Arrest the activist judges!!!!!!!

[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.

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.

I think that's a dodge.

I happen not to believe that the judge he had in mind, or the stupid "decision" from that judge, would warrant an impeachment. Accordingly, I don't agree that it would warrant a Congressional subpoena to investigate whether or not there should be impeachment hearings, for example.

But just because a judge has a certain degree of autonomy, that does not mean that judicial decisions cannot be questioned. Not just on appeal, either. They can be challenged by new law. And judges who DO engage in illegal behavior CAN be yanked in front of Congress. And if, under such circumstances, they think they need not comply with a Congressional subpoena, the proper next step would be to yank them before Congress by compulsion.

It's called an arrest.

But it's not an arrest that leads to criminal charges. It's an arrest to appear before the proper governing authority. And unless we crave a judicial oligarchy, I kinda sorta DO want judges to appreciate that their branch has a check or two on it, too.

 

[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.

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.

No, because the judges DON'T make the laws, Congress does, and besides, you've still got both the President AND Congress to balance them out.

However.........if the SC sides with the president all the time, THAT is the point where you have a dictatorship, because now the SC is in the pocket of the Executive branch, which can then outdo the Legislative branch.

No, the president should not have that ability.

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

You're right in regards to what Newt said.
BUT, I fear calling judges to"'splain himself" would turn into a political circus. Once the precedent was set, whatever party was in power would use this as a political reality show.
Republicans would call in judges that ruled against their ideology and the Dems would do likewise to judges who ruled against their ideology.
There is already a mechanism in place, it's called an "appeal to a higher court'"

 

[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.

You're right in regards to what Newt said.
BUT, I fear calling judges to"'splain himself" would turn into a political circus. Once the precedent was set, whatever party was in power would use this as a political reality show.
Republicans would call in judges that ruled against their ideology and the Dems would do likewise to judges who ruled against their ideology.
There is already a mechanism in place, it's called an "appeal to a higher court'"

There is no question that the normal route is (and is supposed to be) the appellate route.

Still, where a Judge has acted not just in violation of his Constitutional obligations but in a manner warranting scrutiny as to his (or her) fitness to even serve AS a judge, Congress retains oversight authority.

A judge threatening a school official with criminal sanction for using the word "benediction" does seem a bit close to the edge. (BTW: the case-law on the issue seems to actually support the judge's orders.)

(as a footnote: the Fifth Circuit vacated judge Biery's injunction in any event: http://texaslegislativeupdate.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mvisd-5ccoa-ruling.pdf )

 

[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.

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

Why?

Nothing about the constitution is "strict". And it's made to be that way.

 

[Liability]

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.

Why?

Nothing about the constitution is "strict". And it's made to be that way.

Lots of things about the Constitution are strict, within the bounds of reason. The Constitution is not some loose, amorphous, malleable thing.

"Congress shall make no law . . . " is pretty clear and quite strict. That there might be some apparent exceptions doesn't alter that truth.

In any case, I think the point is: we need judges who will look to what the Constitution commands before looking to see what they themselves might prefer. That should be a matter of strict construction.

 

[Toro]

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

I think its the other way around.

"Oh, THAT Newt Gingrich..."

 

[Toro]

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.

You're right in regards to what Newt said.
BUT, I fear calling judges to"'splain himself" would turn into a political circus. Once the precedent was set, whatever party was in power would use this as a political reality show.
Republicans would call in judges that ruled against their ideology and the Dems would do likewise to judges who ruled against their ideology.
There is already a mechanism in place, it's called an "appeal to a higher court'"

There is no question that the normal route is (and is supposed to be) the appellate route.

Still, where a Judge has acted not just in violation of his Constitutional obligations but in a manner warranting scrutiny as to his (or her) fitness to even serve AS a judge, Congress retains oversight authority.

A judge threatening a school official with criminal sanction for using the word "benediction" does seem a bit close to the edge. (BTW: the case-law on the issue seems to actually support the judge's orders.)

(as a footnote: the Fifth Circuit vacated judge Biery's injunction in any event: http://texaslegislativeupdate.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mvisd-5ccoa-ruling.pdf )

Judge Biery is an utter idiot.

But threatening to yank judges in front of Congress because of decisions the government doesn't like is enormously frightening.

I was willing to consider Gingrich, but the more he speaks, the more I think he can't be President.

 

[JimH52]

Newt is a nut.

GO NEWT!​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

His ‘argument’ is idiocy. It’s the role of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution and follow its case law and precedent once established.

Indeed, most of the rulings made by judges are predicated on case law, that Gingrich doesn’t approve of given settled law doesn’t mean a jurist doing his job is being an ‘activist’ or ‘legislating from the bench.’

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.

Which compels one to wonder: who are these people?

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.

We know that but you miss the point: which is Gingrich either doesn’t know it or he knows it but has contempt for the courts and the people.

Either way, it’s a legitimate criterion to determine if Gingrich is qualified to be president – and the answer is clearly ‘no.’

How many times was Kagan overturned by upper courts yet there she sits on the SCOTUS?

Never. Of course it helps having never been a judge.

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

Correct.

Heller was the ultimate in ‘rightist activism.’

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again Gingrich beautifully lives up to that description of him being the stupid man's idea of what a smart man sounds like as he once again oh so eloquently proposes something that is certifiable lunacy.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The sad truth is that Newt is right. Most judges are out of touch with "regular American values." More sad, is that "regular American values" tend to be so much out of touch with the constitution nowadays.