Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[Quantum Windbag]

[A]n evaluation of the limits on congressional investigatory oversight
authority requires an examination of the contexts in which Congress does have
authority over the federal court. There is little question that where Congress is
investigating the federal courts generally, its investigatory authority is broad, as
Congress has significant legislative authority over the structuring of the Judicial
Branch. However, where Congress is investigating individual judges or Justices,
then it would appear that Congress may need to articulate a legislative basis or some
other constitutional authority for such investigation.

[C]ircumstance under which Congress could exercise its oversight
authority over individual judges or Justices would be in anticipation of or during
impeachment proceedings. Federal judges are among those “civil Officers of the
United States” who can be impeached for engaging in conduct amounting to treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Clearly a judge or justice who rules un-cCnstitutiona the Pledge of Allegiance phrase declaring America a nation "under God," for example, is by no means engaging in ‘conduct amounting to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

[Chief Justice Rehnquist observed that] the appropriate means for challenging a judge’s decision on a given case is not the impeachment process, but rather the appeals process, which affords the parties affected an opportunity for review of the judge’s decision and correction of errors in that judgment. In addition, the reversal of a lower court decision does not generally mean that the judge below had engaged in conduct rising to the level of a “high crime or misdemeanor.”

Congress clearly has no authority to impeach or otherwise interrogate a judge or justice simply because his decision is politically unpopular, or overturns legislation enacted by a given representative body or the people via referendum.

If, for example, there is evidence a judge took a bribe and allowed it to influence his decision, then he’s obviously subject to criminal investigation and must answer to Congress accordingly.

But to subject a judge to a criminal proceeding simply because his ruling doesn’t comport to one’s subjective political dogma is the first step toward a dictatorship of Congress and the loss of our civil liberties.



Link to the quoted above.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32935.pdf

Is that a response to me? If so, you conveniently ignored the fact that the House has actually brought charges against judges for political, not criminal, reasons. By the way, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that, once impeached, there is no appeal because the power of impeachment, including its definition, lies solely with Congress, and is not subject to judicial review.

Judicial Review of Impeachments .--It was long assumed that no judicial review of the impeachment process was possible, that impeachment presents a true ''political question'' case. That assumption was not contested until very recently, when Judges Nixon and Hastings challenged their Senate convictions. 783 But federal courts, setting the stage for Supreme Court consideration, held the challenges to be nonjusticiable, that the Constitution's conferral on the Senate of the ''sole'' power to try impeachments demonstrated a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of trial procedures to the Senate to decide without court review. 784 Upon at last reaching the question, the Court has held that a claim to judicial review of an issue arising in an impeachment trial in the Senate presents a nonjusticiable question, a ''political question.'' Supp.6 Specifically, the Court held that a claim that the Senate had not followed the proper meaning of the word ''try'' in the impeachment clause, a special committee being appointed to take testimony and to make a report to the full Senate, complete with a full transcript, on which the Senate acted, could not be reviewed. But the analysis of the Court applies to all impeachment clause questions, thus seemingly putting offlimits to judicial review the whole process.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article II: Annotations pg. 18 of 18

Want to try to refute me again?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gingrich is wrong on judges

Abolish courts. Ignore rulings. Impeach judges. These are just a few of the ideas Newt Gingrich has suggested to win over the Republican voters in Iowa.

But his headline-grabbing proposals represent more than just campaign rhetoric. They seek to undo more than 200 years of constitutional democracy and undermine the one safe haven Americans have to resolve a dispute: our courts.

You won’t hear judges respond when Gingrich says our courts are “grotesquely dictatorial,” or when the candidate says he would consider dispatching U.S. marshals to round up judges to testify before Congress.

No one claims that judges are infallible. That is why we have appellate courts within the judiciary and a system of checks and balances among the branches. We can and should pursue a thoughtful conversation about how to improve and strengthen our judicial system without denigrating individual judges, courts or their decisions.

No one likes a bully — be it an office holder, a candidate for public office or a branch of government. The drafters of our Constitution knew that better than anyone.

That generation was defined by the monuments it built. Will ours be defined by the ones we destroy? Let’s stand up for one of our most precious monuments — our judiciary — as a place of integrity and independence. Our liberty depends on it.

Guest columnist: Gingrich is wrong on judges | The Des Moines Register | DesMoinesRegister.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
WILLIAM T. ROBINSON III is president of the American Bar Association and member-in-charge of the Northern Kentucky offices of Frost Brown Todd LLC

 

[johnwk]

During Thursday evening’s debate Gingrich had good cause to suggest eliminating the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress. Gingrich said “The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful and I think frankly arrogant in their misreading of the American people”.


Actually, “misreading” the American people is irrelevant when a court is deciding the constitutionality of a law. What is important is many of our judges and Justices have been “misreading” our Constitution‘s legislative intent, and intentionally pretending it means whatever their personal whims and fancies dictate the Constitution ought to mean. The advantage of subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress cannot be justified to rehash a decision of a court or its judges. But it can be justified to establish whether or not a decision has followed the fundamental rules of constitutional law, especially the primary rule which is stated as follows:


“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

deleted

cut short per our policy. LINK UP to your post.
JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Maybe, if we were a democracy and not a republic. We don't go for mob rule. The Constitution doesn't allow for that sort of meddling by one branch against another. If judges are committing crimal acts, impeach them, otherwise hands off. I'm surprised that this could be coming from some who usually hold the Constitution sacrosanct!

You are absolutely correct that we are not a “democracy”. We are a constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. However, our Constitution does in fact allow Congress to subpoena witnesses and have them testify under oath. This authority is recognized under Congress’ “legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1) and to have witnesses to provide necessary information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927) the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could even subpoena private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.”.

What is irrefutable is, our courts are not only ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law in handing down their opinions, but are likewise ignoring the documented “legislative intent” of our Constitution and using their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as being within the four corners of our Constitution. Justices who have a history of ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law when arriving at their opinions and rendering opinions which are not in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution must be dealt with or our Constitution become a meaningless piece of paper. The prescribed manner in our Constitution is impeachment, and so, I see nothing wrong with subpoenaing a judge or Justice before a Congressional oversight committee to explain how his/her opinion did follow (1) the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and (2) that the opinion is in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution, thus avoiding articles of impeachment being draw up.

However, if Gingrich proposes to go beyond these limits, that would be an entirely different matter.

Bottom line is, we need to start punishing judges and Justices who are ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law and our Constitution’s legislative intent.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

 

[Toro]

I look forward to Nancy Pelosi summoning some judge from the 4th Circuit who struck down affirmative action.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gingrich is wrong on judges

Abolish courts. Ignore rulings. Impeach judges. These are just a few of the ideas Newt Gingrich has suggested to win over the Republican voters in Iowa.

But his headline-grabbing proposals represent more than just campaign rhetoric. They seek to undo more than 200 years of constitutional democracy and undermine the one safe haven Americans have to resolve a dispute: our courts.

You won’t hear judges respond when Gingrich says our courts are “grotesquely dictatorial,” or when the candidate says he would consider dispatching U.S. marshals to round up judges to testify before Congress.

No one claims that judges are infallible. That is why we have appellate courts within the judiciary and a system of checks and balances among the branches. We can and should pursue a thoughtful conversation about how to improve and strengthen our judicial system without denigrating individual judges, courts or their decisions.

No one likes a bully — be it an office holder, a candidate for public office or a branch of government. The drafters of our Constitution knew that better than anyone.

That generation was defined by the monuments it built. Will ours be defined by the ones we destroy? Let’s stand up for one of our most precious monuments — our judiciary — as a place of integrity and independence. Our liberty depends on it.

Guest columnist: Gingrich is wrong on judges | The Des Moines Register | DesMoinesRegister.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
WILLIAM T. ROBINSON III is president of the American Bar Association and member-in-charge of the Northern Kentucky offices of Frost Brown Todd LLC

Let me get this straight, this guy wants me to ignore the Constitution itself, and actual case law, both of which say that Congress has broad powers to impeach judges, and accept an interpretation that says Congress has no power to impeach judges? The fact that you are ignoring actual case law, despite your, erroneous, belief that case law is part of the Constitution, proves that your point of view is completely biased.

 

[EriktheRed]

During Thursday evening’s debate Gingrich had good cause to suggest eliminating the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress. Gingrich said “The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful and I think frankly arrogant in their misreading of the American people”.


Actually, “misreading” the American people is irrelevant when a court is deciding the constitutionality of a law. What is important is many of our judges and Justices have been “misreading” our Constitution‘s legislative intent, and intentionally pretending it means whatever their personal whims and fancies dictate the Constitution ought to mean. The advantage of subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress cannot be justified to rehash a decision of a court or its judges. But it can be justified to establish whether or not a decision has followed the fundamental rules of constitutional law, especially the primary rule which is stated as follows:


“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

deleted

cut short per our policy. LINK UP to your post.
JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Maybe, if we were a democracy and not a republic. We don't go for mob rule. The Constitution doesn't allow for that sort of meddling by one branch against another. If judges are committing crimal acts, impeach them, otherwise hands off. I'm surprised that this could be coming from some who usually hold the Constitution sacrosanct!

You are absolutely correct that we are not a “democracy”. We are a constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. However, our Constitution does in fact allow Congress to subpoena witnesses and have them testify under oath. This authority is recognized under Congress’ “legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1) and to have witnesses to provide necessary information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927) the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could even subpoena private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.”.

What is irrefutable is, our courts are not only ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law in handing down their opinions, but are likewise ignoring the documented “legislative intent” of our Constitution and using their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as being within the four corners of our Constitution. Justices who have a history of ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law when arriving at their opinions and rendering opinions which are not in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution must be dealt with or our Constitution become a meaningless piece of paper. The prescribed manner in our Constitution is impeachment, and so, I see nothing wrong with subpoenaing a judge or Justice before a Congressional oversight committee to explain how his/her opinion did follow (1) the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and (2) that the opinion is in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution, thus avoiding articles of impeachment being draw up.

However, if Gingrich proposes to go beyond these limits, that would be an entirely different matter.

Bottom line is, we need to start punishing judges and Justices who are ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law and our Constitution’s legislative intent.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

In the end all this boils down to is you want judges to be harrassed when they make rulings you don't like.

 

[Mustang]

I look forward to Nancy Pelosi summoning some judge from the 4th Circuit who struck down affirmative action.

Yeah. Which begs the following question:

Why is it that conservatives never seem to think far enough ahead to realize that the very ideas they champion regarding political, or legislative, or judicial procedural changes can also work against their interests when power changes from one party to the other. I ask this question because I raised the same issue when conservatives just couldn't wait to use the nuclear option to change the filibuster rules in the Senate.

 

[Full-Auto]

I look forward to Nancy Pelosi summoning some judge from the 4th Circuit who struck down affirmative action.

Yes, democrats would have to explain how using race assists in a color blind society.

 

[The T]

Why is it that so many object to having a Congressional oversight committee subpoenaing a judge or Justice to explain how a particular decision was arrived

Judges answering to Congress? Yeah, I'm sure our checks and balances would still be the same.

Checks an balances are the point. The Court is Never the final arbitor.

We have three equal but separate branches of Government. However that changed with Maubury v. Madison when the Court assigned itself powers not in the Constitution.

However? It does not preclude the Congress, or even the POTUS calling them out on any issue in which they rule.

What YOU have done is assigned powers to the Court they don't posess.

 

[jillian]

It's so much fun to watch the pretend constitutionalists try to destroy the checks and balances established by the constitution.

nutbars...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is it that conservatives never seem to think far enough ahead to realize that the very ideas they champion regarding political, or legislative, or judicial procedural changes can also work against their interests when power changes from one party to the other.

Because their goal is to end the power changes, or at least establish a judicial framework which makes the power changes irrelevant, and judicial precedent conform to rightist ideology.

Between 1969 and 2000, republican presidents appointed 8 Supreme Court Justices; democratic presidents only two, by Bill Clinton. This strategy clearly paid off in the 2000 election, just as planned.

The GOP continues to pursue this judicial hegemony, which is why the 2012 election is indeed important.

It's so much fun to watch the pretend constitutionalists try to destroy the checks and balances established by the constitution.

nutbars...

What’s also telling is the comprehensive rebuke from the right:

Gingrich Just Dead Wrong on Judicial Proposal

I really, really wanted to avoid any more posts on Gingrich this week, but the way he is demagoguing the judicial issue is just awful. I have looked and looked and can't find a single respected legal/judicial expert -- left, center, or most importantly, solidly conservative -- who thinks Gingrich is on the right track in proposing A) subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress; B) having Congress consider impeaching judges for bad decisions (I editorialized against this idea when Tom DeLay proposed it years ago, so this has NOTHING to do with my feelings about Gingrich's candidacy); C) having Congress eliminate judgeships to get rid of problematic (i.e. liberal) judges; D) having the president unilaterally decide he can ignore Supreme Court rulings. These are just horribly anti-constitutional ideas. Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center says so. Roger Pilon of CATO says so. Former GOP attorneys general say so. Ann Coulter (despite her bombast, a pretty good lawyer) says so. I could cite lots of other names in the conservative legal firmament (I chose those three just to give a sense of the breadth of the opposition to Gingrich's idea, from traditionalist conservative to libertarian to eclectic); the point is that Gingrich is WAY off base here.

The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Gingrich Just Dead Wrong on Judicial Proposal

 

[The T]

It's so much fun to watch the pretend constitutionalists try to destroy the checks and balances established by the constitution.

nutbars...

The Supreme Court assigned themselves that power...

nutbar.

 

[jillian]

It's so much fun to watch the pretend constitutionalists try to destroy the checks and balances established by the constitution.

nutbars...

The Supreme Court assigned themselves that power...

nutbar.

you know, i'd discuss it with you, tommy... but i don't do discussions with drunks and pretend constitutionalists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe, if we were a democracy and not a republic. We don't go for mob rule. The Constitution doesn't allow for that sort of meddling by one branch against another. If judges are committing crimal acts, impeach them, otherwise hands off. I'm surprised that this could be coming from some who usually hold the Constitution sacrosanct!

You are absolutely correct that we are not a “democracy”. We are a constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. However, our Constitution does in fact allow Congress to subpoena witnesses and have them testify under oath. This authority is recognized under Congress’ “legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1) and to have witnesses to provide necessary information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927) the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could even subpoena private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.”.

What is irrefutable is, our courts are not only ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law in handing down their opinions, but are likewise ignoring the documented “legislative intent” of our Constitution and using their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as being within the four corners of our Constitution. Justices who have a history of ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law when arriving at their opinions and rendering opinions which are not in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution must be dealt with or our Constitution become a meaningless piece of paper. The prescribed manner in our Constitution is impeachment, and so, I see nothing wrong with subpoenaing a judge or Justice before a Congressional oversight committee to explain how his/her opinion did follow (1) the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and (2) that the opinion is in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution, thus avoiding articles of impeachment being draw up.

However, if Gingrich proposes to go beyond these limits, that would be an entirely different matter.

Bottom line is, we need to start punishing judges and Justices who are ignoring the fundamental rules of constitutional law and our Constitution’s legislative intent.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

In the end all this boils down to is you want judges to be harrassed when they make rulings you don't like.

Would you like a list of the posters on the left who are calling for Roberts and Scalia to be impeached because the think they will rule against Obamacare?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I look forward to Nancy Pelosi summoning some judge from the 4th Circuit who struck down affirmative action.

Yeah. Which begs the following question:

Why is it that conservatives never seem to think far enough ahead to realize that the very ideas they champion regarding political, or legislative, or judicial procedural changes can also work against their interests when power changes from one party to the other. I ask this question because I raised the same issue when conservatives just couldn't wait to use the nuclear option to change the filibuster rules in the Senate.

Because Newt is not a conservative.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's so much fun to watch the pretend constitutionalists try to destroy the checks and balances established by the constitution.

nutbars...

Why don't you take some time, read my posts, and point out where I did that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you going to continue to pretend I am not proving you wrong every time you post?

Why is it that conservatives never seem to think far enough ahead to realize that the very ideas they champion regarding political, or legislative, or judicial procedural changes can also work against their interests when power changes from one party to the other.

Because their goal is to end the power changes, or at least establish a judicial framework which makes the power changes irrelevant, and judicial precedent conform to rightist ideology.

That must explain why the other side never worries about it going against them, except that would make Obama a power grubbing asshole. Or, perhaps, the power changes are already irrelevant because there is no real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Between 1969 and 2000, republican presidents appointed 8 Supreme Court Justices; democratic presidents only two, by Bill Clinton. This strategy clearly paid off in the 2000 election, just as planned.

Wow, a conspiracy nut. Can you explain how the strategy paid off? Give details, taking into account that the Gore campaign was trying to force the various counties to continue a recount even after they concluded the winner, and that a complete recount paid for by independent newspapers concluded that Bush actually won.

The GOP continues to pursue this judicial hegemony, which is why the 2012 election is indeed important.

Judicial hegemony? If the GOP actually had a judicial hegemony don't you think the PPACA rulings would have been unanimous? Or at least more biased on the side of ruling it unconstitutional?

It's so much fun to watch the pretend constitutionalists try to destroy the checks and balances established by the constitution.

nutbars...

What’s also telling is the comprehensive rebuke from the right:[/quote]

Nothing telling about it at all, there are a lot of people who know Newt is not a conservative, and that he is an idiot.

 

[EriktheRed]

Would you like a list of the posters on the left who are calling for Roberts and Scalia to be impeached because the think they will rule against Obamacare?

They're wrong too, then, if that's thier motivation.

 

[Toro]

I look forward to Nancy Pelosi summoning some judge from the 4th Circuit who struck down affirmative action.

Yeah. Which begs the following question:

Why is it that conservatives never seem to think far enough ahead to realize that the very ideas they champion regarding political, or legislative, or judicial procedural changes can also work against their interests when power changes from one party to the other. I ask this question because I raised the same issue when conservatives just couldn't wait to use the nuclear option to change the filibuster rules in the Senate.

Because they are thinking through an ideological lens.

They are thinking that such a procedure will lead to a strict adherence to how they interpret the constitution. They don't seem to realize that not everyone thinks how they do, and they might wind up creating a mechanism which weakens their policies.

It's a bad idea nonetheless.

 

[Toro]

Would you like a list of the posters on the left who are calling for Roberts and Scalia to be impeached because the think they will rule against Obamacare?

They're wrong too, then, if that's thier motivation.

And it's why Newt's idea is a horrible one.

The less the judiciary is influenced by the political process, the better.