The Cellar - Gingrich's plan for America

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Gingrich's plan for America (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26921)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 797028)

He can't possibly think his ideas can exist in reality. It must be sheer rhetorical smoke.

Do not underestimate the self-delusion power of the narcissistic sociopath. Seriously.

Gingrich had no problems shutting down the federal government... twice !

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 797133)

Do not underestimate the self-delusion power of the narcissistic sociopath. Seriously.

Stop it. You're scaring the horses. Seriously.

From here.

Quote:

Read the transcript of Gingrich’s exchange with Schieffer:

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this and we’ll talk about enforcing it, because one of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, the congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before congress and hold a congressional hearing. Some people say that’s unconstitutional. But I’ll let that go for a minute.

I just want to ask you from a practical standpoint, how would you enforce that? Would you send the capital police down to arrest him?

GINGRICH: If you had to.

SCHIEFFER: You would?

GINGRICH: Or you instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshal. Let’s take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical. How could he say he’s going to jail the superintendent over the word “benediction” and “invocation”? Because before you could — because I would then encourage impeachment, but before you move to impeach him you’d like to know why he said it.

Now clearly since the congress has....

SCHIEFFER: What if he didn’t come? What if he said no thank you I’m not coming?

GINGRICH: Well, that is what happens in impeachment cases. In an impeachment case, the House studies whether or not — the House brings them in, the House subpoenas them. As a general rule they show up.

I mean, you’re raising the core question — are judges above the rest of the constitution or are judges one of the three co-equal branches?

Note to politicians: Do Not Fuck With Bob.

Quote:

A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers, by itself
and acting in coordination with the legislative branch, to check and balance any Supreme Court
decision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in any federal judge(s)
whose rulings exhibit a disregard for the Constitution.
<snip>
In areas of law in which the executive branch believes that the judicial branch has made
decisions that exceeded its constitutional powers, the President can direct the Solicitor General to
join litigation challenging the existing jurisprudence believed to be unconstitutional.<snip>

How is this different from what any president has done attempting an end around on Congressional authority? Instead of the SCOTUS insert Congress. Obama, Bush, and Clinton have all done it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 797139)

Gingrich had no problems shutting down the federal government... twice !

I remember that. He caused our firm to revise its closure policy. We used to close when the federal government closed. This was supposed to be for inclement weather reasons. But after Gingrich shut down the government, and we were supposed to automatically close on a sunny day, the firm management was all like WTF? We need to adjust this policy.

Quote:

A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers, by itself and acting in coordination with the legislative branch, to check and balance any Supreme Court decision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in any federal judge(s) whose rulings exhibit a disregard for the Constitution.
<snip>
In areas of law in which the executive branch believes that the judicial branch has made decisions that exceeded its constitutional powers, the President can direct the Solicitor General to join litigation challenging the existing jurisprudence believed to be unconstitutional.<snip>

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 797256)

How is this different from what any president has done attempting an end around on Congressional authority? Instead of the SCOTUS insert Congress. Obama, Bush, and Clinton have all done it.

I'll try to answer your two questions here. First question, "what's wrong with this picture?"

Quote:

A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers, by itself and acting in coordination with the legislative branch, to check and balance any Supreme Court decision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in any federal judge(s) whose rulings exhibit a disregard for the Constitution.

The Executive branch can and does have opinions. But the definition of our government is that it **IS** the Judicial branch that decides, that defines what is constitutional or not. The Executive doesn't get to say what is "fundamentally unconsistutional". They can believe it and argue it and lobby for it, but where with the bring to bear these vague "any appropriate executive branch powers"? If they have an argument that something is not constitutional, literally against the law of the land, where does that argument get decided? In court, where judges judge.

That's what's wrong with this picture. The Executive doesn't also get to be the Judge/Judiciary.

Your second question, "how is this different from what any President has done attempting an end around on Congressional authority?" Well, it is completely different in that Congress is not the Court. The office of the President has used their interpretation of the laws made by the Congress, sometimes in harmony with Congress, sometimes in opposition to Congress, sure. You're right this happens. But what is NOT happening is the Executive deciding what is constitutional and what is not. That power is reserved for the Judiciary.

It may be the case that Congress makes a law, the President believes the law is wrong and acts at cross purposes to that law. That happens, true. But the Court doesn't reach out and pick sides, it waits, per our law, to have the two opposing sides to bring their arguments to the Court and duke it out there. Then, the right position will prevail, by definition. The Courts decide what is constitutional. It settles the disagreement between two sides.

Perspective people. These are campaign promises, they don't mean shit to the candidates, why should they to you?

Say Newt, through some alien mind control or something, got elected President. The wackos say, Newt, you promised x, y & z! To which Newt responds, I wanted to but the others here in DC won't let me... now if you'll excuse me...

[tangent]I learned recently that Brits say someone is "broody" to mean their biological clock is ticking. Do you guys ever use it the way we do, to mean pensive or moody, or is it exclusively for people looking to expand their brood?[/tangent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 797688)

Promising to complete the process of destroying checks and balances seems a bit extreme even to appeal to the ~~Volkgeist~~ spirit of the base. Not much has changed from Bush to Obama in terms of Constitutional power usurpation. Consolidation of power in the Executive continues unhindered. Newt's promise is eminently doable because the Supremes have no enforcement power.

Clod: It's used both ways.
Byron is often described as brooding.

I have brooded over things said and not said in the past.

But I've not been broody in the same way as hens, although many of my colleagues have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae (Post 797710)

But I've not been broody in the same way as hens, although many of my colleagues have.

[farmer perspective] When a hen goes broody she both wants babies and becomes a growly grump because she is protecting her clutch. It is amusing as she will actually growl and peck if you reach under her to get the eggs.