By Jamie Neben
There’s a dangerous man currently running for office now and his name is Newt Gingrich. Before December 18th, 2011, when he appeared on Face the Nation, I simply considered him to be a familiar but average candidate in the ever-changing republican popularity contest. However, the answers he provided during the course of the interview point to a politician who is far beyond average.
For all the talk about following the constitution, I’m amazed that Gingrich proposes to do just the opposite. While he agrees that the judiciary branch of government is on equal footing with the executive and legislative branches, he essentially sees it as the weakest link. He deems judges to be arrogant and radical if they decide a case differently than he would. So far, I have no trouble with that point of view. He’s certainly not the only one with those opinions.
But now the dangerous element enters the picture. Gingrich told host Bob Schieffer that the traditional solution—that new judges will eventually be appointed—is inadequate. His approach would be to arrest, subpoena, and possibly impeach judges (and Supreme Court justices) if they make rulings that he does not feel are correct. Simply put, it’s Newt’s way or the highway. If you’re sitting on a federal court, you better hope that you interpret the constitution the same way that Gingrich does or else there might be a U.S. Marshall knocking on your chamber door. Of course, to control the courts is to also effectively define our liberties. For those who believe our government is too big now will be shocked when they find themselves living under authoritarian rule if Newt gets elected.
Judges are appointed so that they may be free of the distraction and influence of politics. I understand that impeachment is indeed an option in times of bad behavior but it has rarely been used and for good reason. What good would our justice system be if we regularly cleared the courtroom for political purposes? You might recall that Franklin D. Roosevelt tried another tactic that involved packing the courts with additional appointees to get his New Deal legislation ruled as constitutional. Although he was a popular president, the American people drew the line when it came to screwing with the constitution. They knew what could happen if one person had too much power.
I sure hope for our own sake that we feel the same way today.
That was Scieffer’s term, and it’s misleading, as it is properly applied only when the arrestee is suspected of a crime.
“Superficially and irresponsibly put” is more like it.
Yeah, and if you don’t show up for jury duty there might be a sheriff’s deputy knocking on your door. What’s your point?
You’re tilting at windmills, young man.
Not really.
What good is our justice system if constitutionally illiterate judges are retained for political purposes?
Gee, that’s funny. I don’t remember hearing about any uprising when all nine Justices, all but one appointed by FDR, ruled that a man growing wheat he didn’t sell could be penalized under the commerce clause.
Too bad they didn’t know what could happen when five people get too much power, huh?
The bottom line is….who gets to decide whether the judges are constitutionally illerate and/or radical? Newt Gingrich? The 535 members of congress? The American people voting at the ballot box? This would only accomplish what the founders wanted to avoid….that justice would perhaps be served according to the political wind direction. With the threat of interrogation and possible impeachment hanging over their heads, judges and justices may as well be subject to elections as it effectively produces the same result.
If you’re looking at the Supreme Court when you say five people have too much power, you do realize it’s a conservative majority, right? Anthony Kennedy, the so-called swing vote, was appointed by President Reagan as you probably know, so is hardly liberal. Is it just that you don’t like some of the decisions in the 5-4 votes? How many justices does there have to be before their power is dispersed properly enough? What if there were 99 judges and the votes were the same way 50-49? I believe you just don’t agree on the outcome no matter what the votes are and you want to replace them with justices that support your ideology.
There’s some recent decisions that I would consider very activist. For instance, Bush v. Gore in 2000 that halted the recount and essentially selected the next president. Or the Citizens United decision that gives corporations (even international ones) the ability to contribute unlimited sums of money to a campaign. And yet I’m not screaming for the removal of anybody who voted in favor of those. The system may be imperfect, but only because we ourselves are. We have to trust that those men and women are interpreting the constitution the best they can. The act of second-guessing everything and arguing over who should get the final word (usually by the side that disagrees) only invites chaos.
Remember this — every decision is an activist one in the true sense of the word because something is settled at that moment one way or the other. And the “activist” result isn’t necessarily bad at all. In fact, sometimes it’s downright important for our progress as a society. Brown v Board of Education, for example? Amid much uproar at the time, I don’t know of any decent person who would take issue with it now.
Yes, by impeachment and conviction.
So do you think the Founders were sanguine about the idea of SCOTUS making de facto amendments to the Constitution, which is essentially the power you’re contending for?
Newsflash: every federal civil officer has been in that predicament since 1789.
Even if that were true, it’s utterly beside the point.
Sure, just like Earl Warren wasn’t a liberal because he was appointed by Eisenhower.
I made my objections plenty clear above, and if you will merely cease caviling for a NY minute, you will see that they rest entirely on constitutional grounds.
Of course you do, as that is a helluva lot easier than facing your own constitutional illiteracy.
That’s the take I would expect from a constitutional illiterate.
They’ve had that since 1789.
I heartily agree that nothing testifies to our imperfection more abrasively than our vesting any political power in people who think like you.
Do we now? And why, pray tell, should we not similarly trust the President – who, like members of the Judiciary, is bound by his oath of office to uphold the Constitution – to enforce only those laws which are constitutional, irrespective of any federal court ruling?
Then you need to propose an amendment to “remedy” that, as that is what the Constitution as presently amended allows for.
Please, it is painfully obvious that you are desperate to avoid the core of the issue. You know perfectly well what judicial activism is to a conservative, and if you had any desire for a real dialogue you would eschew such semantical sophistry.
Fans of instant gratification can be expected to hold this view, but when We the People allow Our servants to play fast and loose with Our expressed will if they achieve a superficially desirable end, we give them license to make the Constitution mean anything they find convenient.
Thank you for using the word “caviling.” I looked it up and learned something new. Unfortunately, it doesn’t apply to what I said, as my objections were anything but frivolous and/or trivial.
So am I correct to summarize our arguments the following way?
Me: I believe the justice system as it stands now is superior to any alternative method used around the world. Of course, the people on the benches are inherently flawed, but so are the people they are serving. Therefore, it’s up to us (through our elected officials) to make sure good judges are appointed. Once they are, we need to let them serve without hauling them in to explain themselves at every turn. Since we are flawed too, are we any better than they are to decide whether they are right or wrong?
You: If you (and people who are like-minded) don’t agree with how a case is decided, you want to hold the judges who voted that way accountable to the point that you’re talking possible arrest and impeachment. If their replacements don’t satisfy you, throw them out too, and don’t stop until you find people who will interpret the constitution the way YOU see fit (or vote that way due to the pressure of being booted).
Indeed, there are more derisive pejoratives that apply, but I did not deem it expedient to provide a laundry list.
Because you look for the wrong answer, you ask the wrong question. If I’m your employer, and you’re an incompetent employee, it doesn’t matter if you’ve never sinned and I’ve been married five times. I’d be irresponsible not to fire you, regardless of your moral superiority.
No, I want the America people to take the necessary and appropriate measures per the Constitution.
I told you about that word earlier. Why do you insist on misusing it?
As if I didn’t know.
Nothing wrong with that as long as I can get enough Americans to demand that such changes be made through the various avenues provided by the Constitution, I’m sure you agree.