Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[Quantum Windbag]

Fallacious nonsense at best.

Gingreich is as full of authoritarian shit as a Thanksgiving turkey.

Your turkey is full of authoritarian shit? I usually put cornbread stuffing in mine.

This is why I never eat Thanksgiving dinner unless it is prepared by conservatives, I have authoritarian shit in my turkey

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Why would you make such a charge when I want nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates?


(1) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.,


(2) judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

(3) The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour


(4) The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

At the top of the thread, which has since been deleted but can be found HERE, I gave a specific example in which Justice Stevens when writing the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005), ignored (1), a fundamental rule of constitutional law requiring words in our Constitution to be understood as they were when the Constitution was adopted, and (2), ignored enforcing the legislative intent under which the Fifth Amendment was adopted as applied to rights associated with property ownership.

My position has nothing to do with wanting “judges to be harrassed when they make rulings I don't like, but rather, it is to give an opportunity to a judge or Justice, prior to impeachment, to establish his/her opinion is in harmony with fundamental rules of constitutional law and in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution.

Why do you charge me with wanting to harass judges when my object is wanting nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates in clear language?

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.

A judicial ruling that no more than debatable as to its correct interpretation of the Constitution is not an impeachable offense.

Actually, congress has broad, and unreviewable, power to determine what an impeachable offense is. That means that, if they impeach a judge for it, it is actually an impeachable offense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Newt Gingrich’s assault on ‘activist judges’ draws criticism, even from right

Judicial experts, including conservatives, are questioning the constitutionality of Gingrich’s stance. The Constitution specifically grants federal judges life terms with good behavior, many of Gingrich’s critics note, and provides only for impeachment as the way to remove bad judges. To do so by other means, they say, is an encroachment on judicial independence and an affront to the separation of powers doctrine that underlies the entire document.

“Overall, he’s racing towards a cliff,” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the nonpartisan Justice at Stake campaign, which advocates for an independent judiciary. “It may be expedient to appeal to specific voters in primaries or caucuses, but it’s a constitutional disaster. Americans want courts that can uphold their rights and not be accountable to politicians. When you get to the point where you’re talking about impeaching judges over decisions or abolishing courts or calling them before Congress, it’s getting very far away from the American political mainstream.”

Gingrich’s critics say that it is one thing to abolish newly created courts and not replace them, as Jefferson did 200 years ago, but that it is another to remove judges and then replace them because of specific judicial decisions.

Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University and a former federal appeals judge appointed by Bush, also observed that conservative audiences “should not be cheering” and “are misled” if they believe Gingrich’s proposal is in their interest at a time when Republicans are looking to the Supreme Court to declare President Obama’s health-care law unconstitutional.

“You would think that this would be a time when they would be defending the independence of the judiciary, not attacking it,” he said. “You can’t have it both ways. It can’t be that when conservative Republicans object to the courts, they have the right to replace judges, and when liberal Democrats disapprove of the courts, they don’t. And the constitution is pretty clear that neither side can eliminate judges because they disagree with their decisions.”

Newt Gingrich’s assault on ‘activist judges’ draws criticism, even from right - The Washington Post

Indeed, Gingrich can’t have it ‘both ways.’ And imagine the whining from the right should a ‘conservative’ judge be brought before a democratic Congressional committee.

 

[paperview]

There's no getting through to johnwk on this. He just keeps repeating himself over and over and spamming the same shit or dresses up old shit too look like new shit.

I've tried for a long time now. You may as well be posting to a brick wall.

 

[paperview]

He's on about 20 boards spamming the same crap all over. Seriously.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There's no getting through to johnwk on this.

True.

Unfortunately he’s not alone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would you make such a charge when I want nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates?


(1) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.,


(2) judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

(3) The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour


(4) The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

At the top of the thread, which has since been deleted but can be found HERE, I gave a specific example in which Justice Stevens when writing the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005), ignored (1), a fundamental rule of constitutional law requiring words in our Constitution to be understood as they were when the Constitution was adopted, and (2), ignored enforcing the legislative intent under which the Fifth Amendment was adopted as applied to rights associated with property ownership.

My position has nothing to do with wanting “judges to be harrassed when they make rulings I don't like, but rather, it is to give an opportunity to a judge or Justice, prior to impeachment, to establish his/her opinion is in harmony with fundamental rules of constitutional law and in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution.

Why do you charge me with wanting to harass judges when my object is wanting nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates in clear language?

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.

Tell us what Supreme Court decisions you like, in terms of outcome, but concede were not constitutionally sound.

Huh? My object, which I thought I explained, is that Supreme Court decisions should all be arrived at following (1) the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and (2) be in harmony with the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted.

I also gave a specific example, the Kelo case in which a fundamental rule of constitutional law was ignored and the decision is not in harmony with the intentions for which the Fifth Amendment was adopted with respect to rights associated with property ownership.

JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote.

The interpretation in the Kelo case already had precedents supporting it.

My question to you was:

Are there any Supreme Court decisions you like, regarding the outcome, but are willing to admit were wrong according to your view of how the Constitution should have applied.

For example, someone might like the idea of a constitutionally protected right to abortion, but might also believe that Roe v. Wade (which protected that right) was not constitutionally sound.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would you make such a charge when I want nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates?


(1) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.,


(2) judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

(3) The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour


(4) The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

At the top of the thread, which has since been deleted but can be found HERE, I gave a specific example in which Justice Stevens when writing the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005), ignored (1), a fundamental rule of constitutional law requiring words in our Constitution to be understood as they were when the Constitution was adopted, and (2), ignored enforcing the legislative intent under which the Fifth Amendment was adopted as applied to rights associated with property ownership.

My position has nothing to do with wanting “judges to be harrassed when they make rulings I don't like, but rather, it is to give an opportunity to a judge or Justice, prior to impeachment, to establish his/her opinion is in harmony with fundamental rules of constitutional law and in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution.

Why do you charge me with wanting to harass judges when my object is wanting nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates in clear language?

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.

Tell us what Supreme Court decisions you like, in terms of outcome, but concede were not constitutionally sound.

Huh? My object, which I thought I explained, is that Supreme Court decisions should all be arrived at following (1) the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and (2) be in harmony with the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted.

I also gave a specific example, the Kelo case in which a fundamental rule of constitutional law was ignored and the decision is not in harmony with the intentions for which the Fifth Amendment was adopted with respect to rights associated with property ownership.

JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote.

Since Supreme Court cases are so often not unanimous, that means you'd have judges committing impeachable offenses in case after case, merely by voting for what you call the 'wrong' position.

 

[pegwinn]

When votes on issues like homosexual marriage for example are put to referendum votes and decided by a majority of the populace, and then a liberal court with activist judges overturn the majority vote by the people, then yes, CLEARLY there is ACTIVISM going on by ACTIVIST JUDGES. They want to MAKE LAW FROM THE BENCH, not interpret it, and those judges should have their liberal, activist cans hauled up before congress to be investigated and possibly impeached. Newt is right, and I'm fully behind him on this one, as are many, many people I imagine, as he is currently enjoying another up tick in his poll numbers. He got a thundering applause when he made his comments at the last Iowa debate.

I get the point of activist judges. They offend me when they fail to simply read the constitution and apply it. But, to be fair, a referendum doesn't make something right.

At one time I am sure a referendum of the voters would have denied women the right to vote.

 

[paperview]

When votes on issues like homosexual marriage for example are put to referendum votes and decided by a majority of the populace, and then a liberal court with activist judges overturn the majority vote by the people, then yes, CLEARLY there is ACTIVISM going on by ACTIVIST JUDGES. They want to MAKE LAW FROM THE BENCH, not interpret it, and those judges should have their liberal, activist cans hauled up before congress to be investigated and possibly impeached. Newt is right, and I'm fully behind him on this one, as are many, many people I imagine, as he is currently enjoying another up tick in his poll numbers. He got a thundering applause when he made his comments at the last Iowa debate.

I get the point of activist judges. They offend me when they fail to simply read the constitution and apply it. But, to be fair, a referendum doesn't make something right.

At one time I am sure a referendum of the voters would have denied women the right to vote.

That's why it took literally over 3 generations of fighting for women to get the Right to Vote.

It wasn't for lack of trying to get a national referendum - since 1878 a Constitutional Amendment was proposed every year - for 41 years.

Full de jure Universal Suffrage was only realized in the United States in 1965.

 

[johnwk]

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

Why would you make such a charge when I want nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates?


(1) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.,


(2) judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

(3) The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour


(4) The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

At the top of the thread, which has since been deleted but can be found HERE, I gave a specific example in which Justice Stevens when writing the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005), ignored (1), a fundamental rule of constitutional law requiring words in our Constitution to be understood as they were when the Constitution was adopted, and (2), ignored enforcing the legislative intent under which the Fifth Amendment was adopted as applied to rights associated with property ownership.

My position has nothing to do with wanting “judges to be harrassed when they make rulings I don't like, but rather, it is to give an opportunity to a judge or Justice, prior to impeachment, to establish his/her opinion is in harmony with fundamental rules of constitutional law and in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution.

Why do you charge me with wanting to harass judges when my object is wanting nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates in clear language?

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.

A judicial ruling that no more than debatable as to its correct interpretation of the Constitution is not an impeachable offense.

We are not talking about interpretations of what our Constitution means. We are talking about following the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and enforcing the documented legislative intent of our Constitution, and my example was the Kelo decision.


JWK

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They offend me when they fail to simply read the constitution and apply it.

How do you know an ‘activist judge’ failed to ‘simply read the constitution and apply it’?

And judges don’t ‘read the Constitution,’ they read Constitutional case law and precedent – indeed, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law. Judges are required to follow precedent as established by the Supreme Court and/or lower appellate courts.

Let’s take for example Judge Susan Bolton’s enjoining of SB1070, the Arizona immigration law. Was Judge Bolton being ‘activist’ in her ruling, was she ‘ignoring’ the popular will of the people of that State? Bolton didn’t ‘misread’ the Constitution, she followed preemption doctrine as established by the Supreme Court, citing Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, (2000), where Massachusetts attempted to forbid local companies from doing business with Burma, because of that country’s poor human rights record. The Court struck down the Massachusetts law, as states may not unilaterally conduct foreign policy objectives regardless the intent.

Indeed, had Bolton failed to follow the Crosby precedent and the doctrine of preemption, it could be argued she was negligent in her duties as a judge and such a ruling would have been overturned by the Ninth Circuit.

That conservatives were upset by her ruling doesn’t make her ‘activist,’ nor does it justify she being hauled before Congress to ‘explain herself,’ that’s the role of the courts of appeal.






Links to the cases noted above.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/files/2010/07/sb1070boltonruling3.pdf

CROSBY V. NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL

 

[johnwk]

There's no getting through to johnwk on this. He just keeps repeating himself over and over and spamming the same shit or dresses up old shit too look like new shit.

I've tried for a long time now. You may as well be posting to a brick wall.

On what specific points which I have posted is it that there's no getting through to me? Eh?

In addition, do you consider it “spam” when a pinko syndicated news columnist has their propaganda appearing in almost every major news paper? Does it really bother you that I am attempting to level the playing field?

How about not personalizing the thread and stick to the subject matter, and state your specific objections to the words I have posted.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

They offend me when they fail to simply read the constitution and apply it.

How do you know an ‘activist judge’ failed to ‘simply read the constitution and apply it’?

1. When they make a word in the Constitution mean something other than its meaning as understood when the Constitution was framed and ratified.


2. When their decision is not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted.


JWK



"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

 

[pegwinn]

How do you know an ‘activist judge’ failed to ‘simply read the constitution and apply it’?

It's not difficult. The Constitution is a short document and written in plain English. The problem is that people try to translate or interpret it as if it were written in a foreign language.

And judges don’t ‘read the Constitution,’ they read Constitutional case law and precedent – indeed, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law. Judges are required to follow precedent as established by the Supreme Court and/or lower appellate courts.

Case Law and Precedent are often wrong. The Constitution is the literal law of the land. But, since you stated that judges are required to follow precedent can you please source that. My understanding was that precedent is something to be considered in the totality of the decision but wasn't legally binding.

Let’s take for example Judge Susan Bolton’s enjoining of SB1070, the Arizona immigration law. Was Judge Bolton being ‘activist’ in her ruling, was she ‘ignoring’ the popular will of the people of that State?

I really don't care about "the will of the people" since we know that "the will" can often be morally wrong. If the majority favor human sacrifice ..... yadablahetc.

The Constitution is to be read literally. There is no evolving or fluidity due to changing times or technology. If you are in doubt about what the literal meaning is, then grab a dictionary from the same year the passage in question was written.

I don't have a problem with the idea of a Justice explaining him or her self either. Every person in the country is subject to some form of review.

Article III specifies that federal judges "...shall hold their Offices during good Behavior". Thus to remove one of them, you must prove that they were not behaving properly. I think that would be an exceptionally difficult case to prove.

 

[EriktheRed]

They offend me when they fail to simply read the constitution and apply it.

How do you know an ‘activist judge’ failed to ‘simply read the constitution and apply it’?

1. When they make a word in the Constitution mean something other than its meaning as understood when the Constitution was framed and ratified.


2. When their decision is not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted.


JWK



"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

Wow, you really don't see it, do you...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How do you know an ‘activist judge’ failed to ‘simply read the constitution and apply it’?

It's not difficult.

Cite an example, then.

Case Law and Precedent are often wrong.

According to whom? Cite an example.

The Constitution is to be read literally.

According to what authority?

 

[paperview]

How do you know an ‘activist judge’ failed to ‘simply read the constitution and apply it’?

It's not difficult.

Cite an example, then.

Case Law and Precedent are often wrong.

According to whom? Cite an example.

The Constitution is to be read literally.

According to what authority?

Is this the part where we get to ask "what does 'cruel & unusual punishment' mean - literally." ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you know an ‘activist judge’ failed to ‘simply read the constitution and apply it’?

It's not difficult.

Cite an example, then.

Case Law and Precedent are often wrong.

According to whom? Cite an example.

The Constitution is to be read literally.

According to what authority?

Dred Scott
Plessy v Ferguson

those were case law, and, if we were to accept your interpretation, utterly irreversible because they are part of the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you know an ‘activist judge’ failed to ‘simply read the constitution and apply it’?

Cite an example, then.

According to whom? Cite an example.

The Constitution is to be read literally.

According to what authority?

Is this the part where we get to ask "what does 'cruel & unusual punishment' mean - literally." ?

Actually, it is the part where I get to make Jones look like an idiot. If you actually think he is right here I will be happy to make you look like one also.