.

Even if Gingrich were elected he could not, nor could any other person sitting as President legally order the arrest of a Federal Judge for any decision they made UNLESS that decision BREAKS an actual LAW.

Congress not the President and not the Justice Department impeach Judges.

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill, as usual.

 

[Jackson]

We all have discussed activist judges who want to make law instead of interpreting the constitution. How many times was Kagan overturned by upper courts yet there she sits on the SCOTUS? Activists have no place on the bench. If they feel so impelled to changed mandated law, they belong in Congress where the people can vote them out, if desired.

Lack of that, if they find themselves on the bench, I find impeachment the proper route to have them removed. The bench is to FOLLOW Laws, not scoot around them.

 

[Katzndogz]

Anyone who defies a federal subpena should be subject to having US Marshals compel their attendance. This is not an arrest. Democrats just cannot tell the truth, they just can't.

Judges are not above the law. When they are above the law, the law itself is the last thing we have to worry about.

 

[Oscar Wao]

You think THAT'S bad?! That's NOTHING compared to this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1o8d01r6KQ]Gingrich: Gov. Should Allow Terror Attacks To Remind People How Much We Need Them - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Liability]

Holy Alarmism, Biker!

Seriously, your "quote" is out of context. HERE is the context:

Gingrich: I Would Send Police To Arrest 'Activist Judges' - YouTube

The question was about QUESTIONING a Judge BEFORE CONGRESS (which DOES have oversight authority, afterall, at least in terms of the possibility of impeachment).

Now, you and I might take the position that it would be wrong and Unconstitutional to compel a Judge to " 'splain himself" before Congress over a judicial determination. But I think, in fairness to Newt, as much as I might think he's wrong on this one, that what he was saying, in principle, wasn't all that far of the mark.

IF -- and to whatever extent -- a judge COULD properly be brought before Congress, a subpoena that didn't work WOULD likely HAVE to result in the use of compulsion to make the judge comply. A Congressional subpoena is entitled to no lesser weight than a judicial subpoena. Either way, it's not an "invitation." It's a command performance.

 

[Katzndogz]

BOY THAT pegged the democrats down to a T! Because we haven't had an attack PROVES there never was an attack.

He was just AMAZING.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Holy Alarmism, Biker!

Seriously, your "quote" is out of context. HERE is the context:

Gingrich: I Would Send Police To Arrest 'Activist Judges' - YouTube

The question was about QUESTIONING a Judge BEFORE CONGRESS (which DOES have oversight authority, afterall, at least in terms of the possibility of impeachment).

Now, you and I might take the position that it would be wrong and Unconstitutional to compel a Judge to " 'splain himself" before Congress over a judicial determination. But I think, in fairness to Newt, as much as I might think he's wrong on this one, that what he was saying, in principle, wasn't all that far of the mark.

IF -- and to whatever extent -- a judge COULD properly be brought before Congress, a subpoena that didn't work WOULD likely HAVE to result in the use of compulsion to make the judge comply. A Congressional subpoena is entitled to no lesser weight than a judicial subpoena. Either way, it's not an "invitation." It's a command performance.

Nope, sorry...........Newt doesn't have a law degree, he's got a history one, which means that he's not as qualified to say what the interpretation of the law is.

If he had a master's in law? Maybe he could decide that, but as it stands? No.

Besides........if you have the bench scared to disagree with you, then eventually you have a dictatorship.

 

[Oscar Wao]

You think THAT'S bad?! That's NOTHING compared to this:

Gingrich: Gov. Should Allow Terror Attacks To Remind People How Much We Need Them - YouTube

No wonder FDR is one of Gingrinch's favorite Presidents...just like his hero, FDR, he'd probably allow an attack to happen on our soil to go to war, and to "remind" us of our places as sheeple...

 

[Sallow]

We all have discussed activist judges who want to make law instead of interpreting the constitution. How many times was Kagan overturned by upper courts yet there she sits on the SCOTUS? Activists have no place on the bench. If they feel so impelled to changed mandated law, they belong in Congress where the people can vote them out, if desired.

Lack of that, if they find themselves on the bench, I find impeachment the proper route to have them removed. The bench is to FOLLOW Laws, not scoot around them.

You can't be serious. Scalia is one of the most activist judges in memory. Citizen's United is a shining example of that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Holy Alarmism, Biker!

Seriously, your "quote" is out of context. HERE is the context:

Gingrich: I Would Send Police To Arrest 'Activist Judges' - YouTube

The question was about QUESTIONING a Judge BEFORE CONGRESS (which DOES have oversight authority, afterall, at least in terms of the possibility of impeachment).

Now, you and I might take the position that it would be wrong and Unconstitutional to compel a Judge to " 'splain himself" before Congress over a judicial determination. But I think, in fairness to Newt, as much as I might think he's wrong on this one, that what he was saying, in principle, wasn't all that far of the mark.

IF -- and to whatever extent -- a judge COULD properly be brought before Congress, a subpoena that didn't work WOULD likely HAVE to result in the use of compulsion to make the judge comply. A Congressional subpoena is entitled to no lesser weight than a judicial subpoena. Either way, it's not an "invitation." It's a command performance.

Nope, sorry...........Newt doesn't have a law degree, he's got a history one, which means that he's not as qualified to say what the interpretation of the law is.

If he had a master's in law? Maybe he could decide that, but as it stands? No.

Besides........if you have the bench scared to disagree with you, then eventually you have a dictatorship.

If Judges are allowed to make law instead of interpreting it you have a dictatorship. There is supposed to be a balance of power. If the judicial branch can overrule both the executive and legislative branches you no longer have a Constitutional Republic where elected officials are answerable to the voters. If every judge who issued a decision that overrode a vote or legislative act knew that they might be required to explain themselves to a hearing commission they might not do it so often.

 

[Jackson]

We all have discussed activist judges who want to make law instead of interpreting the constitution. How many times was Kagan overturned by upper courts yet there she sits on the SCOTUS? Activists have no place on the bench. If they feel so impelled to changed mandated law, they belong in Congress where the people can vote them out, if desired.

Lack of that, if they find themselves on the bench, I find impeachment the proper route to have them removed. The bench is to FOLLOW Laws, not scoot around them.

You can't be serious. Scalia is one of the most activist judges in memory. Citizen's United is a shining example of that.

I stand by my words, regardless of judge or their leanings. We need strict constitutionalists.

 

[Sallow]

Holy Alarmism, Biker!

Seriously, your "quote" is out of context. HERE is the context:

Gingrich: I Would Send Police To Arrest 'Activist Judges' - YouTube

The question was about QUESTIONING a Judge BEFORE CONGRESS (which DOES have oversight authority, afterall, at least in terms of the possibility of impeachment).

Now, you and I might take the position that it would be wrong and Unconstitutional to compel a Judge to " 'splain himself" before Congress over a judicial determination. But I think, in fairness to Newt, as much as I might think he's wrong on this one, that what he was saying, in principle, wasn't all that far of the mark.

IF -- and to whatever extent -- a judge COULD properly be brought before Congress, a subpoena that didn't work WOULD likely HAVE to result in the use of compulsion to make the judge comply. A Congressional subpoena is entitled to no lesser weight than a judicial subpoena. Either way, it's not an "invitation." It's a command performance.

Nope, sorry...........Newt doesn't have a law degree, he's got a history one, which means that he's not as qualified to say what the interpretation of the law is.

If he had a master's in law? Maybe he could decide that, but as it stands? No.

Besides........if you have the bench scared to disagree with you, then eventually you have a dictatorship.

Exactly.